Oral Answers to Questions
John Bercow Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Penning
There are contractual requirements on both providers, and if they do not meet them they will be penalised financially. I also have to say that there are internal delays in DWP, so I am not going to pass the buck entirely on to them, but we will address the problem, and we are doing so. There are measures that we introduced last week which I hope will address the situation with an accumulative effect.
Mr Speaker
Question 13 is a good idea. The hon. Gentleman, not for the first time, and probably not for the last, is ahead of himself.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
13. What recent assessment he has made of the performance of Capita in relation to personal independence payment assessments.
Mr Duncan Smith
I have said constantly and I continue to say that we will not be giving out targets for dates. As I said earlier, roll-out has begun. I invite the hon. Gentleman to go to any one of the centres and talk to the staff there and to the claimants. He will find that what is happening is a real improvement in their seeking work and getting work, and in the advisers being able to apply themselves to those with the greatest difficulty. Universal credit will have rolled through by 2016, as I said, with all those benefits merged into one, and people will be claiming universal credit, not any other benefit.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady’s question has been grouped with 14 and therefore she asks her question now.
Mr Speaker
It is always useful to have a bit of information, and I endeavour to be helpful to Members. The hon. Lady need not sound quite so surprised.
Rachel Reeves
Yes, we have put in a freedom of information request, because we did not think that the Secretary of State’s numbers were correct, and, as it turns out, they are not. The FOI request shows that with 194 out of 346 councils having responded so far, a staggering 21,500 people have been wrongly paying the bedroom tax, including 4,198 in Tory local authorities, so perhaps they have got their numbers wrong too. There are 275 in Tory Chester, 200 in Tory Peterborough, 234—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but the question is too long. I have got Back Benchers to accommodate, so I know that the final sentence, which will be a short one, is on its way.
Rachel Reeves
Instead of trying stealthily to close the loophole, will the Secretary of State now do the right thing and scrap the cruel and hated bedroom tax?
Job Insecurity
John Bercow Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. In light of the extent of the interest in this debate, I have to impose with immediate effect a seven-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am afraid that in light of the number of people who want to speak the limit will be cut to five minutes with immediate effect.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Bercow Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Maria Miller
I am not sure that the shadow Minister had a total grasp of her question. Perhaps she needs to catch up with some of her councillors on the ground who have a better grasp than she does. I am particularly thinking of County Councillor Sean Serridge, a champion for digital inclusion in Lancashire—one of her councillors, I think—who has said that the work we are doing in his area
“is a great achievement and shows that we are well on the way to achieving our goal of providing 97 per cent of the county with superfast broadband by the end of next year.”
The difference between the hon. Lady and me is that we are getting on with it, while she is just still talking about it.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) is clearly in a very jolly mood, and I hope that it is contagious.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
We are all very jolly in Cumbria that 93% of our homes will be connected to superfast broadband by this time next year. The fact that 7% will not be and will have a minimum of 2 megabits per second download speed should trouble us, particularly when we realise that that means an upload speed of only 0.2 megabits per second, which causes serious problems for businesses in areas that are not connected. What can my right hon. Friend do to guarantee that the 7% of businesses and residences that do not have superfast broadband are helped?
Mr Cunningham
I am sure the Minister knows about the dispute between Coventry city council and Coventry football club, since I and my colleagues have made representations to her Department in the past. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee report on football governance from July 2011 found the Football Association in need of urgent reform and called on the Government to introduce legislation if drastic changes were not made. In April 2013, the then sports Minister stated that he agreed with the Committee and that his officials had started working up a draft Bill. Where is the Bill? Let us have some action.
Mr Speaker
I think some of these matters could be usefully pursued through Adjournment debates, and will probably have to be.
Mrs Grant
Football authorities introduced reforms in August last year, including smaller boards and a new licensing system to deal with ownership, financial matters and supporter liaison and engagement. A start has been made, but much more needs to be done. As I have stated, if more is not done there is always the option to legislate.
Mr Speaker
If I gently hint at shorter questions and answers; then we might make more progress.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), will the Minister consider publishing the draft Bill and supporting documentation referred to by the previous sports Minister and place them in the House of Commons Library?
