Fuel Duty
Simon Hoare Excerpts(3 days, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Torsten Bell
The right hon. Member is nodding. So I would offer that by way of comparison.
Torsten Bell
I will make a bit of progress, and then take some interventions.
As I was saying, we are providing additional capabilities to the middle east, but I want to be clear that the UK will not be drawn into a wider war. We on the Labour Benches have been clear about our approach. We are in the business of protecting British nationals, not of trying to deliver regime change from the air. We need to de-escalate the conflict and we are playing our part in doing so, but the full economic impact of the conflict will of course depend on its severity and duration. Recent events have led to significant increases in oil and gas prices. As of this morning, oil prices remain over $100 per barrel and gas prices at 129p per therm.
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister has been saying “you”, but I am not responsible for these things; I would not want that responsibility.
Simon Hoare
We see you as responsible for everything, Mr Speaker!
The Minister was clearly right to point out the inflationary cost pressures as a result of the Iranian situation. He might be reminded that the announcement the Chancellor made on the increase in fuel duty predates that situation. Were it not to have been made, and given the impact that we are seeing on, among other things, fuel costs from Iran, would he and the Chancellor be thinking that now is a good time to make an announcement about increasing fuel duty? The world has changed and surely this policy should change as well to reflect the immediacy of the situation.
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Member for his question and his invitation to discuss some hypotheticals. I would just point out that it is only next week that the policy of extending the 5p freeze comes into effect. Fuel duty will be frozen until the end of August this year. That is the position as it is. I will turn later to how we think about the future, because that is a fair question, but the policy I am talking about comes into effect next week exactly.
Simon Hoare
There are a huge number of families up and down the country who manage their household budgets incredibly tightly. They will be thinking about whether they can afford a holiday this year and so on. I appreciate that August seems a long way away, but many of those people will be sorting out their budgetary plans now. I am not certain that those “just about managing” families, as we used to call them, can wait until August for any clarity or certainty. Do not play cat and mouse with the British people; take the sensible decision now, and press pause to reflect the dramatic change in circumstances we are seeing.
Torsten Bell
I completely agree with the hon. Member that families up and down the country are worried about what they are seeing on their TV screens about the conflict in the middle east—maybe because they know people directly, but also much more universally about the effect on all of us and on their budgets—and they expect a Government who take a sensible approach, meaning that we protect household finances, which I will come to, as well as the public finances. That means taking decisions based on recognising the unavoidable uncertainty about how the future of the conflict plays out.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), who spoke with her usual passion on behalf of her constituents and a sector that is important to her local economy, and with the depth of knowledge that the House has come to expect from her. She raised the important theme—I touched on it slightly in an intervention on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), as he opened the debate for the Government—of the Government’s lack of consistency or common sense as a starting point, and of fleetness of foot in responding to events as they materialise.
My hon. Friend referred to the absurdity of the Government saying in one breath, “As we transition to a renewable, clean, green energy source, we will continue to need oil and gas in our economy, but we would prefer to buy it from a third country’s production even though we have it literally on our doorstep.” There is a lack of imagination and, as I said, fleetness of foot as the Government respond to pressures in the changing landscape. If the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury will indulge me, I invite him to consider what he would be saying about the proposals announced in the Budget to increase the main fuel duty rates if he were on the Opposition Benches or at the Opposition Dispatch Box rather than speaking for the Government.
The point that I made to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury was a simple one. I did not support the Chancellor’s announcement on fuel duty, but she had a common-sense approach to it and was perfectly within her rights as Chancellor of the Exchequer to make that rate announcement. It predated the events in Iran. I ask the Minister to consider what he would say if he were on the Opposition Benches and he faced intransigence from a Government who said, “We understand that costs are going up. We understand the volatility of the market. We understand the enormous pressures being placed on all households—in particular those with low incomes, the elderly, the vulnerable and the just about managing—but we are still going to plough on.” If they said that rather than, “We still want to increase fuel duty, and we may very well do so in the future, but now is not the time. We are going to pull the plaster off this thing and reverse the announcement. We are not going to increase fuel duty, because the tail of this fuel pricing crisis will be quite long, irrespective of whether the situation in Iran and the strait of Hormuz comes to a conclusion in the foreseeable future,” I think he would be jumping up and down, pulling his hair out and accusing the Government of being tin-eared and tone deaf.
I hope that the Government Whips get the timing of this week’s debate right so that we do not have the ignominy of the Minister wishing he had spoken for a further 20 minutes and people dramatically falling ill in the Lobby but then miraculously, at the stroke of 7 pm, suddenly rising Lazarus-like from near deathbed experiences to get on with their parliamentary business. When he comes to sum up, I hope that he will reflect on the need for a rapid response in real time.
On that theme, may I address one aspect of the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister? As the Minister probably knows, last week there was a hugely useful meeting with the Minister for Energy and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Lord Livermore. Many of us who attended were pleased that it had taken place. We took away a variety of responses, but it certainly seemed that the Government were getting it. However, there is the perpetual repetition of the point that they are continuing to work with the Competition and Markets Authority on regulation of the heating oil market. That is a long-term solution; it will not solve the problems today. I do not think that is a crutch on which the Government can rest and presume that the House and our constituents will be satisfied. There must be two workstreams here, with future regulation in the medium to long-term and immediate help in the here and now.
