Oral Answers to Questions
Sheila Gilmore Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
15. What estimate he has made of the costs incurred by a disabled person in the three months following diagnosis of their disability.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
No such estimate has been made. Perhaps I should gently remind the hon. Lady that disability living allowance generally, and personal independence payments absolutely, are not related to a medical diagnosis. They are about considering people as individuals and looking at the impact of their disabilities on their ability to live independent lives. Circumstances, needs and costs will vary from individual to individual, and do not necessarily correlate to a diagnosis.
Sheila Gilmore
In Committee, the Under-Secretary said that the reason for the proposal was not savings and that she did not expect to make any savings from it. Yet people who fall ill with sudden onset conditions incur additional costs. They are not long-term unemployed or welfare dependent. Why is she making the change if not to make savings?
Maria Miller
I think what I said in Committee was that there would be some savings but that they were modest. The principle of a six-month qualifying period was not intended to deny disabled people help in the short term. That help currently comes mainly but not exclusively from means-tested support, with the personal independence payment starting when costs become a burden to people, regardless of their income. That is why it is not means-tested.
Welfare Reform Bill
Sheila Gilmore Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
I am saying to him precisely what he said to me all those years ago—that many of the details will be dealt with in secondary legislation. The Bill contains a framework that will include, among other things, provision for a child care element in universal credit. That is fundamental, and we all agree that there should be such an element, just as there should be elements relating to disability and to other aspects of the current benefits system that need to be replicated in universal credit.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Why does the Minister expect us—and, indeed, the general public—to accept his statements about the impact of this huge reform when so much of the detail in unknown? Is it not reasonable for us to request the details that will tell us whether people are in fact going to be better off?
Chris Grayling
I expect it for precisely the same reason that the right hon. Member for East Ham expected me to support his education measures 10 years ago. He asked me to take on trust many of the same kinds of thing that I am asking the House to accept today. We have been completely transparent in setting out the different stages of the formulation of universal credit, and about the consultation processes that we have been through to fill in the details. We have also been clear and transparent in setting out the principles that we are following in trying to fill in those details.
Chris Grayling
It is not our intention that routine or minor changes in circumstances would lead to the loss of transitional protection. The requirement for child care clearly fluctuates during the course of the year, but follows a set pattern. It is not our intention for a moment to remove transitional protection in that situation, nor is it our intention to remove it in an environment in which there is an annual increase—RPI or CPI—in the rate of child care. We are looking at material changes in circumstances, and I certainly would not envisage the change from term time to holidays as a material change.
The other issue that I have with the Opposition’s proposals is that they would remove the ability for people to take up mini jobs. For women re-entering the workplace after a lengthy time out of it, there is a bigger barrier than needs to be the case. One of the strengths of the universal credit system is the flexibility for people to take on mini jobs. The level of prescription set out in the Opposition’s proposals would set up unnecessary and inappropriate barriers to getting people back to work.
Sheila Gilmore
In Committee, we heard a great deal about these mini jobs. We have just heard the Minister say that we should not be worried about the effect on parents of children of school age because a job could be encompassed within school hours. Why is it so necessary to take money away from people who are trying to improve their families’ prospects of getting out of poverty in order to help people in mini jobs—although I do not fully understand the concept—because surely those would be covered by school hours even more?
Chris Grayling
The changes we made last year—the reduction from 80% to 70% support—merely returned us to the situation that applied before 2006. On the mini jobs, I want us to spend the money we have on supporting people from deprived backgrounds and in the most deprived situations into the work place so that they can make the most of their lives. The mini job is a perfectly reasonable way of doing that. I also happen to think that for many lone parents, a mini job during schools hours is a perfectly reasonable alternative that might mean that the need for child care is not great. None the less, the option should be there. We should not be writing—this is the key point about some of the Opposition amendments—into primary legislation rules that cannot be undone for two or three years, while we wait for a parliamentary slot. Instead, we need to set out straightforwardly a situation in regulations that can be amended if the situation requires. I could not possibly accept an amendment from the right hon. Member for East Ham that would write into primary legislation actual amounts of benefits that should be paid. The Labour party would never have done that while in government. It would not have happened, and I am not going to tolerate the idea now.
Chris Grayling
The £2 billion contains sufficient money for us to be able to deliver the transitional protection and the various changes. I do not have the numbers in front of me, but I will happily write to the hon. Lady to give her the more detailed figures we have published so far. We have given a clear commitment to transitional protection. It costs what it costs, but we have made a sensible projection of what we believe it will cost, which is contained in the budget for the spending review period. It is important to ensure that there are no cash losers as a result of the transition, but it is impossible to make a big change of this kind without finding that people in subsequent years are in a different financial position from their counterparts in previous years. Inevitably, some will move one way; others will move another. The only fair and proper way of dealing with the situation is to ensure that everyone is protected in cash terms.
We think that we have put together a framework in part 1 that will give us the flexibility to introduce the universal credit and to fine-tune the proposals as necessary so that if we do not get everything quite right at the start, we can fine-tune as we go by, and that a future Government will have the flexibility to do that. We have made absolutely sure that we have the appropriate protections in place so that there is an element for child care, for parents, for those with disabilities, and so on and so forth.
We think we have created a sensible framework of the kind that in different areas of policy and in different ways were created through primary legislation by previous Governments, including the last Government. I do not believe for a second that it would be prudent to write into the Bill the sort of amendments that the Opposition have tabled. I have responded to their wish to see more measures brought forward on the affirmative rather than the negative procedure, which I think is right and proves that we will listen and make amendments where it is sensible to do so. I am afraid that the Opposition are seeking to write the sort of detail into the Bill that they would never have put in legislation when they were in government; they would never have followed that approach themselves. That is why I cannot possibly accept their amendments and why I ask the House to accept the Government new clauses and to reject the Opposition amendments.
Sheila Gilmore
The debate we have had—in Committee and this evening—shows some of the pitfalls of saying, “We are going to simplify benefits.” The Minister and his colleagues have said to the country generally, “We're going to simplify benefits. This is a simpler system, so it must, by definition, be a good thing.” They expected and, indeed, got from many people the answer, “We agree that benefits should be simplified.” The problem is that when dealing with real people and real situations it all becomes much more complicated, as our debates tonight and on previous occasions have demonstrated quite clearly.
The details of issues such as school meals, health charges and the even bigger matter of child care are extremely important, and will have a real impact on whether the new system works for people, will make them better off, and enables them to get into employment, stay in employment, improve their circumstances and get out of poverty. We all agree that, except for those who suffer from real and deep health problems, employment is the best way out of poverty. If, however, such an important element as child care is left so undefined, we cannot know the answer to that question.
Frankly, we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. We are told, “If you don’t accept it, don’t vote for it or don't agree with it, you are throwing over the whole issue of welfare reform.” I do not accept that. Nor do I accept the Minister’s view that he was given that sort of response by the previous Government and that there should be simply a framework—an empty bookcase, as he was wont to say in Committee—as there was before. It seems to me that if he thought it was wrong then—and it sounds as if he did—it may still be wrong now. As I said in Committee, people should not be asked to buy that empty bookcase without knowing whether it contains classics or cheap comics.
Charlie Elphicke
The Government have gone to great lengths to engage all parliamentarians, including the hon. Lady, in discussions about the nature and design of child care. Is she saying that she would prefer the Government to present a fait accompli, rather than listening to her and giving her a chance to inform, and possibly change, Government policy?
Sheila Gilmore
In general, I should prefer legislation not to be pushed through all its stages until more of the details have been dealt with. When the original Bill was presented to the House, some of the consultations with the public were still taking place. An important consultation about disability benefits, with which we shall deal later, had not finished before the Bill was printed, and consultations about child maintenance did not end until April, when proposals were already in writing. There are other ways of doing things, and the fact that they have or have not been done properly by past Governments does not strike me as a reason for not trying to do them properly now.
Child care is particularly important to people who want to improve their position. The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) said that we had been consulted, and indeed we were invited to a briefing at which we were presented with certain scenarios, but I am not sure that I gained a very clear understanding from that session of exactly what the Government were proposing. I subsequently received briefings from other organisations, as no doubt has the hon. Gentleman, expressing the view that the new child care arrangements, such as they were—the proposals had not been finalised—would not leave people better off. It is a question of what we accept and what we believe.