Mr Vaizey
As an aside, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) wins the prize for heckle of the year. I will certainly look into the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). It is important that hon. Members have access to lottery distributors to press their cases.
Mr Speaker
If I did not know of the link of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) with the John Clare Trust, I would have a quite serious problem both with my short-term and long-term memory, as he has mentioned it several hundred times in the deliberations of the House.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Will the Minister undertake to discuss with the Northern Ireland Executive particular issues relating to the operation of the Big Lottery Fund in Northern Ireland? If he has, will he update the House on the result of those discussions?
Maria Miller
I am delighted to say that, as we have already announced, the creative industries are now worth £70 billion to this country. It is one of the fastest-growing sectors. It is a little surprising that the Opposition are launching their second review into the creative industries—industries they said were at risk from global pressures—but I am delighted that the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) only last week endorsed our policies when she said that our creative industries were a huge success story. Perhaps that is the result of four years of a Conservative-led Government. We should not return to the idea of—
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
T6. Violent attacks on betting shop workers are on the rise and single-staffing policies mean that many have minimal protection from harm. Yet in many shops operators have not installed protective screens for their staff until after an incident has occurred. Will the Minister look at requiring all betting shops to install screens for the safety and benefit of the staff?
Jenny Willott
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is not the only thing the Government have done to ensure that child care is affordable. By increasing the number of hours of free Government-funded child care to which three and four-year olds are entitled, parents are saving nearly £400 a year more. Furthermore, by introducing extra free child care for disadvantaged two-year-olds, parents save £2,400 a year, which makes a significant difference to the families of some of the most deprived young children.
Mr Speaker
I beg your pardon. I did not give the hon. Lady her opportunity to speak. She would have been deprived.
Mrs Hodgson
I am very grateful to you, Mr Speaker. Since the last election, the cost of nursery places has risen five times faster than pay, and there are 35,000 fewer child care places. Given that so many women are forced out of work because of unaffordable child care, will the Minister back our plans to provide 25 hours of child care for all three and four-year-olds of working parents?
Jenny Willott
I do not recognise the figures highlighted by the hon. Lady. The latest figures from the Department for Education show that there are 100,000 more child care places. According to the latest figures, there were 2 million child care places in 2011, which was a 5% increase on 2009, so the number of child care places has increased. As the mother of two young children, I totally appreciate that the cost of child care can be an excessive burden on families. However, the Government have done a lot to offer support and are doing more with the offer of tax-free child care from next year, which will make a significant difference to the amount that parents have to pay for their child care.
Royal Assent
Mr Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Mesothelioma Act 2014
Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014
European Union (Approvals) Act 2014
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014
Hertfordshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Act 2014.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Bercow Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Welfare Reforms and Poverty
John Bercow Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have just had a very important debate and a very decisive result—the House has spoken strongly, by 125 to two. I do not think that anyone could deny that this is a critically important issue. Can we therefore be assured that the Minister will respond, either now or tomorrow, in order to answer the fact that Parliament has decided and the Government should take note?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but it is not a matter for the Chair. If the Minister of State wants to respond, he can, but he is under no obligation to do so. [Interruption.] No, the Minister does not wish to respond. The right hon. Gentleman’s point stands on the record.
Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]
John Bercow Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the remarks that he made about my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins). He is a good friend and colleague to Members on both sides of the House. He is my parliamentary next-door neighbour and, as the Minister has said, for those who are new in this place or to a role, my right hon. Friend is a tremendous source of support, guidance, help and friendship. We miss him very much today.
I am delighted that some of the amendments that my right hon. Friend was able to table before he became unwell will be debated this afternoon, and I hope that the Minister and others will want to do all that they can to honour Paul’s intentions. I know from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who has been in touch with Paul’s family, that they are hugely appreciative that we have the opportunity to debate these amendments this afternoon, and that can be the best tribute to Paul to wish him a full recovery so that we have him back with us as soon as possible.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their words.
New Clause 2
Research supplement
‘(1) This section makes provision about the research supplement mentioned in section 13.
(2) The research supplement—
(a) must be expressed by regulations under section 13 as a percentage of the amount set for the purpose specified in section 13(1) in accordance with section 13(2) to (5); and
(b) may not exceed 1 per cent of that amount.