Fuel Finder, which is referenced in the Prime Minister’s amendment, can be useful. However, the Minister will probably know, or will have heard, that in rural areas we do not have a petrol station by every village green or on every corner, and in my constituency—I will deal in miles rather than the modernity of kilometres, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan did—which is about 440 square miles, people are having to drive a 5, 10 or 15-mile round trip to fill up their cars. Therefore, Fuel Finder—welcome as the idea that sits behind it is—is really only of use to people who have a larger number of fuel stations where they can fill up their vehicles in close proximity to where they live or work.
I want to say a word or two about heating oil. Thanks to figures produced by the House of Commons Library referencing the census data of 2021, we know that about 7.1% of households in the south-west of England use heating oil; the UK average figure is 4.9% and the figure for the North Dorset constituency is 13.71%. I understand that those figures do not include households using liquefied petroleum gas—they merely include traditional heating oil—and they certainly do not include the vital requirement of red diesel for the farmers of North Dorset.
Not increasing the main fuel duty would help everybody in our country, but it would disproportionately benefit those whom we referred to at a certain time in our recent political history as “just about managing”. Those are not households that are supported by a raft of welfare state interventions and benefits, and they are not people who are disabled and unable to work. They are people who are doing their best and doing their bit—often couples working more than two jobs just to keep the roof over their head and food on the table. I am certain that when one is in the Treasury dealing with telephone-number sums day in and day out, an increase of 5p per litre does not sound like a vast amount, but when the household budget is so finely balanced that a couple of quid here or there makes all the difference, those 5p’s add up.
I do not want to turn this into a rural versus urban debate, but it is important for urban Members of Parliament to hear about the reality of living in rural areas. We are lucky to live in rural areas—we have beautiful environment, lovely countryside and a slower pace of life—but every economist recognises that the cost of delivering services, the cost of produce and the cost of transport is greater in rural areas. That is principally for two reasons that result from sparsity of population: greater distances must be travelled to access them, and there are higher costs in getting to those rural markets because they are further away from the nexus of the transportation networks. All those things have a knock-on effect. If there was a choice and people could say, “Oh, I could jump on a tram, a tube, a bus or a light railway and forgo using my car or my van,” of course they would do so as a way of saving additional expenditure.
It is depressing that although I think I am right in saying that at no time since 1966 has the Labour party in government had a higher number of Members of Parliament representing rural constituencies, unless those MPs are in deep camouflage this afternoon, they appear to be showing what I would describe politely as precious little interest in the welfare of their constituents. Maybe that is because they realise that those on the Treasury Front Bench have almost given up on rural Britain, probably promoted by a lack of knowledge and understanding, and certainly by a lack of curiosity to find out anything about what it is like to live in our rural communities. Maybe they have given up trying to persuade those on their Front Bench of the need for a change of heart. On the Conservative Benches, and on those of the other Opposition parties, we will not give up advocating the cause of our rural communities.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an important point about rural areas, but those of us who do not represent rural constituencies—mine is neither semi-rural nor urban—face exactly the same issues as the rural areas. The increase in fuel prices is impacting on everybody in their daily lives and most people are now thinking, “Enough is enough”. Does he agree?
Simon Hoare
I do. My right hon. Friend is right to point to the universality of the negative impact of the proposal. As a good Yorkshirewoman who I know is always persuaded by the validity of common sense, I hope that she will accept the point that when everybody says that the impact on rural communities will be disproportionately felt, that is amplified when one recalls that, on average, the annual income of people living in rural areas is lower than that of those who live in urban or suburban areas.
Joe Robertson
My hon. Friend is right to point out that there are only two Labour Members of Parliament sitting on the Government Benches for this debate on the increase in fuel duty. Does he think that the other 400 Labour MPs are right now in a huddle, in a darkened room with the Chancellor, lobbying her to reduce that tax and to freeze fuel duties, or does he think that they might have gone home?
Simon Hoare
I would probably suggest to my hon. Friend that a lie-down with a cold flannel in a darkened room might be a good idea for him if that is what he thinks they are doing. I think that they have broadly given up. Let us just make the point. I do not want to rub Government Members’ noses in it, but with the exception of the Whip, who has to be here, the Parliamentary Private Secretary, who feels that she has to pass important pieces of paper from the officials’ Box to her Minister, and the Minister, who has to be here whether he likes it or not, therein ends the interest of the governing party on this particular issue.
Let me amplify a little further my point about necessity. North Dorset is predominantly an economy of micro and small businesses; a lot are family-owned, many are not. Medium-sized enterprises are often looked at as something to be aspired to, but it is predominantly micro and small. There are also a few large businesses such as Dextra, based in Gillingham in my constituency, and Hall & Woodhouse, a brewery that will be known to many colleagues across the south-west and the south—companies that I would classify as the larger employers of North Dorset—and they are seeing their costs go up.