It is difficult for us to form a view, but it is possible that if we do not get the child care arrangements right, many people will decide that work does not pay. They will feel either that they must reduce their hours considerably, or that they cannot afford to continue their work and must give it up altogether. I do not think that that is the outcome that the Government seek.
Charlie Elphicke
The hon. Lady clearly supports the fait accompli proposed by the Opposition—including, it seems, the ending of the whole principle of the mini-job, which would imprison people with child care responsibilities in their homes. Does she really think that that is the answer?
Sheila Gilmore
I am not convinced that the new clause does away with the entire principle of the mini-job, although I would certainly have liked—preferably before we embarked on the Bill—a debate about what was, for me, a new idea, possibly good and possibly bad. I do not think we have fleshed out exactly what we are doing in this regard.
As I said in an intervention earlier, if the idea is to encourage people to undertake work involving all hours of employment—given that they are able to obtain such work—I am not sure where the so-called mini-jobs will be found or what their quality will be. Are we talking about six or eight hours a week, as some people seem to be? Where will the jobs be, to what extent will they increase earnings, and will the necessary child care be available?
Guto Bebb
I am surprised that the hon. Lady refers to micro-jobs as if they were not important. I should have expected a Scottish Member to be delighted by the Government’s attempts to make work pay. Shockingly, the number of people who have never been employed in Scotland increased from 37,000 in 2000 to 40,000 in 2005, and to 45,000 in 2010. I think that, rather than being disparaging about micro-jobs, the hon. Lady should welcome the fact that the Government are serious about showing that work pays and gives people self-respect in our society.
Sheila Gilmore
I hope that those figures for Scotland are not like the figures for the whole United Kingdom, which, according to the Sunday newspaper that I read this week, included students. That was in the small print, but the fact remains that the wrong figure is constantly given.
I am not defending circumstances in which people are unable to work. However, we should examine the whole notion of the mini-job much more carefully than we have been able to do so far. We need to be clear about exactly what it will deliver. We already know that many people who have been able to start work over the past 10 or 15 years as a result of measures introduced by the previous Government, including families with children, are still living in poverty.
The mini-jobs, or micro-jobs, that we are discussing may indeed enable people to work, and being able to work for six, eight or 10 hours may be seen as some great moral advantage. I fear, however, that the jobs will be of such poor quality and so poorly paid that those people will remain in poverty, and the path out of that poverty does not appear to be very well mapped. I think that we should have given the proposal much more consideration before using it as a reason to remove child care provision from other people.
Mrs Main
The hon. Lady seems to be digging herself into a hole. She has admitted that the measures taken by the last Government did not work, and that people were left in poverty. Surely she should welcome an innovative approach from the present Government, and surely she should stop trying to filibuster their proposal into the long grass by demanding so much blessed detail that nothing will ever get done. We owe our families more than that after the Labour Government’s failure to get people into work and out of poverty.
Sheila Gilmore
I cannot accept the hon. Lady’s premise. People were able to work as a result of the measures introduced by the Labour Government, such as the minimum wage, but we did not manage to take all families out of poverty because of the type of jobs that many of those people were doing and the levels of income that they received. It is wrong to suggest that a system allowing people to work for fewer hours will in itself deliver them from poverty.
Sarah Newton
How on earth does the hon. Lady think someone who has not had a job can obtain a better job?
Sheila Gilmore
Of course people have to work, and of course they have to be able to work in real, proper jobs. The hon. Members for St Albans (Mrs Main) and for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) should think, at times, about the type of jobs that they are talking about, and the kind of experiences that people will have. I want to be sure that those who go into work undergo a proper job progression rather than becoming stuck in a sideline meaning that a box can be ticked because they are now working and have some work experience.
Harriett Baldwin
Does the hon. Lady not accept that that is exactly what happened when people were stuck in jobs that paid them to work for 16 hours, so that it made no sense for them to work for 15 or 17?
Sheila Gilmore
I think that it often made a lot of sense for people to work for 16 hours and more, and issues such as child care were key to that. In many cases, child care costs kick in when hours like that are involved.
We should not try to justify reductions in child care provision simply by saying that they may help another group who need a certain amount of help—and, indeed, they may not do so. We need to examine the model thoroughly, because otherwise we will not know what will happen. Depending on which version of the proposals the Government decide to adopt, help for child care for people working 16-plus hours may be cut and there may not be a call on child care costs for people doing mini-jobs. If that is the case, money would be freed up. I am unsure as to whether there will be a call on it for the following reason.
Some mini-jobs will be at times such as 5 until 8 o’clock in the evening, and those doing them might not have another family member who can undertake child care at that time. Child care costs may therefore be incurred—although I am not sure from what source any child care might be found at such a time of day. When the hours of a mini-job fit in with nursery or school hours, however, child care costs may not be incurred. Therefore, if there is not a call on child care costs for people working fewer than 16 hours, I hope that the available money will be recycled for the people from whom it appears it is to be taken, regardless of whether we know there is a demand for it.
Charlie Elphicke
The hon. Lady speaks as though the idea that a woman looking after a child would work for fewer than 16 hours a week is novel and has never happened before. Let us consider the situation for one of the obvious age groups, however: for children aged five to six, some 61% of lone parents who are in work are in part-time work, and 65% of partnered mothers in work are in part-time work. Many of those people will be working for fewer than 16 hours as their children are so very young. Is it right not to help them with child care in those circumstances? Why does the hon. Lady want to persecute people who work fewer than 16 hours a week?
Sheila Gilmore
With all due respect, I think the boot is on the other foot. It appears that the people who are to be persecuted are those who work hours for which they require child care and who get assistance at present. Let us consider the proposals that were put before us at the briefing meetings—which I would not necessarily call fully consultative meetings. Under the proposals, it appears that people who currently get child care assistance will have that taken away, and that that will amount to a substantial loss which will lead possibly to their reducing their working hours. If they do that, their ability to move on with their work experience and their lives, and to get out of poverty, will be much reduced. I do not think positing one group against the other is helpful, therefore, and I would much rather we gave assistance wherever we can.
In Committee, Opposition Members were constantly expected to balance our suggestions against the costs that the Government have set up, but we would not start from that point. It is ludicrous to say that the Opposition have no right to make any spending suggestions as we do not support the Government’s model of deficit reduction. If we put more people out of work by cutting our deficit so quickly, as this Government seem intent on doing, benefit bills will rise and tax takes will fall, and we will not resolve the deficit problems in any case. That is one of the major reasons why we have opposed this Government’s stance. If we have a different view on how to tackle the deficit, the speed at which to tackle it, where to reduce spending and the impact of that, it is perfectly legitimate for us not to accept the spending envelope the Government have decided to impose.
I would hope that we would not just think about how we might take a little away from one group that happens to be a bit less poor than another group because we want to help the most needy. I noted in this afternoon’s departmental questions that Ministers were quick to take up one aspect of the Leader of the Opposition’s speech today: the comments he made about people on benefits. They were not so quick to mention his comments about the responsibility of those in our society who are a good deal better off, however. If we do not look at both those issues, we will be making the poor pay the cost of the economic crisis.
Charlie Elphicke
The hon. Lady speaks as though everyone is going to be terribly badly off under universal credit, but the figures in table A.2 on page 80 of the Red Book make it very clear that almost everyone is much better off, and that is especially the case in respect of part-time work. Does she not accept that that is positive, and that the Government have made sure that the transition will be managed in such a way that people will do better?
Sheila Gilmore
I shall try to unpick that question. First, it has almost been forgotten—I hope not entirely forgotten—that universal credit will be introduced after £18 billion has been cut from this country’s welfare spending, so many people will already be worse off before universal credit comes into effect. Secondly, we do not know when the transitional protection we keep hearing about will end. Will it end and begin only if somebody gets into work or falls out of work, or will there be other circumstances in which that transitional protection will cease, which would mean that many people would be considerably worse off? The third reason that I have concerns about the assertion that people will be better off under universal credit is to do with all the points raised in our discussion of these amendments. Unless we are clear about issues such as the cost of child care and school meals, and how they will be accounted for under universal credit, we cannot know whether the assumptions made, the figures given and the statements made about people being better off will prove to be true.
Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Lady has repeated the much-quoted figure of £18 billion being taken out of welfare spending, but does she acknowledge that £3.75 billion of that is coming from higher rate taxpayers such as myself who receive child benefit on a four-weekly basis? Would she like me to get my child benefit back after 2013?
Sheila Gilmore
In answer to that, let me give a personal view that I would not want to attribute to all my colleagues, as I am unsure whether they would all accept it. If we feel that we can no longer pay child benefit as it was previously paid and that we must make savings, it would have been much fairer to have made that part of taxable income. For many reasons, that would have avoided some of the anomalies that the Government’s proposal has set up. However, we have frequently rehearsed those reasons, so I shall not spend a lot of time talking about them now. If savings had to be made, we might have ensured that some of that money came back in the way I have suggested. I personally think that, subject to a fair taxation system, that would be a better way of dealing with this issue than having the suggested abrupt cut-off.
I want to talk about savings, and in particular the savings cap being introduced on people who work. It is astonishing that this change should be made by a Government who have so much to say about their wanting to encourage people to get back on their own feet, to be self-reliant and to save for their future. It is very easy just to say that the average amount of savings of a person of working age is only £300—and that is frightening and appalling for our society if it is true. However, for those people who currently—[Interruption.] I do not know what is so funny. Currently, people who have savings and receive tax credit have been able to get assistance without losing that money, but the Government’s view appears to be different for those who fall on hard times, no matter what their circumstances are, and no matter what situation they find themselves in. We will, no doubt, have this debate again on Wednesday when we discuss non-contributory and contributory employment and support allowances. The Government’s view seems to be that the first thing someone should call on in difficult circumstances is any savings that they have previously been able to make. There is a lot that is unacceptable about that.
Sheila Gilmore
It is important in this debate to get away from the attempt to say that one group of people are hard-working taxpayers and another group do not pay tax and should have their rights diminished. The taxpayer may also be receiving certain benefits, if we feel that it is correct for them to do so. People pay taxes in all sorts of ways. They pay council tax, VAT and often income tax at various points in their life. They may do that while they are receiving benefits or they may have done so just before a change in their circumstances took them below the threshold for paying income tax; they may have had to reduce their hours or they may have been forced to do so. These are not different groups of people.
In our approach to these issues we need to consider the following seriously: we should see our welfare state not only as something into which all of us pay when we can, but as something from which we have an opportunity to take when things happen to us. These two groups of people should not be fighting each other. Someone should not say, “I am hard working; you are not. You should not be getting, because somebody else is working.” At a lot of the income levels that the hon. Gentleman mentions people probably will be entitled to benefits, be that help with their rent or council tax, or some other benefit. I ask the Government to think again about their attitude to people who are doing exactly what they have been asked to do, which is to get into employment, to work hard and to save. I ask the Government not to keep this savings provision in the Bill.
Harriett Baldwin
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the child care element of the universal credit. We did not have the chance to talk about it at length in Committee, but we all got invited to a discussion with the Secretary of State on the various different options for child care. This is an essential part of the equation that any parent considers when deciding the best way for them to approach the workplace.
I wish to talk about a slightly different approach from the one in new clause 2. I disagree with new clause 2, because I do not think that it takes the right approach, and I want to say exactly why. First, it retains the characteristic whereby someone has to work for a minimum of 16 hours to qualify for support with their child care. That fails to take into account an entire psychological barrier and frame of reference that a parent can have when they move into work. It is very hard to take the first steps into work, particularly when someone makes that choice—which, as we have heard, is optional, with smaller children. Those are large steps to take, so allowing parents to move into work by doing fewer hours—perhaps two days a week in the office or at work—is an extremely important part not only of encouraging a parent to move into the workplace, but, importantly, encouraging parents to maintain contact with the workplace when their children are small. That is a really important benefit of the approach that the Secretary of State has been discussing with us.
Harriett Baldwin
I vividly remember going back into full-time work after maternity leave—and on that first day back, frankly, one is amazed that one’s child is still alive at the end of the day for which they have been left with someone else. The psychological transition is very important, and taking it in smaller incremental steps—perhaps with more generous support—is extremely important, because it builds up trust in the alternative child care while also allowing the child to get used to it in small steps. I urge the Minister to suggest that the Department consider some other iterations along those lines.
My other point concerns the review of the consultation put forward by the Secretary of State.
Harriett Baldwin
I shall give way to the hon. Lady, who was so generous in giving way to me.
Sheila Gilmore
Will the hon. Lady consider whether, in this debate, we have got ourselves into the situation of being forced to contrast one group of people who are trying to work against another? Perhaps she would care to join me—I am not sure whether my Front Benchers would agree with me, and perhaps her Front Benchers would not, either—in saying that it would be better to give child care assistance to people who work all hours. Perhaps we should join forces to argue for that.
Charlie Elphicke
I agree. In fact, let me use the words of the Leader of the Opposition, who said:
“Finally we will never encourage a sense of responsibility if society is becoming more and more unfair, and more and more divided.”
We know that Labour divided our country more between the rich and the poor when it was in office, and we know that giving people who have £50,000 in the bank out-of-work benefits would be deeply unfair to the ordinary working person in the street.
Sheila Gilmore
I apologise for missing so much of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. I am sure I would have been greatly entertained. However, I was not aware that the amendment before the House would give out-of-work benefits to people with savings. This is about people who are working and trying to get themselves back on their feet, which he said he wanted.
Charlie Elphicke
If we asked the person in the street, “Do you think that benefits, even universal credit benefits, should be paid to someone who has got £50,000 in the bank?”, they would give us a pretty robust response. I represent a constituency with a lot of deprivation. Average earnings are about £20,000 a year—£50,000 is a king’s ransom to the people whom I serve. Most people could never dream of having so much money in cash. They might have it locked up in their house, but they could never dream of having that kind of money in ready cash. It would be an astonishing position to be in. If I went down Dover high street and said, “Do you think that people should get universal credit if they have £50,000 in the bank?”, the response would be demonstrative, pretty conclusive and probably pretty rude—it would be expletive-laden.
In my constituency, when I knock on a door, like my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal), and say, “What are your concerns?”, after expressing vehement concerns about the number of overseas visitors, 1 million of whom have taken jobs in recent years, and about the 5 million people who could work but do not, people move on and say, “And that person down the street has a plasma TV and so on, and they have not worked a day in their lives.” We have discussed this important and serious issue. We need to encourage people to take responsibility and to work, and not encourage them through amendments such as amendments 23 and 24, which would allow people to claim benefits despite having £50,000 in the bank.
This whole strand of thinking is symptomatic of a way of thinking that has caused the number of working-age people in relative poverty, after housing costs, to rise from 6.5 million in 2001-02 to 7.9 million in 2009-10. That is a staggering rise. We have to bear it in mind that in those years this country enjoyed the most massive boom, yet a whole load of our countrymen slipped further into relative poverty. It is not just a question of intergenerational poverty or of households that have not worked for ever and ever; it is a question of going into relative poverty. The message sent by amendments 23 and 24 is not one of responsibility. It is not a message that says, “Look, we are on your side. You’re hard-working. We will support you.” The message sent by the philosophy of universal credit is one of responsibility: “If you work hard, you will be better off, and you will not be subjected to the dependency culture.” That has to be one of the most important and essential messages that the Government can send, and it is why the Bill will, in my view, be the most important Bill in this Parliament.
I hope that the House will indulge me on one more amendment—amendment 33, which deals with pensions. If a man aged 66 is married to a woman aged 45, how can it be fine for that woman not to be incentivised to work? I am deeply troubled by this. I put this issue to the right hon. Member for East Ham, and the Minister asked him whether he supported the principle, and thrice the cock crowed, yet he would not deny it—or, indeed, not deny it. It was wrong to table an amendment defending that principle, and to say, when an argument was made saying, “How can it be right?”, “Ah well, isn’t it bad of the Government to sneak it into a schedule.”
The House deserves a better argument than that for why previously people were not incentivised to work, and why the Government are wrong to take action on it. The Government are right to take action, and they are right to send the message that work should always pay, and that, if someone is of working age, they really should work. We have a massive mountain to climb: there are 5 million people in this country who could work but do not, who have been encouraged to live in a dependency culture, and who would be worse off if they went into work. There is much evidence that that sucked in 1 million people from abroad and overseas to fill the 1 million or so jobs created during the recent boom, while we cast 5 million people on to the slagheap of welfare dependency.