(3) Regulations under section 13 must include provision about the application of the research supplement; in particular, the regulations—
(a) must include provision for amounts raised by way of the research supplement to be applied by way of grants or other financial assistance for research into mesothelioma;
(b) must require the scheme administrator to make arrangements for the application of the research supplement;
(c) may allow the scheme administrator to arrange for a body which handles applications for research funding to administer the research supplement on the scheme administrator’s behalf;
(d) may allow receipts by way of research supplement in respect of one period to be held for allocation in a later period, and for investment of receipts pending allocation.
(4) Before making regulations in respect of the research supplement the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) insurers;
(b) medical charities and research foundations; and
(c) other persons or bodies who the Secretary of State thinks are likely to be interested.’.—(Tracey Crouch.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 11, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert
‘; and for funding research into mesothelioma (through the research supplement under section [Research supplement]).’.
Amendment 12, in clause 13, page 7, line 10, at end insert—
‘( ) The regulations mentioned in subsection (1) must provide for the levy to include a research supplement in accordance with section [Research supplement] (in addition to the amounts set for the purpose specified in subsection (1)).’.
Amendment 13, in clause 13, page 7, line 11, after ‘levy’, insert ‘(not including the research supplement)’.
Amendment 14, in clause 13, page 7, line 16, after ‘levy’, insert ‘(not including the research supplement)’.
Amendment 15, in clause 13, page 7, line 18, after ‘levy’, insert ‘(not including the research supplement)’.
Tracey Crouch
New clause 2 and the associated amendments were tabled by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), and are supported by me and other hon. Members. It seems an appropriate moment to send my very best wishes to the right hon. Gentleman and his family, and I pray that he recovers soon from his severe illness. He is well respected on both sides of the House and has been a champion for fairer and quicker justice and compensation for victims of asbestos-related diseases. While we do not agree on all aspects of asbestos compensation, the one condition we do share a deep commitment to is that of mesothelioma, and we have worked hard together to find cross-party consensus on aspects of the Bill. Although it is somewhat humbling, it gives me great pleasure to move this new clause and the consequential amendments on the right hon. Gentleman’s behalf.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke on the issue of medical research at length in Committee, and I do not wish to repeat all that he said. However, it is important to remind the House of several key points. The first, and in my view one of the most important points, is that we must remember the sufferers of this dreadful condition in everything we debate today. Mesothelioma is a fatal disease caused only by exposure to asbestos and while its severity can be affected by other factors, it is effectively a disease contracted simply as a consequence of going to work. Doctors who treat meso victims will tell you that it is by far the worst type of lung cancer that anyone can contract, and unfortunately it is likely to cause not only a swift death but an incredibly painful one.
Mesothelioma is not an industrial working-class disease. Although it may be more prevalent among those who have lagged ships or worked in heavy industry, the truth is that anyone exposed to asbestos can become a victim of mesothelioma. We are seeing an increasing number of teachers suffering from this disease and of course there are those who contract it via secondary exposure, such as the wives who washed their husbands’ overalls.
Medical research to help ease the pain and suffering of those who contract mesothelioma is essential, but we must also try and find a cure, not least because we know that the peak of those to be diagnosed is yet to come. Nearly 2,500 people will die from meso this coming year and over the next 25 years some 60,000 might die from the disease, but research into this cancer is shamefully underfunded.
Before entering this House, I was proud to be part of the efforts made by my then employer, the insurance company Aviva, and three other global insurers—AXA, Zurich and RSA—to provide funding of more than £2.5 million to the British Lung Foundation to invest in research projects. It was good to meet many of my former colleagues at a reception held in the House last year to see progress on some of those projects, one of which has been the incredibly important development of a meso-bank. The meso-bank collects tissue and blood samples from sufferers and will provide an opportunity for fundamental and translational research, which will help not only those with the condition in the UK but those in developing countries where the export and use of asbestos has been less controlled—an issue that the right hon. Gentleman also raised in Committee.