I know that some have used the phrase “white van man and woman”—I think of the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who once said it with a bit of a curl of her lip and a sort of snarl in her voice. I do not say it in that way. I admire white van man and woman, who have got off their backsides and set up a business, entrepreneurially, maybe employing one person. They provide vital services to communities and need that vehicle to either go and pick up kit and product so they may fulfil their jobs, or to travel many miles to their work to put food on their table. They are going to be hit.
I think of my farming vets in North Dorset, who have to travel distances to attend to animal welfare issues. My constituency has a very high percentage of retired people—the highest in the county of Dorset—and I think of the carers who are having to use their cars to travel, to visit, to help and to make sure that those people are okay. I also think of my farmers, who, as the Minister will know, play a vital role in delivering not just environmental management but, crucially, food security. They are seeing prices rise as a result of current pressures, not just for the fuel that they use but for the fertiliser that they have to buy.
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend eloquently sets out that this impacts just about everybody in their daily lives, up and down the country and across communities. Does that not highlight why we took great efforts to freeze fuel duty when we were in government? I would even go so far as to say that those on the Conservative Benches are the friends of the motorist, in contrast with those on the Labour Benches who simply see the motorist as a cash cow.
Simon Hoare
My right hon. Friend is right. It is important to relitigate this point: we froze fuel duty not merely because we could but because there was a reason so to do. It is why—I say this as a former Local Government Minister—we enhanced and protected and preserved the rural services delivery grant to reflect precisely the additional costs for local government of providing services in rural areas. Again, that was not just slashed but scrapped by the Government in the local government settlement.
There are also the costs of the school run, and I am going to have to declare an interest as a parent of three daughters still at school. When my wife takes our three girls to school, it is a 22-mile round trip from home to school and back, and then again in the afternoon. Forty-four miles for no other reason than to transport three children to school to get an education and to fire up their ambition and aspiration. Hundreds of parents across the constituency do exactly the same, and they will be impacted negatively as a result of this increase.
I think as well about those who are trying to get to hospital appointments. I live relatively close to the West Dorset border, but if a constituent living close to me has to go to Dorchester hospital, they perform something like a 40-mile round trip just to get to a hospital appointment. This is not just a tax increase in isolation; it comes on top of the other inflationary pressures that the Government have authored as a result of national insurance and business regulation and so on making things much harder for businesses, which means that all the costs of those in the business sphere will, by definition, be passed on to customers. I really hope that people do not decide to miss that hospital appointment, not because they no longer need it but because they feel that they cannot afford to travel to and from it.
The Minister does not need me to tell him of the acute pressure that our hospitality sector is facing across the whole UK, and rural areas in particular. Pubs face great pressures, and many in the North Dorset constituency are closing, regrettably. If people cut back on their travel because petrol or diesel has become too expensive and they have reduced their travels to merely just what they would deem to be the absolute essentials, then leisure and relaxation purposes will be eradicated from their menu of choice. That, again, will have a negative pressure on a sector already hit.
I always like to try and wind you up, Madam Deputy Speaker, by saying something like, “To bring my opening remarks to a conclusion”. You will be delighted to know, however, that I am bringing my overall remarks to a conclusion. Sometimes Governments move slowly because the process requires them to. Sometimes, as we have seen in other circumstances, where they have a will, Governments can move incredibly quickly. If the PPS could leave her Minister alone for just a moment, I would appreciate it if he listened to this.
Simon Hoare
This is a point I made to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. All these increases—in council tax, domestic and transport fuel, food prices and so on—are putting pressure on so many household budgets. The Minister knows that; he will see the data from his officials in real time. Families need to make plans—can they afford that holiday during the school summer holidays or to travel to visit a relative later in the year? I am sure that to the Treasury and to the broad, big-picture statistician, these small matters, individual cases, vignettes and cameos of people’s lives are slightly a nuisance, but these are real lives lived on a daily basis by our constituents.
It would be indefensible, illogical and an act of self-harm for the Government to proceed as the Chancellor suggested that she would and increase main fuel duties from 1 September. Some tactical guy may well be looking at a whiteboard in No. 10, desperately trying to fill in the late summer grid when the House is not sitting, saying, “I know, in the third week of August, we will mention that we are not going to do it.” I can understand that in public relations or media management terms, but I say to the Minister, who is a common-sense man—I hope that he will get the common sense of this—that this has all the signs and hallmarks of an inevitable change of heart from the Government. It is not a question of whether but when. He will be sustained—I am sure there will be other calls on him to spend it—by a massive increase in VAT from heating oil from domestic uses over the next several weeks. If we can agree that it is a question of not whether but when, from the bottom of my heart, on behalf of my hard-working constituents of North Dorset, my farmers and those micro and small businesses, I urge the Minister to recognise the common sense, the necessity and that the landscape has changed in just those few short weeks since the Budget was delivered, to make that change and to announce it soon.