Ms Buck
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know from all the evidence that has been given to us by the experts who are running housing associations that they do not have flexibility in their stock. The one and two-bedroom properties that are needed for people downsizing from three and four-bedroom houses are not available. They simply do not exist. There is not a supply that will enable anything other than a tiny minority of people to avoid this punitive benefit cap, because people will not be able to move. The property is not there for them to move to.
Nor is the property there for people who need adapted properties. I think it was my hon. Friend who made the point that when the cost-benefit analysis tips in favour of someone being required to move because of the value of their adaptations, they then have to make adaptations to another property. I had someone in my surgery last week who had an occupational therapist from Westminster council visit them in November about adapting their property, and they had not heard another word. That person, a wheelchair user who is unable to use their own bathroom, has been waiting eight months for the process of adaptations to be even started. We can multiply that situation by 108,000.
Sheila Gilmore
Has my hon. Friend noticed yet another anomaly that will arise? If somebody moves from an adapted home to another home that then has to be adapted, what guarantee is there that the first house will get a tenant who needs the adaptations that have already been done? There is therefore a waste of resources, not the best possible use of property that housing associations and councils attempt to achieve.
Ms Buck
There is the remotest chance of the property that such a person is leaving being occupied by someone who requires the same level of adaptation. It is like playing three-dimensional chess—it will be almost impossible to fit all the people into the properties that exist. At the moment there is supposed to be a flood of people who will leave under-occupied properties in the north-west of England and swap with people in London and the south-east. Then when all the individuals who need adapted properties are considered, it becomes a literal impossibility to ensure that properties match people’s needs properly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
I thank the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck)for taking the time to talk to us about her amendments today. When I heard some of the reports on the radio this morning I thought that today would be a big day, when we would really be able to understand the Opposition’s approach to welfare reform—but on the basis both of Question Time and of the debates on the Bill, many of us feel that there is a lot more work to be done.
Today was an important opportunity for Opposition Front Benchers to set out their amendments and how they would change the Bill, to show how they would deal with housing benefit. I have listened hard, but there is still no clarity. In fact, what we have heard is more and more contradictions from the hon. Lady. In her opening remarks she said that she did not want the housing benefit bill to rise, and she did not agree with housing benefit taking the strain. However, the amendments run completely contrary to those objectives. Amendment 31 would significantly erode the savings that the Government propose, and amendment 32 would draw the exemption so wide that it would be far broader than anything recommended by the specialist organisations. That is a concern.
Nor are we any wiser as a result of the Opposition Leader’s speech today, which did more to create further confusion in this area. He talked about supporting people into housing as a result of their volunteering or working. That may sound familiar, but if the Opposition seek to link volunteering and work with housing, we hope that they do not intend to undermine eligibility for lone parents when it comes to their housing needs. It is difficult to comprehend how the hon. Lady will achieve her objectives with her amendments.
Sheila Gilmore
I am fascinated by the Minister’s suggestion that people who volunteer cannot be lone parents, as she has just contrasted one group with the other.
In relation to housing, it could be suggested that amendment 31 would not achieve the results that the Government want. Having made one change—reducing the local housing allowance to the 30th percentile—are the Government really suggesting that they would be happy to see it move far beneath that if a gap appeared between that percentile and rent, if uprating were only in line with the CPI? Rents were previously uprated according to the movement of the market.
Maria Miller
If the hon. Lady recalls our debates in Committee, she will know that I have already made this very clear. The Government will keep such matters under review. Of course we want to ensure that things work as they should. What is important to me is that the Opposition have not set out in these amendments the principles that they would follow in this area. Do they want to continue to see spiralling rents in the private rented sector? Would they leave that unchecked? Do they want to see people on housing benefit being able to afford rents that those in work could never afford? Are the Opposition content to leave 250,000 social housing sector tenants in overcrowded accommodation when we have 1 million spare rooms paid for by housing benefit? The Opposition have failed to address those issues in their amendments today. In fact, they have gone further—
Maria Miller
Will the hon. Lady forgive me for making a little progress? Many other hon. Members want to come in on this debate, and I want to set out my response to the amendments before we run out of time.
Before I turn to the specific amendments, I want to pick up on what the hon. Member for Westminster North said about rising homelessness. I am sure that she believed in the effectiveness of the previous Government, but she cannot expect the sort of impacts on homelessness that she implied after just one month of a policy being in place. I do not accept that the policies we are advocating will have the impacts on homelessness that she talked about. She has to get real: these policies have only been in place since April, and could not be driving the sorts of changes that she mentioned by this stage.
The hon. Lady said that her premise was affordability and access to housing. May I remind her that, given that 40%—and in some areas, including coastal towns, 70%—of those in the private rental market are in receipt of housing benefit, it is critical that we keep control of the amount of money going out in housing benefit? That way we can help the very first-time buyers whom she purports to want to help, who are finding it so difficult to get into the purchase market at the moment, and who need to go into the rental market. The previous Government let those people down by not keeping control of housing benefit rents during their tenure.
Maria Miller
Would my hon. Friend mind if I made a tiny bit more progress on the amendment, and tried to deal with some of the others?
In that spirit, we are considering the most effective way of monitoring and evaluating the housing support measures. That will enable us to understand the effectiveness of the measures in the same way as we will understand the 2011 measures. However, reviewing the operation of the changes in the first year will be too soon—something that I have also considered in relation to other measures in the Bill. We need to ensure that the measures have time to mature and bed in, so that their effectiveness can be properly evaluated. I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friends that conducting such a review after the first year would be the best way to assess the effectiveness of our policies. Therefore, I cannot commit to the timetable that they propose, even if we are attracted to the idea of conducting comprehensive research. However, I can reassure them that we are looking at ways of funding an external review—this time on the measures in the Bill—and that we will consider that in some detail in the coming months.
Amendment 32 was also tabled by the Opposition. I am sure that Members are aware of the pressures that we face in social housing; indeed, there are some facts that we have to consider before we can look at the amendment in any detail. We know that less than 5% of social tenants in England move each year in the social housing sector. That is not helpful, given the 250,000 overcrowded households waiting for a suitable property to meet their needs. There is also limited social housing stock, with waiting lists of 5 million people, 250,000 tenants in overcrowded housing and almost 1 million spare bedrooms being paid for through housing benefit. There is a mismatch in the market. I am quite astonished that the hon. Member for Westminster North spent no time talking about that or showing her support for the action that we are taking to put it right.
Sheila Gilmore
It is important that the Minister establishes whether the Government’s proposal is intended to solve the problems of under-occupancy and over- occupancy or simply to save money. Even if the changes that she wants are achieved, there will be no saving in the housing benefit budget, on the assumption that many of the people moving into the houses thereby vacated will also be on housing benefit.
Maria Miller
It is absolutely not fair that we have 1 million spare bedrooms being paid for by housing benefit. It is not right—many taxpayers would never be able to afford a spare bedroom in their properties—nor is it fair for those living in overcrowded or poor housing conditions, waiting for long periods for the opportunity to live in a home that is decent or that actually reflects the size of their family. I would ask the hon. Lady to consider that.
Amendment 32 would provide an exemption from the social sector size criteria measure for disabled people living in adapted accommodation. The intention is to ensure that where people have significant or extensive adaptations, they do not have to move and have a new property adapted, which would result in additional costs. I assure the House that I fully understand those arguments. I agree that it might not make sense to move someone from their home if they have already had significant adaptations. Replicating such changes would impose unnecessary costs. We are not interested in shifting costs from one budget to another. However, as we previously set out, we cannot take the broad-brush approach that amendment 32 would allow for. The amendment talks about a property that is
“specially adapted or particularly suited to…the needs of that person.”
This means that the provision would be drawn very widely drawn indeed, covering any adaptations.
Some adaptations, such as a handrail in a bath, may be so minor that exempting the tenant on the basis of that adaptation alone would simply not be justifiable. The provision would also cover a property that had been adapted for someone’s past needs, and would require local authorities to exempt those whose accommodation was particularly suited to meet their needs—perhaps those in a ground-floor flat or a property with a limited number of stairs to climb. We do not have the data on how many such cases there are, but it seems likely that many would fall into such a broad category. Again, that would prove very expensive—something that the hon. Member for Westminster North seemed to ignore. It is not clear what evidence would be required or who would be responsible for the decision. The amendment refers to the provision of
“certificates, documents, information or evidence”,
which, as the hon. Member for Westminster North said, also suggests a degree of administrative intervention. She made a valid point in Committee, but I am surprised that she is pushing it even further. I think that many stakeholders would rightly be concerned about the potential cost of her proposals and about the additional burdens such bureaucracy could load on to landlords and others.