Alongside the meso-bank there have been other projects including those being run at the Queen Alexandra hospital in Portsmouth, which is looking at whether specialist palliative care immediately after diagnosis could help relieve the symptoms of mesothelioma, and that at the university of Sheffield which is looking at different treatment packages to relieve pain from this awful disease. Those projects are excellent, top-quality research projects, which would not have been possible without the initial grant from the big four insurers, but unfortunately the funding comes to an end this year, which is somewhat disappointing given that we are about to start the upward trend in those being diagnosed with mesothelioma.
Sadly, meso research funding lags far behind that of other cancers with similar mortality rates. Myeloma and melanoma had £5 million and £5.5 million spent on research respectively, which is about 10 times more than on meso—the irony being that the UK has the highest death rate from mesothelioma in the world.
The amendments would kick-start a long-term secure funding stream for further medical research into mesothelioma by placing a hypothecated levy on all members of the industry, not just the big four. There is concern about whether that would create a precedent for such a levy, but that precedent already exists. We have seen levies placed on the gambling industry, under the Gambling Act 2005, to fund projects related to addiction, and on lotteries, for similar reasons. Levies have also been placed on utility companies. This could be done for the right reasons—to provide essential funding for research projects.
I have read Hansard for the previous discussion on this matter, so I know that the Minister pledged to raise the issue with the industry. My sources tell me that that has now happened, so it would be useful to have an update on the meeting. I believe it was agreed that further discussions with the Association of British Insurers and the British Lung Foundation were to be arranged but that this has yet to happen. I appreciate that with the severe weather over the Christmas period there may have been a delay, but it would be extremely helpful to the House if the Minister could update us on where he thinks this is now going. While I recognise the desire from the Minister for it to remain a voluntary agreement between the industry and research organisations, I would be keen to hear what he intends to do if there is no long-term stable funding agreement, and whether he would commit to introducing secondary legislation to this Bill if that is the case. It would also be helpful if the Minister could commit to the Government overseeing the facilitation of the voluntary scheme. By what date does he hope it will be in force, and can he say in terms how much he would hope the funding to be?
Mesothelioma is undeniably a dreadful condition and research into it is shamefully underfunded. We anticipate more people will be diagnosed over the coming years, from all occupational backgrounds, so it would be helpful to have a strong commitment from the Minister —albeit one recognising that this is not wholly his departmental responsibility—that there will be progress in trying to discover a cure and/or suitable treatment to relieve the horrible suffering from mesothelioma.
In moving the new clause, I hope that I have done justice to the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East on the need for extra funding for research, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Food Banks
John Bercow Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it a discourtesy to the House that the two Work and Pensions Ministers who have responsibility for this debate have not been in the Chamber for some time, and neither has any DEFRA Minister, even though the debate is on food banks?
Mr Speaker
The organisation of the Bench rota by the Government is a matter for Ministers to decide. I note that the hon. Gentleman regards it as unusual, and that view might be widely shared, but it is not within the power of the Chair to change the situation, even if the Chair were minded to do so. It is beyond my physical powers. Perhaps we can leave it at that.
Mr Speaker
In the spirit of Christmas, I say to the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing so striking as a Member busily congratulating himself on his own generosity.
Alun Cairns
Only three parcels can be distributed in a six-month period. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton spoke of soup kitchens. If his suggestion was right, there would be no such limitations. Our focus must be on getting people the right support from the right place. That might be from their MP, a charitable organisation, a local authority or the state sector.
Mr Speaker
Order. It is quite clear that the Minister is not giving way at the moment.
Mr Hurd
Support is being provided through the Cabinet Office. I am extremely proud that through our social action fund we have granted £1.7 million to Tearfund, which runs programmes in partnership with the Cinnamon Network that aim to tackle a variety of local issues such as food banks and food poverty. I am proud to say that 81 Trussell Trust-run food bank franchises benefited from that funding. More funding is being made available and more franchises are applying for it. This Government are very proud to place on record our acknowledgement of and congratulations to food banks. We have an active programme to support them
Mr Speaker
Order. There are strong feelings on both sides but the Minister must be heard.
Sir Gerald Kaufman
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Hurd is exactly what he is.
Mr Speaker
That is not a point of order, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman found it humorous.