Youth Unemployment
Simon Hoare Excerpts(4 days, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pat McFadden
I thank my hon. Friend for his question—I know that he takes a deep interest in this issue. There is an urgent need to help young people with the technological change that is taking place in the labour market. That is not just a British phenomenon; graduate unemployment in the United States went up from 5.3% to 5.7% in the final quarter of last year, and youth unemployment in the United States reached a four-year high last summer. We have to be less insular in our debate and understand that young people face particular challenges. That is why, for example, the different apprenticeship courses that I outlined in my statement are really important. They will train young people to cope with a different technological environment and ensure that we give them the maximum chance of success.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
It frankly beggars belief that the Secretary of State does not understand the impact that the Government’s policies on business, tax and regulation have had on the confidence of businesses up and down the country to invest and employ. There is a direct causal link, and nobody will understand why the Secretary of State does not make that link and persuade the Treasury to do something about it. However, my direct question to him is this: why does he think that unemployment is always higher at the end of a Labour Government?
Pat McFadden
The OBR predicts that unemployment will peak this year and then fall in every year of the forecast—[Interruption.] Conservative Members disparage the forecast, but I gently remind them that disparaging the OBR did not work out too well for them a few years ago. In fact—to make a more serious point—the country is still paying the price for the fact that they did so, so I suggest that they learn that lesson.
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
Simon Hoare ExcerptsWednesday 9th July 2025
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Universal Credit Act 2025 View all Universal Credit Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at as at 9 July 2025 - (9 Jul 2025)
Andy McDonald
The hon. Member makes a powerful point. We have to raise our heads and look at our brothers and sisters, who are actively and economically engaged in our country, and think about the contribution they make and the payments they make into the Treasury, through tax and national insurance. We must treat them with dignity and respect, rather than trying to other them at every opportunity.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The hon. Member makes an incredibly powerful and telling point about the disincentive of trying to get into work for people who have a varying and fluctuating condition, such as MS. That is an unanswerable point and I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say in response. Does he agree with me that in conversations that the Minister has with what we are too lazily inclined to refer to as “the disabled community”, unless we are able to break down disabled groups into those who have a permanent condition and those who have a fluctuating condition, and to individually tailor responses to that, it will be a missed opportunity to get this right?
Andy McDonald
The hon. Member makes an important point, and it is critical that that is reflected on the face of the Bill. With all sincerity, we cannot walk away from here thinking that guidance notes are enough. They may change fundamentally in further iterations and say something completely different from what this honourable and decent Minister is saying to us today. Policy for disabled people must be made with them, not imposed upon them.
If we are serious about ending austerity, we cannot keep balancing the books on the backs of the poorest. That means revisiting not just what we spend, but who we tax and how. We have heard about the party of millionaires making their case that this country has done so well by them—they are so privileged to have made a success of their lives and to have flourished—that they are looking at the opportunities they were given and saying, “Please, we can make a further contribution.” It is they who made the argument about a wealth tax that would raise £24 billion. Nigel Lawson, when he was Chancellor, thought that the differential between capital gains tax and income tax was an anathema, and he equalised it, so there are opportunities for us there.
The Employment Rights Bill also presents us with wonderful opportunities. If we could grasp the issue of “single status of worker” and deal with the issue of bogus self-employment, limb (b) employment, zero-hours contracts and the rest of it, that not only represents secure, well-paid, unionised work for people to give them a flourishing life; it also gives us the opportunity to collect currently uncollected tax and national insurance, to the tune of £10 billion per annum. That would also mean supporting people according to their needs. That is not Marx, but the Acts of the Apostles.
This is a moment of reckoning. The country expects better. If we are to lose our nerve now, we will lose more than a vote: we will lose the trust that brought us here. We must reflect that during our discussions about the Bill, each and every one of us has heard the response from our constituents and our offices that this has been a shambles—there is no other word to describe it. Now is the moment to stop the cuts and I implore the Government to rethink the Bill.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
Last week, I voted against the Government because I was not happy with the proposals on the table. When the Bill was initially put forward, I was particularly concerned about the proposed changes to PIP eligibility criteria, which in my view were arbitrary and risked taking support from those who need it most. I am glad to say that the Government have listened and acted.
As a result of Government amendment 4, which will remove changes to PIP eligibility, alongside making other positive changes, I can now—carefully and with reservations—support the Bill as amended. The removal of changes to PIP eligibility criteria from this Bill protects carers and prevents the consequential loss of carer’s allowance. As a former carer, that is important to me.
I have put a lot of thought into this issue over the preceding weeks. I have listened to my constituents, and I have been thinking about what is important to them. Not only have the amendments removed the changes to PIP that I was worried about, but the Bill will now include vital increases to the basic level of universal credit. I do not feel able to vote against that today.
We inherited a heck of a mess from the last Conservative Government, and I do not think anyone disagrees that there is a need for change. We need a system that is well designed, that works, and that is fair to both claimants and other taxpayers, so I welcome the ministerial review of the PIP assessment. Co-production with disabled people and the organisations that represent them is particularly welcome. Conducting a thorough review in genuine co-production, leading to well-thought-out proposals for reform, is the right thing to do.
Simon Hoare
With the greatest respect, the hon. Lady is putting the cart before the horse, as are the Government. You do your review first, you find out what it says, and you tailor your policies and your response to it. Is that not the best way of making policy? This half-baked idea satisfies no one.
Lizzi Collinge
I think the hon. Gentleman has missed the bit where the Government are taking out clause 5 and the measures on the PIP eligibility criteria, and are doing the review first, but I thank him for his intervention.