The National Housing Federation estimates that about 108,000 tenants in adapted accommodation are likely to be affected by the introduction of the size criteria to restrict housing benefit. The NHF has kindly shared its data with us and I understand that our officials have met the federation since Committee and are continuing to explore the data in some detail. However, as well as looking at the available data, we want to talk to housing providers, but that will take some more time.
Funding for adaptations can come from a number of sources, one of which is the disabled facilities grant. Some 44,000 awards were made in 2009-10 in England and the average award was some £7,000. However, many of these are paid to owner-occupiers, not to those living in social rented houses. Research published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in 2005 showed that about 70% of all adaptations were for less than £1,000 and that only 19% were wholly funded from the disabled facilities grant. In England, the maximum grant is £30,000, but there are discretionary powers to enable local authorities to meet costs in excess of that. Adaptations of this magnitude would be substantial, potentially involving the construction of a single-storey or double-bedroom extension, together perhaps with the installation of a toilet or en-suite shower. Figures from the same source indicate an average cost of about £2,000 for the installation of a stairlift. We will consider the evidence further, but it is important for the House to look at the facts and realise that many of these adaptations are at a much lower level than the hon. Lady indicated in her comments.
As I said in Committee,
“it is not our intention to put something in place that would have a disproportionate impact on disabled people. If someone has had their property adapted because of their disability, it makes no sense to move them to a different property and spend more money on costly adaptations.”
I concluded that a “blanket exemption” was not the best approach and that we would need to consider
“how we can best target the help at people, while keeping in mind the practical difficulties of identifying…where accommodation has been adapted”.––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 3 May 2011; c. 687.]
We acknowledge the concerns that have been highlighted, but this amendment goes much further than was suggested even by the sector itself. I hope that, in the light of my comments, hon. Members will look again at the amendments and agree to withdraw them.
Amendment of the Law
Sheila Gilmore Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Alexander
As I was saying, the right hon. Gentleman should look at page 55 of the Red Book, which states:
“As announced by DWP at the introduction of the Welfare Reform Bill 2011, the Government will no longer remove the mobility component of DLA for people in residential care in October 2012. Mobility provision for people in residential care will be reviewed as part of the wider reform of DLA to be introduced from 2013-14.”
That is a clear and sensible position.
Danny Alexander
I will not give way.
That leads me to our fourth ambition for growth—a better educated work force who are the most flexible in Europe.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sheila Gilmore Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
5. What recent progress has been made on implementing the recommendations of the Harrington review of work capability assessment.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
19. What recent progress has been made on implementing the recommendations of the Harrington review of work capability assessment.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
We are committed to taking forward Professor Harrington’s recommendations so that we can make the system we inherited from the previous Government fairer and more effective. Many of the changes he proposed are already in place, and we will implement the remainder by the summer, to coincide with the first work capability assessments of incapacity benefit claimants taking part in the full nationwide reassessment.
Sheila Gilmore
One of the findings of the Harrington report was that the Jobcentre Plus decision makers were not, in fact, making decisions; rather, they were simply rubber-stamping the Atos assessments. What steps have been taken to ensure that that is no longer the case, and will the Minister publish some figures on this so that we can have some reassurance that that has actually changed?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Lady makes an important point. That was clearly one of the flaws in the system we inherited. We have retrained decision makers, instructing them to take into account a broader range of evidence than simply the assessment so that claimants now have the opportunity to submit proper evidence from their own medical practitioners, and we have made it absolutely clear to decision makers that they are in charge. We have also introduced a process of reconsideration within Jobcentre Plus to reinforce that process.
Welfare Reform Bill
Sheila Gilmore Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Duncan Smith
I read The Guardian; he reads the Telegraph. What can I say? Times really are changing.
I have read the report, and I think that a number of elements in it are simply not altogether correct. I say that rather carefully because the point about the cancer aspect is that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we inherited from the previous Government a process of reform and change to the employment and support allowance, which included the work capability assessment. We supported that, with the previous Government, because it was the right thing to do—to look at the 1.5 million people on incapacity benefit and check them over. We did not inherit any real allowance for cancer sufferers. It is important to make this clear. The Employment Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), immediately accepted the internal reviews, but went further. He asked Professor Harrington to conduct a review of what we did regarding cancer patients and others, and the hon. Gentleman, being a generous individual, will know that we then incorporated a big change, so that a person in cancer treatment—chemotherapy—who is between treatments will go straight on to the support element. Thus the contributory aspect will not affect them, because while they are on the support element they will continue to be supported when they are out of work.
Mr Duncan Smith
One second. Would the hon. Lady forgive me? I have been asked to answer a question and I shall try to answer it. We have already made some very substantial change to support people in cancer treatment. The concerns of Macmillan and others relate to oral chemotherapy. I understand that. We have already asked Professor Harrington, in his second review, to undertake to give some advice on that. We have a slight problem with that from the start, because it is a fairly new form of treatment and a limited number of people are on it. So far, much of the medical evidence suggests that it does not affect people in the way that intravenous chemotherapy does; it is not as debilitating. We remain open to that evidence.
Although there is no provision for oral chemotherapy right now, my right hon. Friend the Employment Minister has made it clear that Professor Harrington will review the subject and take evidence, and we have asked the cancer groups to offer up their thoughts and advice, in addition to the medical fraternity. We will take account of what Professor Harrington says. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) knows, last time we adopted all the recommendations in the professor’s report in their totality. So we are not in the business of trying to harm or affect cancer patients; quite the contrary. We made some very serious changes to what we inherited from the previous Government—I would like to think that they would have done the same—and we will continue to do so. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question. If he will let me get on with the rest of the Bill, I will.
Mr Duncan Smith
I shall try to make progress, if hon. Members do not mind, because I have given way quite a lot on that subject.
Before the introduction of the universal credit we will introduce many of the changes to conditionality and sanctions that I discussed. Claimants, I hope, on that principle will accept the claimant commitment, as they will be subject to tougher regimes that are fair and reasonable. Turning to other benefit changes, we are making changes to the income support regime for lone parents before the introduction of universal credit. Lone parents who can work will be expected to claim jobseeker’s allowance when their youngest child reaches the age of five. We want as many people as possible to get help to engage with the labour market, and we know that about 80% of all lone parents are working or would like to work.
There will continue to be safeguards to allow parents to fit their job-search requirements with their caring responsibilities and child care availability. There are other relevant changes, too, and I accept that there have been concerns about them. I would be interested to learn the Opposition’s position on that. We are making changes to contributory employment and support allowance, time-limiting receipt to one year for those in the work-related activity group. There will be no change for those in the support group, as we have made clear, and people claiming income-related employment and support allowance will be unaffected.
I note the comments that have been made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, who accepted, in his speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research, that time-limiting ESA is the right thing to do, but disagreed about the period—in this case, a year, whereas he was talking about two years. However, that is not clear in the amendment to the motion, so I wonder whether he could clarify the position. The amendment opposes the limit altogether, rather than the number of years. I would happy to accept an intervention from the right hon. Gentleman if he wished to clarify the position. [Interruption.] He will cover it in his speech—very good. I hope that we will understand that, as principles and practicalities need to come together.
I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman and to everyone else that the one-year limit is twice as long as that currently in place for jobseeker’s allowance. There has been discussion of people undergoing cancer treatment and others. That is best dealt with under the ESA regime and reviews, so that we can decide which groups are relevant, and which not, as we have done with some cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. They have been taken out of that provision because they are in the support group. Professor Harrington’s review is the best way of doing that. We have established the principle of receipt for a year, and the rest is about the details of the conditions that best apply, and that can be dealt with in the Harrington review.
That best reflects the different nature of ESA and the different needs of those who claim it. However, we simply cannot pay those benefits indefinitely. I wonder whether that would have been the previous Government’s position if they had undertaken further reviews. For limited contributions under ESA, it would have been feasible for someone to receive ESA for their rest of their life. That was one of the big issues that we had to tackle.