Mr Hurd
There was no acknowledgement of the past and no real acknowledgement of some of the complexities underlying this situation. The Labour Front-Bench team came here simply to make political capital and I think lost the respect of the House. It would have been nice to hear some acknowledgement from the Opposition Front Benchers or Back Benchers of the improvement in the economy and the fact that we now have more than 30 million people in work—a record number—and of the performance of this Government in a few years to get this economy back on track.
Universal Credit
John Bercow Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
This is a major and challenging reform which will transform the welfare state in Britain for the better, ultimately accounting for some £70 billion of benefit spending each year, with 3 million people better off.
Rightly for a programme of this scale, the Government’s priority has been, and continues to be, its safe and secure delivery. This has been demonstrated throughout our approach to date, which started with the successful launch of the pathfinder in April 2013 and has continued with the controlled expansion of universal credit, starting as planned in October 2013 and running through to spring 2014. What is more, we are already pushing ahead with the cultural and business change required as part of universal credit. We are retraining 25,000 Jobcentre Plus advisers while implementing digital jobcentres and rolling out the new claimant commitment, which is now on track to be in place in half of all jobcentres by the end of the year, and across the country by the spring.
Yesterday I announced and discussed at length with the Work and Pensions Committee our plans for the next stage of implementing universal credit, following my Department’s work over recent months with the Government Digital Service to assess delivery options. That work has explored the use of the latest digital technologies and assessed the utility of the work we have done to date—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The Secretary of State is well able to make himself heard, and he is doing so, but it is frankly discourteous, when he is giving a statement to the House, for it to be peppered with constant heckling. Members will have the chance to question the right hon. Gentleman, but please do him the courtesy of hearing what he has to say.
Mr Duncan Smith
The conclusions of this work were set out yesterday. First, as part of the wider transformation in developing digital services, the Department will further develop the work started by the GDS to test and implement an enhanced digital service. This will be capable of delivering the full scope of universal credit and make provision for all claimant types.
Meanwhile, we will expand our current service and develop functionality so that from next summer we progressively start to take claims for universal credit from couples and, in the autumn, from families. Once safely tested in the 10 live universal credit areas, we will expand the roll-out to cover the north-west of England. This will enable us to learn from the live running of universal credit at scale and for more claimant types, including the more vulnerable and the more complex, while extending to more people the positive benefits of universal credit.
It is important to note that the information that we are getting back from the pathfinder tells that 90%—I stress, 90%—of people are claiming universal credit online and that 78% are confident about their ability to budget with monthly payments. It also tells us— [Interruption.] I know that Labour Members do not want to hear about this, because they have been wrong on welfare reform from day one. The majority of people who are on the programme tell us that it pays to work, with 65% to 70% reporting that universal credit offers better work incentives than jobseeker’s allowance and is less complex—upheld by the 65% who agreed that it was easier to understand their obligations as a result.
As we progress with the future delivery of this flagship programme, we will continue the same careful approach—test, learn, implement—as it is rolled out through the regions. On this basis—[Interruption.] Actually, I am going to pick this point up. The shadow Chancellor is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. I will tell you, Mr Speaker, what we will not do: we will not take any lessons from the party that rolled out tax credits early. It rushed the delivery of tax credits, which cost £5 billion immediately and 400,000 people suffered directly as a result.
Once we have closed down the new claims, we will test, learn and implement—unlike Labour when it rolled out its information technology programmes. The new claims to the legacy benefits that universal credit replaced have been closed down, with the vast majority of the remaining legacy case load moving to universal credit during 2016 and into 2017. Final decisions on these elements of the programme will be informed by the development of the enhanced digital solution.
Mr Duncan Smith
Let me deal with a couple of the points raised by the hon. Lady. I said all along, and I repeat, that this programme essentially is going to be on time. By 2017, some 6.5 million people will be on the programme, receiving the benefits.
Let me deal with the hon. Lady’s comments about what is written down and what is written off. For somebody who was supposed to have been working for the Bank at one point, she does not seem to know the difference between equipment of no use that is being written off and equipment—this is the case in any company over a period of time—that is written down each year. That is exactly right. If she drives a motor car, I wonder whether she has noticed that, over a period of years, its value actually depreciates. Perhaps she has not; perhaps she is still trying to sell the car for the same value she bought it for.