I will hold the Government to account for their promises about the review. I also endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), and support her new clause 11.
This debate has involved a huge raft of different issues, and they have been conflated at times, so before I talk about the other changes that I support, I want to emphasise that PIP is not just an out-of-work benefit. It is claimed by people both in and out of work, and it is there to help with the extra costs associated with disabilities and long-term conditions. However, there is also a huge disability employment gap, and a great many people who want to work cannot, simply for lack of a bit of support—some health treatment, or an employer who will make reasonable adjustments. I am therefore pleased that plans for employment support have been brought forward, and that there will be extra investment earlier.
I should make it clear that my concerns always focused on a small part of the broader reform package, but for reasons of time, I will not go into them. These are vital steps towards fixing the system. I will not say that I have no concerns left—I have, which is why I support amendment 17, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie)—but no policy or solution will be perfect. No Green Paper can address everything, and no legislation can get everything right.
In these past few weeks, I have been reminded of something that my friend Joe once said to me: “Politics is not a game to be played. It’s people’s lives, and people’s lives matter.” No wonder our constituents have so little faith in our political system, when what should have been a debate about the rights and wrongs of a policy and about the lives of those constituents has turned into a debate about the Westminster bubble, not the people we serve. The Westminster bubble ought to be popped, and quickly.
The views of the House have been made clear over the last couple of weeks, and I am glad that the Government have listened. I will always speak out, as I know my colleagues will, without fear or favour, and we will always fight for a better, fairer welfare system for everyone.
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
Simon Hoare ExcerptsTuesday 1st July 2025
(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Universal Credit Act 2025 View all Universal Credit Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
It is a delight to take part in this debate, and I will speak about my lived experience. I want to put on the record that after I was shot and left the military, I received a war pension, and that having had some of my foot amputated this year, I am undergoing reassessment for that process. At one stage in my life, I was also diagnosed with complex PTSD and suffered extreme mental health issues for about 15 years, which I have openly shared in this Chamber, so I understand how people can be impacted by unforeseen circumstances.
I saw that from a young age, when my dad died and left my mum, me and my two brothers on our own, with literally nothing. We had a roof over our heads, but I watched my mum go without food to put food on our table. I spoke to my mum at the weekend, and she said that the welfare support she had at that time was a lifeline. She said that she could not possibly have seen a way through if we had not had that. I grew up on free school meals, and understood that the system supported us and allowed us to get through what was a very challenging childhood, although I was brought up in a loving environment. Later in life, I lost a business and found that I could not put food on my children’s table. I had support through a challenging time, and did everything I could to work my way out of that and get back on my own two feet.
As a Conservative, I firmly believe that there should be support for people when they need it, because you never know what you are going to face, and the support should be there when it is required. However, welfare should not be an option for people who do not want to work. I have seen many times multigenerational unemployment, whereby families create a career of benefits; they grow up having seen relatives in welfare for many years, and they do everything they can to stay in it. I have seen it at my surgeries, where people say to me, “I can normally cheat the system, but I’m struggling here.” It is not everybody, but I have had people openly admit that to me. As I said, the system needs to be there for people who need it, but at the moment it is my firm view that there are a lot of people who do not need it. It should always provide an incentive for people to return to work where possible, although I also understand that some people will never be able to work and we should support them.
Government figures published in April stated that the total cost of health-related benefits in 2019-20 was £46.5 billion. That has risen to £75 billion this year, and is expected to rise to £97.7 billion by 2029-30. On this trajectory, the cost will almost double within a decade. The OBR predicts that the Government’s welfare reforms will increase costs by 5.3%, but expects GDP to grow by only 1.6%.
I know the Secretary of State agrees that welfare needs reforming, because on 19 July she sent a “Dear Colleague” letter explaining a system that the Government believed was right. We then received another letter on 26 June that said the system has changed. If the Secretary of State has had to change her mind in the space of a week, how can we believe that the system being put forward is right? I do not believe it is, and this Bill is not a serious attempt to reform welfare. I will back that comment up.
We have talked about the social security system. The Government’s forecast for the total cost of the social security system for 2025-25 is £316 billion, and today we are discussing a Bill that does not save even—or saves only about—1% of that cost. That is not reform; it is tinkering around the edges.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Given the rather botched way in which the Government have dealt with this issue and the U-turn that is proving to be unsatisfactory, and given the scale of the changes that need to be made, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government will just move away from any meaningful reform, deeming it to be too difficult or too hot to handle? That does no service to those who are in receipt of benefits, and it is certainly of no benefit to taxpayers.
Stuart Anderson
My hon. Friend is right.
The Government have a huge majority, and they have a chance to reform welfare. If they do not take it at this moment, it will not get reformed. I believe that pausing the Bill would get the support of many Members across the House. The Government should go back, create an assessment process that can actually look at who requires welfare and who does not, and plan the system out before looking at implementing it—a multi-stage approach. I respect the Minister and am looking forward to the Timms review, but we might as well make him the Chair of the Select Committee as well; it is as if he is marking his own homework. We need to have a fairer approach, and the new system does not provide it.
