Oral Answers to Questions
John Bercow Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I say to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) that the choreography of when to stand up is an important parliamentary skill, which he is now developing.
Andrew Jones
16. I am developing it as fast as I can, Mr Speaker.
Can the Minister update the House on how employees have responded to auto-enrolment?
Oral Answers to Questions
John Bercow Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Byrne
I am afraid the Opposition simply cannot accept a think-tank set up by the Treasury putting the figure at £3.1 billion and the Treasury, in the March Budget, revising it down to £2.5 billion. The Secretary of State must accept, as I am sure many in the House do, that an extra £600 million will have a huge impact on whether people will be better off in work or on benefits. The Treasury clearly believes there is a state of chaos around universal credit, as do the Cabinet Office and No. 10. Surely it is time he tells the House exactly what is going on, and sets before us the business case that he is trying to keep secret from us. Is there something he is trying to hide?
Mr Duncan Smith
There is absolutely nothing to hide—[Interruption.] No, no. We are committed to the £2.5 billion all the way through and we will deliver universal credit on time, as it is and on budget. Any time he would like, he is welcome to come into the office and look through some of our business matters, as is his colleague, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). I will show him how we are on time, on target and on budget.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) did rather jump the gun. He referred over the weekend to universal credit as a car crash in the making. I need no advice from the man who produced the biggest car crash in British economic history.
Esther McVey
I assure my hon. Friend that assessments will fully reflect the changes that are required for blind and partially sighted people, and that there will not be any discrimination like that. We have not finished consulting; it is an ongoing process. We have listened to people’s concerns and altered the assessment as it goes, and we will be taking all of this into account.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
In response to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) about the high tax being paid by sacked Remploy staff on their redundancy payments, the Minister gave an encouraging reply and said that the matter would be dealt with as soon as possible. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that means the money will be returned to those sacked staff in the current tax year?
Specialist Disability Employment
John Bercow Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Remploy.
I am sure that hon. Members agree that Remploy employees must be first and foremost in our minds today. That is why they have been notified first of the decisions of the Remploy board, in advance of this statement.
In her independent review, published last year, disability expert Liz Sayce made it clear that segregated employment is not consistent with equality for disabled people. The Sayce review sets out that money should support individual disabled people, not segregated institutions; it also recommends that Remploy factories should be set free from Government control. It cannot be right that the Government continue to subsidise segregated employment, which can lead to the isolation of disabled people. It is no alternative to promoting and supporting disabled people in mainstream jobs, the same as everyone else. I have been absolutely clear that the £320 million budget for disability employment services has been protected, but by spending it more effectively we can get thousands more disabled people into work. It is important that the money is spent in a way that is consistent with what disabled people want, consistent with this Government's commitment to disability equality, and consistent with helping more disabled people to live an independent life.
When Labour put in place the Remploy modernisation plan in 2008, they started a process, with £555 million provided to put the factories on to a proper financial footing. The right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), who I see is in his place, told the House in 2007:
“The reality is that without modernisation Remploy deficits would obliterate our other programmes to help disabled people into mainstream work.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 448.]
As a result of those decisions, 29 factories were closed as part of that process. What is clear to us now is that the performance targets and the modernisation plan were not realistic, the reduction in costs could not be achieved, and the modernisation plan has failed.
In 2010-11, factories made losses of almost £70 million; that is money that could and should have been used to support thousands more disabled people into work. That is why the Government took the decision in March to implement Liz Sayce’s recommendations that we stop funding Remploy factories that have been losing millions of pounds, year after year, but we are committing to doing everything possible to minimise the number of redundancies.
Today I can inform the House that the Remploy board has considered in detail 65 proposals to take factories out of Government control as part of a commercial process. Those proposals have been scrutinised by a panel, independent of Remploy, established by the Department. The Remploy board and the Government have done all we can to support bids and safeguard jobs. That includes providing a wage subsidy of £6,400 for disabled members of staff, and a professional advice and support package worth up to £10,000 for each employee-led bid. On that basis, nine sites have had business plans accepted and will now move forward to the “best and final offer” stage, at which detailed bids will be considered. Back in 2008, when the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne)—I do not see him here today—started the modernisation process and closed 29 factories, there was no such offer. No factories were given the opportunity to continue outside of Government control; that is something that we wanted to change.