Mr Duncan Smith
I will give way to the hon. Lady, because she has been persistent.
Sheila Gilmore
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. ESA is not given indefinitely, because there are constant assessments and reassessments. I have constituents who have been reassessed twice in the past two years and who are due for another assessment. It is not true that someone who receives contributory ESA will receive it for ever without assessment. The assessment process should cover that, without an arbitrary cut-off date.
Mr Duncan Smith
I remind the hon. Lady that in the support group, the contributory element does not apply. It applies to people with finances that take them above the line. The income-based measure continues—that is not the issue. The issue is whether we think that people who have contributed for a certain time have the right to contribution-based benefit, regardless of their income, for a period of time. That is the debate. The income-based measure is exactly the same—it is not going to change, so that meets the hon. Lady’s concerns.
Mr Duncan Smith
I think that I have dealt with that.
There are other changes, including the consumer prices index uprating, in the Bill. We must get to grips with the housing benefit system, which ran out of control under the previous Government. I have a deep suspicion that they knew that before they called the election, and I sense that there were big differences about whether they would do something about this. Over the past 10 years, overall spending on housing benefit has almost doubled from £11 billion to £21 billion, which is a huge increase. I accept some of the arguments about the reasons for that—the fact, for example, that house building fell to a record low, and more and more people had to be moved into the social rented sector—but the reality under the local housing allowance regime was that we lost control of spending. We have therefore introduced a number of changes to the local housing allowance, including a move to annual uprating in line with CPI. Restricting uprating should enable us to keep downward pressure on rents. Only if an increase in local market rents exceeds the annual rate of CPI will the restriction apply. That will also be an important step towards the integration of housing support with the universal credit.
We accept that those changes will not be easy for some people, which is why we want to provide a great deal of transitional protection. Essentially, we have put up a total of about £190 million to smooth the transition to those measures for those who are most likely to be deeply affected. That includes £130 million in discretionary housing payments, £50 million to assist people with housing advice and removal costs and £10 million for homelessness prevention, particularly in London. That, coupled with the other changes that we have already made through regulations, where we are looking at making direct payments to those who are able to lower their rents and at delaying the point at which the measure comes in by some nine months, was a product of listening to people’s main concerns and trying to ensure that what we bring in is doable and manageable by councils.
Mr Duncan Smith
I say to the right hon. Gentleman, despite his best intentions, that the mess that the previous Government got into over incapacity benefit—[Interruption.] It is all very well for Labour Members to sit in opposition and pretend that nothing went wrong under the previous Government. We are picking up an incapacity benefit system in which they left people parked, never seen by anybody for years and years. All we are putting into the Bill is the requirement that people be seen to check on their condition. That has to be in their interests, and it is not in any way a problem that it should happen. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman wants to try to make amendments as the Bill goes through Committee, we will always be happy to debate those and listen to him. My point is simply this: it is right to see people, and wrong to leave them parked for ever on set benefits. Seeing them is more humane than inhumane, and that balance is the way that we should go.
As we introduce our new welfare system, we will have to take steps to clamp down on benefit fraud, as Opposition Members know. The system that we have is inefficient and too often ineffective. Despite significant overlaps between benefit and tax credit frauds, fraudsters are subject to different treatment in their cases as they are handled by different groups—DWP, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or even a local authority. The mess and overlap is enormous. The Bill introduces powers enabling a new single fraud investigation service to investigate and prosecute all cases of benefit and tax credit fraud. I hope that the House supports that process. We will ensure that anyone found committing lower-level fraud will face a tough minimum fine as an alternative to prosecution. For all other fraudsters, we will seek prosecution whenever we can. We need to ensure that fraudsters get the message that repeated criminal behaviour will not be tolerated, so those found to have committed fraud may face losing their benefit for certain periods; I have already dealt with the detail of the timings.
I simply say to the House, because this was raised in the Select Committee, that I am absolutely clear that not every problem with overpayment or difficulties with those payments was down to fraud. I fully accept that with the complexity of the system, officials made mistakes and that we were often too ready to badge people as fraudsters when in fact they were not necessarily fraudsters but caught up in a system that left them confused and perhaps not making the right or necessary level of statements to the authorities. This process is about separating those people out. A recent trial of a changed reconsideration process at Jobcentre Plus led to a fall of some 15% in the number of appeals being heard. The general view is that process will be sustainable and will work.
We are also changing child maintenance. Much of the current system is designed to drive people into acrimonious disputes during family breakdown. We should all agree that we want to take the heat out of such situations, as far as we can. That is why we are reforming the system and introducing a gateway to the statutory scheme so that parents consider making their own arrangements. We will offer parents a calculation-only service to make it easier for them to make their own arrangements. Of course, if they choose to take matters further, they can.
We are introducing measures to allow non-resident parents to pay through Maintenance Direct when the case is within a statutory scheme. That will provide further flexibility for parents. We need to keep the burden of the cost of collection under control. In 2009-10, the cost of collecting every pound was more than 40p. However, should the non-resident parent fail to pay in full or on time, we will move the case swiftly into the collection service and take enforcement action where necessary.
Sheila Gilmore
Why was it necessary to introduce provisions in the Bill before the consultation process has concluded? The consultation process on this matter is due to conclude on 3 April. Because the conditions have been published in the Bill, rather than being legislated on later, many people feel that the Government’s mind is set in stone.
Mr Duncan Smith
The measures in the Bill set the framework for the details. We will obviously work through the details in time for the Committee stage. It is reasonable to do that. The Bill does not set out the detailed prescriptions, as is right. I do not agree that the process is wrong.
In conclusion, the Bill is not just about balancing budgets, although that is part of the process. It is also about transforming lives and moving people—hopefully—from the entrapment and tyranny of doubt and dependency, to some kind of opportunity, enterprise and change to their lives that they can make themselves, through assistance and support. Surely it is our duty together to ensure that no one is written off, discarded or left behind. I believe that that is what the Bill will achieve. Notwithstanding criticisms and individual issues, I hope that the House will recognise that the purpose of the Bill is positive, and that it will transform the lives that we seek to transform.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Having sat here all afternoon listening to the debate, I see a substantial difference in attitude between the two sides of the House. We have heard the Secretary of State and many speakers talk about the distinction between taxpayers, on the one hand, and claimants, on the other, as though they were two completely different groups of people. They are not. At various times in our lives we may be either or both. It is unproductive to pit these people against each other. There are too many myths and exaggerations in this whole debate.
The Prime Minister launched this Bill by saying that the welfare system had put one in four people out of work. His figures were simply wrong. The figure for those of working age who are not working, and not students or carers, is only 14%, so why did he say that it was one in four? It was simply to try to build up a head of steam to justify what are in fact cuts in benefits. Before the universal credit and all the rest of it comes into force, there will have been two years of benefit cuts. That is why the Government are able to say that people will not be worse off. Most of the reductions in benefits will already have happened through housing benefit, and by taking people off incapacity benefit and putting them on much lower levels of benefit. That is why people will not be worse off, and it is quite unsatisfactory.
Social Security
Sheila Gilmore Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Will the Government give the House a time scale in which it will consider these matters to do with CPI? Obviously, council tax also has to be taken into account.
Steve Webb
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. We are, of course, driven by the Office for National Statistics, so we are not cobbling together our own index. It is undertaking careful work over the next two years. We will then look at its findings and consider whether it is appropriate to use a CPIH-type measure. We are governed by the ONS’s time scales.
I will comment briefly on benefits for people of working age. Unfortunately, last year the Government got themselves into a bit of a mess over uprating. As I have said, RPI was showing negative inflation, mainly as a result of falling mortgage interest. As a result, benefits such as additional state pensions did not increase at all. They would have done under CPI. Other benefits, mainly the disability and carers’ benefits, were the subject of what my notes call a bewildering fudge—I think that roughly sums it up. In the end, disability and carers’ benefits last year were increased by 1.5%, but on the proviso that the pre-election—sorry, that word slipped out again—increase in 2010 would be clawed back in 2011. In other words, that would have happened this year in this order. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says that we had to decide whether to pick up the ticking time bomb of that 1.5% clawback as well.