I believe in welfare and have benefited of a good welfare system. I am proud that we have a welfare system to support the people who need it, but it must be affordable and sustainable, and where possible it should put people back into work. I do not believe that any of these changes are going to do that. I believe, hand on heart, that every Member will recognise that saving 1% on the whole social security system is not reform—nobody can ever say it is. It is tinkering around the edges and a missed opportunity.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
There is no denying that the ideological austerity of the previous Government over the past 14 years has led to the decimation of our services, the devastation of our communities and extreme poverty, as well as an economic mess, so I get that this Government have to make some extremely difficult decisions. However, the central point in this debate is that we cannot balance the books on the backs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. It is not the fair thing to do, it is not the right thing to do, and simply put, it is not the Labour thing to do.
Labour Members who oppose the Bill do not come from the same place as Tory Members. We come from a place of sincerity; they come from a place of political game-playing. We continue to come from that place of sincerity, but it is disrespectful to Back Benchers, and in particular to Labour Members, that we continue to be fed things piecemeal, even at this late stage. While I welcome the previous concessions and today’s concession, we have been talking about this for months, and we could have been engaged in the process. We approached it in good faith, and this piecemeal approach makes a further mockery of a process that will result in hundreds of thousands of people being pushed into poverty.
The timescale we have been given already lacks the respect that this democratic House should be afforded, but the piecemeal way in which information is being leaked to us means that we are being asked to rely on the good will of Ministers. I have the greatest respect for Ministers, but we as Back Benchers should be afforded the same dignity, because we have all been elected on the same premise. My constituency of Bradford East suffers from some of the worst health inequalities and child poverty—over half of all children who live in my constituency are living in absolute poverty. I have to go back and face them.
Regardless of what Ministers tell us, the Bill today is the same Bill we had a week ago and the same Bill we had when it was introduced. That is what we are voting on. We can discuss the concessions next week if the Bill makes it, but it must be pulled today, because I cannot go back to my constituency tomorrow and tell my constituents that for the sake of some concessions that were not in the Bill, I voted for it, even though it could deepen the poverty that people on my streets face. That is not the premise I was elected on.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Gentleman is making a most correct and powerful point, which is that this is not the best way of making law and it is hugely disrespectful to Members on all sides of the House, irrespective of position. Does he agree that that is compounded by the woefully inadequate time that is being set aside for Committee consideration of the Bill and Third Reading next week? That timeframe is very truncated, and we are all absolutely dizzied by the number of U-turns and concessions. The hon. Gentleman is right: it is much better to withdraw the Bill, start again, and bring it back in September.
Imran Hussain
Absolutely, and I will come on to that point. I have already touched on the seismic nature of the Bill. To be frank, I have spent a decade in this place, and I have never seen a Bill of this seismic nature and with these direct consequences being rushed through in one week. The motion that goes to the House of Lords will be a money motion, which will not allow it to make any amendments before the Bill comes back.
Sir Stephen Timms
I will not give way at the moment. The Bill opens up that possibility, and it deals with work disincentives inserted into universal credit by the previous Government. The current system forces people to aspire to be classified as sick in order to qualify for a higher payment, and once so classified, it abandons them. We have to change that system.
Simon Hoare
The House knows that not only is the Minister an honourable man, but he has spent the largest proportion of his parliamentary career looking at these issues. He must surely understand, however, that the confusion that has been expressed in this place is now being felt and expressed in the country at large. I have never seen a Bill butchered and filleted by its own sponsoring Ministers in such a cack-handed way—nobody can understand the purpose of this Bill now. In the interests of fairness, simplicity and natural justice, is it not best to withdraw it, redraft it, and start again?
Sir Stephen Timms
No, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman one of the things that the Bill does. Part of the problem is that it is very hard to bring up a family on the standard allowance of universal credit. The Tories reduced the headline rate of benefit to the lowest real-terms rate for 40 years. Families have to rely on food banks, and people aim to be classified as sick for the extra benefit. The system should not force people into that position; it needs to be fixed, and the Bill makes very important changes in that direction.
Winter Fuel Payment
Simon Hoare Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I assume that because the Minister cannot find the word “sorry” in his vocabulary this afternoon, he expects pensioners in North Dorset and elsewhere to be saying thank you to him for this screeching U-turn. However, just a few weeks ago, what he has announced today was predicted to cause financial Armageddon. When should the City of London, mortgage payers and everybody else now expect the run on the pound that was predicted by the Leader of the House of Commons?
Torsten Bell
What this Government are doing is sorting out the mess in the public finances left by the Conservative party, and not repeating its irresponsibility. All Opposition parties oppose all of the tax rises set out in the autumn Budget, yet claim that they support the spending on the NHS and on pensioners—they cannot have it both ways. The party of Liz Truss has not learned its lesson.