The reality is very simple. Let us take the legacy systems right now. The legacy computer systems that are working were written down years ago, but they are still delivering value to the Government by delivering benefits. Maybe the hon. Lady needs a teach-in about the difference between written-off equipment and written-down equipment.
I want to deal with one other point that is quite clear and is the reality. We have been clear—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Irranca-Davies, you have a beautiful voice, with very mellifluous tones. One disadvantage for you is that when it is loud, I can very easily hear it—some miles off, I think. We need to hear a bit less of it for the time being.
Mr Duncan Smith
We do not take any lessons from the Opposition about computer failure: the tax credit system crashed, the health system crashed and they lost billions and billions of pounds while the shadow Chancellor was at the right hand of the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown).
I might also say that although the Opposition have asked an urgent question on universal credit today, the truth is that they are themselves in denial about the legacy of welfare failure they left us. Welfare spending increased by 60% in real terms under the previous Government—£3,000 a year for every household in Britain. More than £170 billion was spent on tax credits alone. There were 5 million on out-of-work benefits, and nearly a quarter of working-age people were economically inactive.
This Government have already saved £11 billion on the welfare bill, £48 billion over this Parliament. The Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed that welfare bills will fall in real terms to below the level at which we received them. Employment is up by more than 1 million. More households are now in work than ever before, with the lowest proportion of children living in workless households since records began. Child poverty is at its lowest level since the 1990s, and pensioner poverty is at its lowest for almost 30 years.
Mr Duncan Smith
The funny thing about the Opposition is that they do not know what they want. They say that they support universal credit—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I know that there are strong views on this matter, but the House must calm down. Courtesy is necessary on both sides. Let us hear the Secretary of State.
Mr Duncan Smith
Do the Opposition want us to rush out universal credit, as they did with tax credits, or do they want us to take our time to implement it correctly? The reason we are not moving the support group and the work-related activity group on from employment and support allowance is that they are very vulnerable. We want to take our time so that those who are on those benefits are brought on to universal credit carefully. It seems that the hon. Lady’s party wants to rush those people on as fast as possible, rather like what it did with tax credits.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Is it not the case that under the last Government, 1.4 million people spent—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking a question. Mr Leslie, you are chuntering extremely noisily from a sedentary position. You might be purporting to help the Secretary of State, but I do not think that he feels any need of your help and, at this stage, neither do I.
Robert Halfon
Is it not the case that under the last Government, 1.4 million people spent a decade out of work on benefits and 2.6 million people spent five years out of work on benefits? Is it not also the case that universal credit will get people out of dependency and back into work, that it will eliminate the poverty trap, and that 90% of people on benefits will be on universal credit by the end of 2016?
Mr Duncan Smith
My hon. Friend is right. The problem is that the hon. Lady went touring around all the studios, also saying that we would be writing off hundreds of millions of pounds. She is wrong on that. I see she has dropped that today, but the point is that the Opposition have nothing to say about this, so they want to pick away at a plan which, apparently, they support. [Interruption.] When you support something, you support it. They actually oppose it. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Robertson, your voice is substantially louder than that of your hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). I do not wish to be unkind, but it is not always quite as mellifluous.
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
On 11 September 2012, the Secretary of State said:
“For what it is worth, I take absolute, direct and close interest in every single part of the IT development.”—[Official Report, 11 September 2012; Vol. 550, c. 154.]
He said he held meetings and briefings, and worked on it at weekends from his box. He also said,
“we are testing stuff”—
I think that is a technical term—
“pretty much the whole time.”—[Official Report, 11 September 2012; Vol. 550, c. 157.]
Given that 15 months ago he was taking such a personal interest in that, why is he still in his job and facing this shambles today?
Oral Answers to Questions
John Bercow Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
The Minister of State has the advantage in this case of being right. It was rather a cheeky inquiry by the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), even by his own standards.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
2. How many people in Kettering constituency claim ESA; how many such claimants have had their claim turned down in the last year; and how many are appealing that decision to the first tier tribunal.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Dear, dear, dear. [Interruption.] No, the report does not say that; I can tell you what it does say. It says that, precisely in the Government’s timetable, from October 2013
“All new claims for out-of-work support are treated as claims to Universal Credit.”