Members will be pleased to know that the 2011 uprating order before the House today contains no such sleight of hand. It is based on the straightforward proposition that, aside from increases in the basic pension and pension credit that have already been explained, the other mainstream social security benefits and statutory payments will increase by 3.1%, in line with the annual growth in RPI. There will be no attempt to recoup the value of the 1.5% fudge that we inherited from the previous Government.
[Official Report, 17 February 2011, Vol. 523, c. 1178.]
Letter of correction from Mr Steve Webb:
An error has been identified in the answer given on 17 February 2011. In the third paragraph of my response I meant to say CPI not RPI.
The correct answer should have been:
Social Security
Sheila Gilmore Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Will the Government give the House a time scale in which it will consider these matters to do with CPI? Obviously, council tax also has to be taken into account.
Steve Webb
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. We are, of course, driven by the Office for National Statistics, so we are not cobbling together our own index. It is undertaking careful work over the next two years. We will then look at its findings and consider whether it is appropriate to use a CPIH-type measure. We are governed by the ONS’s time scales.
I will comment briefly on benefits for people of working age. Unfortunately, last year the Government got themselves into a bit of a mess over uprating. As I have said, RPI was showing negative inflation, mainly as a result of falling mortgage interest. As a result, benefits such as additional state pensions did not increase at all. They would have done under CPI. Other benefits, mainly the disability and carers’ benefits, were the subject of what my notes call a bewildering fudge—I think that roughly sums it up. In the end, disability and carers’ benefits last year were increased by 1.5%, but on the proviso that the pre-election—sorry, that word slipped out again—increase in 2010 would be clawed back in 2011. In other words, that would have happened this year in this order. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says that we had to decide whether to pick up the ticking time bomb of that 1.5% clawback as well.
Members will be pleased to know that the 2011 uprating order before the House today contains no such sleight of hand. It is based on the straightforward proposition that, aside from increases in the basic pension and pension credit that have already been explained, the other mainstream social security benefits and statutory payments will increase by 3.1%, in line with the annual growth in RPI. There will be no attempt to recoup the value of the 1.5% fudge that we inherited from the previous Government.[Official Report, 7 March 2011, Vol. 524, c. 3MC.]
Finally, I will touch on occupational pensions. Such pensions are not directly the subject of the orders. The changes that relate to the revaluation and indexation of most occupational pensions were the subject of the revaluation order that was tabled before Christmas. However, because of the close link in all pensions matters—everything is connected to everything else—I ought to say a word about this matter. CPI is being used for all social security benefits and additional state pensions, and through statutory linkage, CPI applies to public sector pensions. We had to decide what to do for private sector pensions. I stress that the role of Government is to set the floor for increases to private sector pensions and we had to make a judgment on that. We took the view that the Secretary of State could not decide that inflation was CPI for things that we pay out, but RPI for things that other people pay out. As far as we are concerned, inflation is inflation and we have to be consistent. CPI is therefore the right floor for occupational pensions. However, I stress the word “floor”. Schemes are entirely at liberty to make more generous increases if they wish. This statutory requirement increases only in respect of service after 1997, whereas some schemes index service before that.
Jenny Willott
Like the hon. Gentleman, I was not a Member of Parliament at the time, but I would have expressed my disagreement with those views. Pensioners are among those in society with the lowest incomes, so they are most in need of protection. Anything that prevents them from falling even further behind, as they have over the past few decades, is a good thing. Since the link to earnings was taken away under the previous Conservative Government, pensioners’ incomes have fallen significantly behind. Pensioner poverty is still at a disgraceful rate. I am glad to see measures being put in place today that will start to tackle that problem and stop pensioners falling further behind the rest of society.
Sheila Gilmore
Does the hon. Lady not accept that pensioner poverty was substantially tackled by the Labour Government, as pensioners were among 1 million people lifted out of poverty by their policies?
Jenny Willott
I absolutely accept that the previous Labour Government tried to tackle pensioner poverty by introducing pension credit, guarantee credit and so forth. However, the system they introduced has had a number of unintended consequences. It was so complicated that millions, or at least hundreds of thousands, of pensioners did not apply for the benefits to which they are entitled. The system is so degrading and complicated that they do not receive the benefits due to them. These are people living below the poverty line who are among the most vulnerable in our society.
Another unintended consequence of the system is that when people are working, they do not know whether they will end up better off when they retire. The system acts as a disincentive for people on low incomes to save. With auto-enrolment into pension schemes, I would like to see the means-testing taken out of the system so that people know that every penny they save when they are working and earning low incomes will benefit them in retirement. That is preferable to ending up being trapped, as a number of people are, in the pocket between those able to get means-tested benefits and those who are not. Although a lot was done under the Labour Government, the unintended consequences have, I feel, been quite damaging as well. The Office for National Statistics says that more than 2 million pensioners live in poverty; for me, that is far too many and I would like to see the problem tackled further.
Sheila Gilmore
Do I take it from the hon. Lady that she would support the raising of the basic state pension to the level of pension credit for everyone? Does she accept the consequential decisions that we would have to take as a society about the level of taxation appropriate to support such a change?
Jenny Willott
As the hon. Lady might well be aware, as a Liberal Democrat I stood on a manifesto that said we would like to introduce a citizen’s pension, which would result in the basic state pension being lifted to the level of pension credit so that everyone who was retired would be living on a decent pension above, or at, the poverty line, rather than people having to go through the demeaning process of applying to the Government to lift their income above the poverty line. That would also remove the disincentive to save. Perhaps the Minister will say in his summation whether he agrees with me that we should introduce such a citizen’s pension.
Given that the Welfare Reform Bill was launched yesterday with proposals to update significantly the system of working-age benefits, will the Minister tell us what the Government will do to update the old-fashioned and outdated system of benefits that go to those of pension age? We seem at present to be able to think imaginatively about changes to benefits and state support, so I hope the Minister will tell us a bit more about what vision the Government might have for older members of our society.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I very much welcome these initiatives by the Government, as they will help to improve the quality of life of the elderly, who have given so much to our society, and that of the most vulnerable in society. It is absolutely right and proper that we help those who are most vulnerable.
I believe that the Government are right to use one index for uprating additional state pensions, public and private pensions and social security benefits, and that the consumer prices index is a more appropriate measure of changes in the cost of living than the retail prices index. The CPI is the headline measure of inflation in Great Britain, forming the target for the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee. The CPI excludes mortgage interest payments, which are not relevant to the majority of pensioners and benefit recipients. In fact, only 7% of pensioners have a mortgage, and working-age benefit recipients can get help with their housing costs. The methodology used to calculate the CPI takes into account the fact that many people tend to trade down to cheaper goods when prices rise; the RPI does not do that. That comprises a significant portion of the gap between the CPI and the RPI. In terms of population coverage, the RPI excludes the significant group of pensioner households who receive 75% or more of their income from the state; the CPI includes them.
The intention of indexing benefits and pensions is to protect their purchasing power, not to give the highest increase possible. Increases in line with growth in the CPI maintain benefit and pension value and put the system on a more sustainable footing, allowing the Government to focus help where it is needed most.
Sheila Gilmore
If the change to the CPI is such a good move, why are the Government running scared of using it as part of the triple lock for the basic state pension this year and picking another figure out of the air in order, presumably, to make pensioners feel better about what is happening?
Rehman Chishti
The hon. Lady raises an interesting point, which I think was dealt with by the Minister. She refers to pensioners getting the right deal from the triple lock. It is important that we listen to what people in the third sector, not only politicians, say about how this will affect people. I have here a quote from Age UK’s charity director, Michelle Mitchell:
“We are delighted the Government is introducing a ‘triple guarantee’ to raise the basic state pension from April, and also a matching increase for Pension Credit which will help the poorest in later life.”
Hywel Williams
That is a valid point. Of course, the variation across the country is quite substantial. I refer again to my own constituency, where there has traditionally always been a very high level of owner-occupation. There are older people who own their houses, but in other areas people are still paying off their mortgages. The figure of 7% has been mentioned—that is a lot of people who will be hit.
Sheila Gilmore
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that figure might well grow in future? Given the level of borrowing that many people have made to buy properties, and that a lot of people are buying at a much later age, many more people are likely to move into retirement with a mortgage still to repay.
Hywel Williams
That is a very good point. Indeed, I think I might be one of those people. I understand that the average age of the first-time buyer is now 38. These are valid worries that people have.