Oral Answers to Questions
Simon Hoare Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Coffey
The right hon. Lady is right to consider the vulnerable people in her constituency. We looked at some of the policy choices we were making, published in our response to “Health is Everyone’s Business”, in which aspects of sick pay were considered, but there was a change in ministerial appointments near that time. We continue our discussions, and I am confident that we will continue to try to make progress on this element, but it is important to say that those who are required by law to stay at home are still eligible for a Test and Trace payment, administered through the Department of Health and Social Care.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The announcement made last week by my right hon. Friend regarding historical institutional abuse will have been greeted very warmly by those people who were abused in Northern Ireland but now live in Great Britain. On behalf of the Select Committee, which did a lot of work in this area, may I thank her for listening to our representations, making this important policy change and ensuring that there is equity and fairness in this important area of financial support and redress?
Dr Coffey
I thank my hon. Friend. He will be aware that in the original primary legislation, which allowed for disregard, only Northern Ireland specifically was considered, so I am very pleased to have brought that disregard forward. At the same time, we wanted to take a consistent approach, so I am pleased that we will be applying the same disregards to the forthcoming payments being made by the Scottish Government and through, I think, Islington and Lambeth Councils. I commend him and his Committee Members for their pursuit of the matter.
Universal Credit
Simon Hoare Excerpts(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms McVey
It will be a continuum. The payment cycle will be going from two weeks to four weeks, and this is actually extra money. They will be getting two weeks’ extra money because they will be getting the full period they are entitled to when it comes along after four weeks. This is not giving them less money, or even part of their money; this is two weeks’ extra benefit.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Some of the most vulnerable in our communities will always look to their citizens advice bureau for help and assistance on these matters. The announcements by our right hon. Friend the Chancellor last week, and confirmed by the Secretary of State today, are incredibly welcome. What plans do she and her Department have to explain to our local CABs the nature of the changes and the benefits that will accrue from them to ensure that some of the most vulnerable people in our communities have a happy experience of universal credit, not one like the Opposition describe?
Ms McVey
My hon. Friend raises a good point, and that is why we worked in partnership with Citizens Advice across the country—so it could help people get on to universal credit. We felt it was the correct thing to do. It works with the most vulnerable people—it knows them—and is a trusted independent group. That is why we chose it to work with.
The Secretary of State’s Handling of Universal Credit
Simon Hoare Excerpts(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House censures the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Tatton, for her handling of the roll-out of universal credit and her response to the NAO report, Rolling Out Universal Credit; notes that the Department for Work and Pensions’ own survey of claimants published on 8 June 2018 showed that 40 per cent of claimants were experiencing financial hardship even nine months into a claim and that 20 per cent of claimants were unable to make a claim online; further censures the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for not pausing the roll-out of universal credit in the light of this evidence; and calls on the Government to reduce the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions’ ministerial salary to zero for four weeks.
The findings of the report “Rolling out Universal Credit” by the National Audit Office, published on 15 June, were damning: universal credit is failing to achieve its aims and there is currently no evidence to suggest that it ever will; it may cost more than the benefits system that it replaces; the Department for Work and Pensions will never be able to measure whether it has achieved its stated goal of increasing employment; and it has not delivered value for money and it is uncertain that it ever will.
The NAO report raised real concerns about the impact on claimants, particularly the delays in payments, which are pushing people into debt, rent arrears and even forcing them to turn to food banks to survive. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions took nearly a week to come to the House to respond to the report on what is the Government’s flagship social security programme and a major public project. When she did so on 21 June, on a Thursday when she knew that many Members would not be able to be here, she undermined the report rather than address the extremely serious issues that it raised.
Her approach was shockingly complacent. It was as though she was oblivious to the hardship that so many people are suffering. She referred to universal credit as an example of “leading-edge technology” and “agile working practices”. She said that it was
“a unique example of great British innovation”
She said:
“Countries such as New Zealand, Spain, France and Canada have met us”—
the Department for Work and Pensions—
“to see UC, to watch and learn what is happening for the next generation of benefit systems.”—[Official Report, 21 June 2018; Vol. 643, c. 491.]
I do hope that they will listen to the testimony given by our Members today.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I have listened to what the hon. Lady has said. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had the courtesy to come to the House to apologise. Mr Speaker accepted that apology. Has the Labour Front-Bench team the good grace to accept it, too?
Margaret Greenwood
Thirdly, the Secretary of State claimed that universal credit is working.
Simon Hoare
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not a custom in this place, out of common courtesy, that when one hon. Member references another—either by name or by constituency—and that Member then seeks to intervene, the request is usually acceded to?
Madam Deputy Speaker
It is absolutely up to the hon. Lady whether to take any interventions. Hon. Members really should not be interrupting speeches with points of order over and again. It is becoming a bit of a habit, and not a very healthy one.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who speaks with great experience on these matters. One of the burning questions this afternoon is whether the Labour party’s official position is to continue to support the principle of universal credit. Every time that Labour has the opportunity to endorse universal credit, it dodges doing that and seeks to tear it down from within.
The hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench, may be interested to hear the observation of one of the senior managers in my local jobcentre in Blandford Forum, which I visited a few weeks ago. He told me that he had been advocating and urging something like universal credit since he joined the service way back in 1986. This simplified approach, making it easier for people, is absolutely the right way. Likewise, the approach of roll-out, pause, reflect and revise that the Government and the Department have adopted is absolutely the right one. That is in sharp contradistinction to the dramatic roll-out, to trumpets and drums, of the tax credit system, and look at the absolute disaster that that was. The Department’s approach is the right one.