Remploy is hopeful that current negotiations may lead to the transfer of business and, importantly, the retention of jobs. That currently means that 27 Remploy sites will no longer operate. Details of those sites will be placed in the House of Commons Library, so that all hon. Members can see them; they will be able to get those details, and consider them fully. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is a statement. There will be plenty of opportunity for Members to ask questions, and they can rely on me to protect their rights, but at this stage, the Minister must have her statement heard.
Maria Miller
Remploy employees have been informed of the board’s decision this afternoon. The Remploy board will now move into a period of individual consultation with Remploy employees. Undoubtedly, for those employees who have been told that their factories are closing, this is difficult news, but let me make one point absolutely clear: we are doing everything we can to ensure that Remploy workers who are affected will receive a comprehensive package of support and guidance to make the transition from Government-funded sheltered employment to mainstream jobs. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. We now face the unenviable situation of having an exchange across the Chamber. Mr Heaton-Harris, calm yourself. If you wish to give vent to your views, behave like the good man you can, at your best, be, and you might succeed in catching the eye of the Chair. If you are not able to do that, you might find it more difficult.
Maria Miller
We have put in place £8 million to guarantee tailored support for up to 18 months for every single disabled person affected by the announcement today. That includes a personal case worker to help individuals with their future choices, and access to a personal budget for additional support. We are using the expertise of Remploy employment services, which, despite the difficult economic times that we are in, has, over the last two years, found jobs for 35,000 disabled and disadvantaged people, many with similar disabilities to those that people working in Remploy factories have. We are also working with the Employers Forum on Disability to offer targeted work opportunities for disabled people through “first shot”, including guaranteed interviews, job trials, work experience and training. We have set up a community support fund to provide grants to local voluntary sector and user-led organisations, and we have protected the budget for specialist disability employment services, which is £320 million, on average, for every year of the spending review period. What is more, we have added to that: we have added £15 million specifically to Access to Work, which means that 8,000 more disabled people can be supported into work as a result of today’s announcement.
This is an ongoing process that will continue over the summer recess. I commit to keeping right hon. and hon. Members updated on the status of the business plans that are going through to the next stage. I will provide a further update on progress when the House returns in September.
Our approach has been led by disabled people and disabled people’s organisations. Many of them have welcomed the move to end the pre-war practice of employment segregation, and it should be welcomed in all parts of the House and by all hon. Members who believe in equality for disabled people. By spending these protected Government funds more effectively, we can support thousands more of our constituents into work. What is more, we can spend the money in a way that fits the needs and aspirations of disabled people in the 21st century, promoting disability equality and supporting disabled people to lead full and independent lives.
Mr Speaker
Order. There is extensive interest in this very important subject, but there is also enormous interest in the second day of the Second Reading debate on the House of Lords Reform Bill, which I am inclined to accommodate, so I shall try to get in as many as I can now, but I need short questions and short answers.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and, in particular, the emphasis on Access to Work, especially for those with mental health disabilities, in which I am specifically interested. Will she say a little more about how Access to Work is helping those with mental health problems to have fulfilling jobs?
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
For the last 16 Saturday mornings, Remploy workers in Wrexham have been out campaigning to keep their factory open. I cannot explain why the private sector bid in connection with the factory has been rejected. If the Minister believes in the policy, will she come and meet the Wrexham Remploy workers and explain it? She should be ashamed of the statement that she has made today, and to say that the people of Wales support it is a lie.
Mr Speaker
Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw any suggestion that the Minister has lied to the House. I am sure he would want to withdraw that suggestion.
Maria Miller
I very much admire the vigorous way in which the hon. Gentleman has supported his local factory. Having met him and spoken to him at great length, I know that he is simply trying to stand up for his constituents, and I respect that. I have to say to him, though, that the bid that was put forward on that factory has been considered by commercial experts. I am not a commercial expert. Remploy directors and an independent board have been looking at the bid, so it would not be appropriate for me to discuss it with his constituents. I gently remind him that while we have here a difficult decision for the 40 people who work at the Wrexham factory, he must also consider the 7,400 disabled people who live in his constituency and who will benefit greatly from the way in which we are taking this programme forward.