The arguments on RPI and CPI have been well rehearsed this afternoon so I will not go further into them. I have a great deal of respect for the Minister and I think he would agree with me and many other people that what we need is a bit of calm and consensus on pensions policy—something that has been lacking for 25 or 30 years. I worry that this change will not lead to consensus and that he might have fallen in with a bad lot.
Youth Unemployment
Sheila Gilmore Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
I thank Opposition Members for giving us the chance today to debate the record of the previous Labour Government. It has been a lively debate, which is perhaps unsurprising, given that the record of Labour is so fresh and bears the fingerprints of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), who opened the debate for the Opposition. I shall deal first with his contribution, which was a master-class in the selective use of statistics.
Let me clear up one or two of the right hon. Gentleman’s statements. He asserted that redundancies are going up. In fact, redundancies are unchanged in the past quarter, at 145,000—less than half the level during the recession—and the number of people on JSA is 20,000 lower than at the election. The number of unfilled vacancies has risen by 40,000 this quarter to 500,000—the sorts of new jobs that can make a real difference in people’s lives.
The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) called for action, and that is what we as a coalition Government are delivering. The Government are determined to make a difference to the lives of young people, which means tackling the root causes of unemployment, not just dealing with the symptoms. That is why we are supporting a host of new measures, including work clubs, Work Together, enterprise clubs and the new enterprise allowance, to help unemployed people move off benefits and into self-employment.
We are getting the Prince’s Trust into jobcentres so that we can help build volunteering partnerships. That is why, for young people in particular, we are developing a far more flexible back-to-work model that gives Jobcentre Plus managers the freedom to work with them and help them get the support that in the past has been lacking. We are also launching a new work experience programme to get young people into the habits of work, with two to eight-week placements targeting hard-to-help groups. We are putting 18 to 24-year-olds who have not succeeded in finding a job after nine months into the Work programme, with early entry for the most disadvantaged.
We have heard a host of contributions today and I would like to pick up on one or two of the themes that have been mentioned. The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) made an important contribution when he said that jobs play a pivotal role in our lives, and I wholeheartedly agree. He will therefore be as angry as we on this side of the House are that youth unemployment grew by 270,000 under Labour’s stewardship. I hope he can support the programmes that the Government have put forward to address the issues.
Maria Miller
I will not, if the hon. Lady will forgive me, because we are very short of time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) talked about the importance of employability, which did not always come through in Opposition Members’ contributions. She outlined the importance of recognising the need to localise support for young people and, in particular, to involve local employers in imaginative thinking to try to unlock the potential of our youth. That theme was echoed by my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), both of whom bring important experience to the debate as employers. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North talked about the importance of permanent and sustainable jobs and about Labour’s failure to deliver a long-term, sustainable strategy for youth unemployment. By focusing on that broader element of the debate, he brought in the perspective of the employer.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire talked about the productivity gap that we see all too often in the market, a skills gap that the previous Government simply did not address, and the importance of education in ensuring that young people are skilled up for the future job market. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) made an important point in the debate, as did Opposition Members later, about the importance of ensuring that the most vulnerable get the support they need to get into employment. I can assure her that, through my work as the Minister with responsibility for disabled people, and by pressing forward with Work Choice, we will ensure that the Work programme is supplemented by particularly specialist support in that area.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), who is no longer in her place, made some important points on apprenticeships. Indeed, I think she said that she would have liked her party to have gone further on apprenticeships. I can assure her that where Labour did not go, we will go. I hope that she will support us in that.
Maria Miller
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way, because we have a lot to get through.
It is important to use apprenticeships in the public sector to transfer skills into the private sector. At the heart of the debate—this is the point that Labour Members were trying to bring out—is the role of the future jobs fund. We heard an impassioned speech from the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who made sure that the House listened to his contribution, but I must set one or two of his facts straight. He asserted many points in his contribution, some of which have already been refuted by colleagues. Just to make sure that he is clear, the coalition Government did not abolish the future jobs fund; 75,000 people have started on a future jobs fund job, and that figure will rise to more than 100,000 in the coming weeks. We have honoured all future jobs fund commitments. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman: we will make sure that young people in his constituency continue to receive the support to which he referred.
The hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) and for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) raised a number of issues, particularly on the importance of inter-generational worklessness—something that Government Members feel was not tackled properly under 13 years of Labour. On the importance of re-establishing the culture of work, I am sure that their constituents would not support a scheme—the future jobs fund—that leaves half the young people whom it was designed to support on benefits seven months after they started on it. That is not the sort of success that anybody would like to see for young people today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) could not have put it better: it feels today as if Labour has been trying to create a smokescreen to hide its true record of failure. Today, we have heard again about Labour’s legacy of failure: a failure to tackle the root causes of youth unemployment, with the number of people in youth unemployment when they left office 270,000 higher than when they entered, and a legacy that they tried to fix with a catalogue of short-termist schemes that seemed to owe more to managing unemployment figures and creating headlines than to trying to provide for the long-term futures of the young people whom we represent.
Let us be clear: the future jobs fund has not delivered, and it does not deliver the long-term opportunities that we, as constituency Members, want. The undeniable fact is that about half of those who went into the future jobs fund were back in the unemployment queues seven months later. The right hon. Member for East Ham called for action, and that is exactly what the coalition Government are delivering. In contrast to Labour, we are focusing on long-term skills.
Sheila Gilmore
Is it not the case that youth unemployment fell below 700,000 only at the very end of the period 1992 to 1997? It did not rise above 700,000 again until 2007, when the recession came. So if we are comparing records, will the hon. Lady please get the record straight?
Maria Miller
I will absolutely get the record straight for the hon. Lady. It is very simple. She may give the House a lot of stats, but I will give one stat back to her: 270,000 more young people on unemployment benefits at the end of Labour’s 13 years in government than at the start. That is the fact that matters.
In contrast—
Oral Answers to Questions
Sheila Gilmore Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
13. What recent discussions his Department has had with disability organisations on the removal of the mobility component of disability living allowance from those in residential care homes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
My officials and I have discussed the proposals with regard to the mobility component of disability living allowance with a wide range of disability organisations, and disabled individuals and their families. This has included visiting and discussing the proposals with care home residents. These discussions have taken place in the context of the wider public consultation on DLA reform that is currently under way.
Maria Miller
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that, given the way that disability living allowance works currently—and certainly given the way that we are looking to take it forward—we are assessing the barriers that people with a disability face, not the condition itself. Obviously, people who are blind or partially sighted face a range of barriers, but they might also have multiple conditions. That is why it is important to look at all those conditions and why, in putting forward for the first time an objective assessment for DLA or its successor benefit, we will be able to ensure that people really get the support that they need.
Sheila Gilmore
Will the Minister not agree to put the proposal on hold until she has carried out a thorough study of the viability of having local authorities step into the breach; or it is only proposals concerning trees that this Government put on hold, not proposals affecting vulnerable people?
Benefits Uprating
Sheila Gilmore Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Webb
Obviously, contracted-out deductions apply not to the basic state pension, but to the additional state pension. The idea of contracting out is that a scheme that offers to provide earnings-related pensions must promise to match the benefits that the state would otherwise have provided. That may not be well understood, but such schemes and the employees who use them pay less national insurance, in return for which, the scheme promises to match what the state would have provided. I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s description, but if he writes to me with specific examples, I am happy to look at them.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
I have been contacted by a large number of constituents who are public sector pensioners, because they are extremely concerned that the pensions to which they have been contributing and which they thought were guaranteed to increase in a certain way should be changed by the Government without any justification. Why is it felt necessary to do that? If it is so good to triple-lock the basic state pension, why is it not equally good for public sector pensioners?
Steve Webb
To take the hon. Lady’s second point first, if we were to earnings-link all public sector pensions in payment, it would cause a massive increase in unfunded pension liabilities. She has just spent billions upon billions of pounds, apparently casually, but I am afraid we are not in a position to do that. We have done what Governments have always done, which is to assess the general increase in prices, make a figure for inflation and apply it consistently—in this case, to all social security benefits, tax credits and earnings-related pensions. By statute, public sector pensions are linked to what we do to additional pensions. What we are doing for contracted-out public sector pensions is therefore exactly what we are doing for contracted-in additional pensions.