The shadow Minister, of course, has form on these matters. In a debate on the national health service in January this year, she told us:
“Let us have no more talk about taking the politics out of the NHS. The NHS is a political entity.”—[Official Report, 10 January 2018; Vol. 634, c. 373.]
I chastised her on that. She likes to come forward with crocodile tears, synthetic concern and outrage. Labour Front Benchers merely use this to prey on the concerns of very vulnerable people for what they believe to be cheap political advantage.
The hon. Lady may be interested to hear an email from a constituent of mine—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) wants to intervene, he is very welcome to.
Simon Hoare
Thank you for that. Let me quote from a constituent of mine:
“I went in great fear of UC. I thought it would be too difficult and cruel. I thought things would be made hard for me and my family. But I applied. It was easy and far simpler than I thought.”
He said that the only mistake he made was that he had listened to Labour and that it was Labour that had made him afraid of the process. That is the legacy of the approach.
In closing, I invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider—the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and I have discussed this—the role and effectively the right of audience that those who work for the CAB have in this process. There seems to be some confusion. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that she convene, at a moment of her convenience, some form of roundtable to establish some form of protocol for those in the CAB who do valiant work for our constituents.
Ms McVey
Members on both sides of the House have mentioned that, so I will answer my hon. Friend. I met the CAB the other day. In terms of what we are putting forward, I think what he is suggesting could be in my mind, too. We will be working on something that I can announce pretty shortly; we will be working together to help benefit claimants.
Simon Hoare
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. That underscores the approach that she has outlined of listening and engaging. In that spirit, I urge her and her Department to issue—this may not be the right phraseology—some form of national guidance to all CAB offices and to all Members across the House on what the role of the CAB is. I take my hat off to them; I have two CAB offices serving my constituency. They often deal with very complex debt issues, which I am certainly not qualified to deal with. We owe those volunteers, who give up so much of their time, a huge debt of thanks. As I said, the hon. Member for Oxford East and I have discussed this. We came to different views on the advice that we had been given, so such guidance would be very welcome indeed.
Let us not forget the value of work and what should always be the temporary nature of state support for people with regards to welfare. It is not a way of life, but a helping hand. It is a safety net to self-determination, self-reliance and support for family. I am convinced that universal credit will deliver that, and it has my support.
Oral Answers to Questions
Simon Hoare Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Newton
We work very hard with stakeholders. Our forms are co-designed by disabled people and those who support disabled people, and I am grateful for the efforts to which they go to work with us. It is well worth noting the relatively high levels of satisfaction with the application process, but we are of course always looking for ways to improve things.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I welcome the Department using a collaborative approach with stakeholders and healthcare professionals to ensure that reassessments for severe conditions are as simple as possible. Will my hon. Friend continue to work with those stakeholders, who are often experts in their field, to improve the assessment process, particularly for conditions such as MS?
Sarah Newton
My hon. Friend makes a good point about how closely we work with disabled people and stakeholders. He makes particular reference to the severe conditions work that we have implemented for ESA claimants, where we have worked with stakeholders to design a new process, so that the most poorly and vulnerable people have a personal, tailor-made process.
State Pension Age: Women
Simon Hoare Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Blackford
Well, there we are. Given the opportunity to defend the indefensible, we again get spin. Let me make things absolutely crystal clear. The national insurance fund is sitting at a surplus in the region of £30 billion, and that surplus has been generated by the women who have paid national insurance. All that we have asked for is that the women be given what they are entitled to receive. A pension should be seen as a right, but the Government have changed the terms and conditions of that right without consulting those who have paid in for a pension. As many of the campaigners have said, “We paid in, you pay out.”
This campaign is at the heart of SNP policy. We have long fought for the Government to rectify the shambles and give the WASPI women the pensions they rightfully deserve. I speak on behalf of SNP Members when I say that we will never rest until justice is delivered for the women affected. The Government have failed time and time again to address the injustices of a lack of notice for the acceleration of the state pension age. There is an opportunity today for the Government to admit that effective notice was not given of an increase in pensionable age. The process of increasing pensionable age must be slowed down.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is speaking with his customary passion on this issue, which he says is at the heart of Scottish National party thinking. I am not an expert on devolved powers, but my understanding from reading the legislation is that the Scottish Government have the powers to rectify this issue if they so wish. He chastises the Treasury Bench for a lack of action, but we have seen no action from Holyrood that could give a lead to the Government.
Ian Blackford
There we have it. Does anybody here think the Scottish Government have power to introduce pensions? [Hon. Members: “No!”] I will tell the House why: it is because we do not have the powers. It is about time that Conservative Members stopped creating the impression that we have that power.
Let me be absolutely crystal clear. Power over pensions is reserved to Westminster. There is a bit of a clue, because pensions are paid out of national insurance. I would love the Scottish Government to have control over national insurance. Let me make it clear that if we had control over pensions in Scotland, we would make sure that the WASPI women in Scotland got what is rightfully theirs.
Simon Hoare
I agree entirely that pensions are reserved, but discretionary payments could be made by the Scottish Government. Why have they not done so?