That has not happened, has it? The Secretary of State is not on time, he is not on budget, and it looks as if he is going to lose £140 million. The first step to recovery is owning up that you are sick. You are not on time, you are not on budget—are you?
Mr Duncan Smith
Mr Speaker, you are not only on time, but you are always on budget.
That was a lot of sound and fury from the hon. Gentleman, signifying absolutely nothing. The reality is, as I have said quite categorically and publicly, the report could be written because of the actions I took over a year ago to ensure that universal credit will roll out and deliver exactly as we said it would. The hon. Gentleman served for I do not know how many years in a Government who allowed all these other programmes to fail, but not one person will be adversely affected by the change we have made. Universal credit will deliver maximum benefits to the British public, and the Opposition will remain out of government, because they have not a single clue.
Mr Duncan Smith
The thing that is wonderful about the hon. Lady is that she never listens; she just reads what is on her script that she prepared before, and it does not matter what question was answered. I have already told her—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda should keep quiet; otherwise he will jump out of his underpants if he carries on like that—
Mr Speaker
Order. These occasions are becoming deeply disorderly. A question has been put, and the Secretary of State is answering it. The House must hear the answer with all due courtesy and orderliness.
Housing Benefit
John Bercow Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Rachel Reeves
First, as the hon. Lady knows, the Government’s policy is retrospective whereas in the private sector it is not. Also, the discretionary housing payments are not nearly enough to cover this. In my constituency in Leeds—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady has asked the question; perhaps she will listen to —[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is far too much noise—a complete cacophony of noise—on both sides of the Chamber, such that the Chair cannot even hear what is being said. I recognise the strength of feeling on both sides, but I appeal to Members, as I have said many times before, to have some regard for the way in which our proceedings are viewed by people outside this place, who would hope for some seemly conduct.
Rachel Reeves
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
In Leeds, where I am a Member of Parliament, two thirds of the budget has been used with less than half the year gone, despite the fact that the council has topped up the discretionary housing payment pot to help as many people as possible, so that money is not nearly sufficient to help all those who are hit, particularly disabled people.
Mr Speaker
Order. In a moment I shall call the Minister to move amendment (a) in the name of the Government. Before I do so, I remind the House that, in recognition of the enormous number of Members seeking to catch the eye of the Chair in this debate, I have imposed a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. Let us first hear the Minister move amendment (a).
Ian Swales
I thank the Minister for that response. His announcement of that extra funding is the first I have heard of it. I will ask my local authority why it has not applied.
We need to recognise that some people simply cannot afford right-size accommodation and that it does not exist in their area. The Government should seriously consider a policy of treating those people as willing but unable to move and give them concessions in the system.
In my area, there have been some helpful consequences. I have been thanked by a number of families who have managed, owing to the policy, to get a bigger house in the area where they want to live. One social housing provider I met was surprised by the number of large families moving into their houses from overcrowded private rented accommodation. I do not know why that provider was surprised; surely, we ought to have expected that. Only the week before last, I was in an excellent hostel run by Coatham House, a charity in my constituency for homeless young people. It has said that it has seen a dramatic fall in the number of homeless young people. It put that down to the policy. Hon. Members might think there are bad reasons for that—I can think of those, too—but there might also be good reasons.
Many points have been made in the debate. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) mentioned the financial stability of some of the stock transfer social housing providers. Some of them are highly leveraged and threatened by arrears, which will increase when direct payments begin. They could find themselves financially unstable.
I welcome the Government’s efforts to free up the system. One of the first cases that I dealt with as an MP was that of a single man living in a three-bedroom house. He wanted to downsize, but the system was so rigid that he was told that he would be moved to the bottom of the waiting list, with no guarantee of how and when he would get his next social house. Guess what? He did not move. I welcome that the system has, to an extent, been freed up and that exchanges are happening more often.
I welcome the continued commitment to review the policy, as it does need continual review. Despite the views that I have expressed in my speech, it is hard to welcome the hypocrisy evident from the Labour party on this issue. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to disappoint the House, but speeches have tended to be at the limit, with lots of interventions taken. I have to reduce the time limit with immediate effect to four minutes, otherwise colleagues will not get in. People do not have to take the full time, but they can.
Mr Speaker
Order. In recognition of the fact that the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) was not here for the bulk of the debate, he has generously volunteered to address the House extremely briefly, and I know he will expect to be held to that standard.
Ian Lavery
That is what this is about: moving people from their houses. It is outrageous, but at the end of the day, I would like to think that the Government will—
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this lively and, at times, loud debate. We have heard many speeches in the past five and a half hours and many issues have been raised. Labour Members have passed much speculation as certainty. They all called for the spare room subsidy to remain. There has been much passion—[Interruption]—and much shouting out like that. However, unfortunately, Labour Members have given us no answers—they have given not one single answer to the problems left by the previous Labour Government. Not one Labour Member confronted the nub of the problem or tackled the issues at hand, or addressed the many interdependent issues that have made the removal of the spare room subsidy necessary.
Let us therefore remind hon. Members of the complex mix and the delicate balance that we must get right, which we are doing. Some 400,000 people are in overcrowded accommodation, and nearly 2 million people—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is too much noise in the Chamber. Members must not shout at the Minister. The Minister’s response to the debate must be heard.
Esther McVey
Just like I am being shouted down now, the voices of nearly 2 million people on waiting lists have been shouted down and, unfortunately, the 400,000 people in overcrowded accommodation are not being listened to.
We have two different legal systems within one—it does different things for people in the private rented sector and for people in the social rented sector. Opposition Members want to remove the reversal of the spare room subsidy, but I want to throw a question out there. If they retain the spare room subsidy, I believe a legal challenge is on the way from people in the private sector, who want the same policy to apply to them. If Labour reverses our policy, that is not tough on fiscal responsibility. Instead, Labour will spend yet more, which is typical Labour: spend more and increase benefits, and ignore the problem altogether.
Hon. Members have asked whether the policy was about saving money, getting the housing stock right or getting the right people into social houses. Actually, we must do all those things. That is why, as we are solving those problems, £4.5 billion will be put into new building, so we will have 170,000 new houses by 2015. A further £3.3 billion will mean we have another 65,000 houses by 2018.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) said that Members on each side of the House are different and she is quite right: those on the Opposition Benches deliver problems and those on the coalition Government Benches have to solve them. The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) asked what the difference is between the Government side and the Opposition side of the House. The Opposition drove us into recession, never thinking about what they were spending and never living within their means. We are digging them out of that recession.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
What would the hon. Lady say to my constituents, Mr and Mrs Wilkes? Mrs Wilkes has a back problem and is disabled. Her husband cannot share a bed with her, much as he would like to, and has to stay in the second room. They are having to pay the bedroom tax. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Interventions must be brief. I think we got the gist and we are grateful to the hon. Lady.
Esther McVey
We have listened to all of those issues and trebled the discretionary housing payment. That is why people have a responsibility to help those people.
The Opposition’s figures—surprisingly—do not always stack up. We talked about how we are going to find new homes for different people and how we are going to support them to move into accommodation—all the things we should be doing. Yes, 660,000 people are affected by these changes, but only earlier today I spoke to one of the biggest online home swap companies. It has 320,000 accommodations for people to move to. By the way, it has only 6.7% market share, so we are easily able, should we be working in this way, to find houses for people to swap. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is simply too much noise in the Chamber. It is not possible to hear what the Minister is saying. [Interruption.] Order. The Minister must and will be heard.
Esther McVey
I would like to raise the example of Susannah from south Yorkshire. She had had four children and did not necessarily want to move. In the end, she looked around for six months and moved. She said, “Actually, I wished I’d had that support earlier, because now I am in an area I prefer. I have downsized. I have a smaller house, which means that my cost of living is less. I am paying less on cleaning and less on heating, and I can live within my means.” I have a list of people like that. I ask Opposition Members to work with their local authorities and their constituents to help them downsize so they can live within their means. I know that living within one’s means is not something Opposition Members understand, but that is what we all have to do as a country.