Mr Speaker
I appreciate the Minister’s courtesy. What she says is, of course, a matter for her. I should just make it clear to the House and to those attending to our proceedings that the content of the statement is entirely a matter for the Minister. Whether she chooses to provide a list or not is her prerogative. I respect the sincerity with which she addressed the House.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Last year, many of my constituents, in their supported environment at North Staffs Remploy, put in for voluntary redundancy because they could see the writing on the wall. They were turned down because, it was said, they were key workers. They now find that they will get just statutory redundancy, rather than the enhanced money that was available last year. Does the Minister think that that is fair and right? Perhaps she would like to come to my Remploy and talk to the workers, such as Steve and others, who will have night after night of sleepless nights because there are no jobs for them in Stoke-on-Trent. They will not be able to sleep at night—will she?
Oral Answers to Questions
John Bercow Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Parish
My experience, Minister, of the European Commission is that it always wants to seek more powers, so I welcome your answer but I think you need to redouble your efforts to make sure that we do not hand over social security policy to the Commission.
Mr Speaker
May I point out gently to the hon. Gentleman that I have provided no answer and am making no efforts, but that the Minister might be able to answer?
Chris Grayling
I am absolutely clear that we have to get the Commission to change. It is, after all, part of a collection of member states, all of which believe that the current direction of travel is wrong. We have to win battles in the Commission, the Parliament and the European Court. I will not hesitate to take legal action in the European Court wherever we have grounds for arguing that the Commission is acting against the terms of the Lisbon treaty and its predecessors.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Bercow Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Webb
I recall corresponding with Mr Stellakis on a number of occasions. What concerns him is the idea of a cliff edge before and after 2016. Let me clarify the position. When people receive state pensions of less than the full amount because they were contracted out, as I believe the hon. Gentleman’s constituent was, we will continue to take account of that after 2016, so there will not be the cliff edge that he envisages. We will have to phase out the arrangement over time, but in 2016 we will continue to take account of past contracting out.
Mr Speaker
Mr Simon Hughes? Not here. Jo Swinson? Not here.
The Department kindly informed me of the intended grouping at approximately 9.10 this morning. I hope, and say with some confidence that I trust, that it also informed the hon. Members in question. Neither of them is present, however, so I call Mr Julian Brazier.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
As my hon. Friends will recall, the Löfstedt review was published last November. We have already made good progress on implementing the report’s key recommendations. Consultation on the repeal or revocation of 21 legislative measures is already under way by the Health and Safety Executive and the Government intend to scrap, consolidate or improve 84% of health and safety regulations, greatly reducing the burdens on business and creating a clearer regulatory framework. In addition, two independent challenge panels have been established, the first to consider complaints from businesses about decisions made by HSE or local authority inspectors. The second will consider problems arising from non-regulators, such as insurance companies, health and safety consultants and employers, and to assess whether those decisions are proportionate and appropriate or whether they are wrong.
Steve Webb
Obviously, we will not write the law in a way that prevents all pensioners from being brought within its scope, and I am sure my hon. Friend will press for that. We are aware that, under our proposals, getting on for more than 80%, and eventually 90%, of pensioners will qualify for the pension, so it will have many of the features of a citizen’s pension but be based on 30 years of contributions or credits.
Mr Speaker
Well, that exchange was worth waiting for, I am sure the House will agree. I thank both Members.
Topical Questions
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
Employment Support
John Bercow Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement, but frankly it was a statement that she obviously did not want to give to this House in person. Let me give this advice to the Minister and to Government Members: even if the situation is difficult, it behoves a Minister to come to this House to explain it. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. These exchanges have already been too noisy. The House must calm down. We cannot have a situation in which people trade insults across the Chamber, shouting out “Where is this one or that one?” Let us just cool the temperature and have a decent exchange. The House knows that I will want to facilitate such an exchange.
Mrs McGuire
It is fair to say that Remploy is not an ordinary organisation; it is one that has been part of Government’s provision for disabled people since the second world war. We all recognise, in all parts of the House, that it has had to adapt to changing conditions over the years, but there is no point in the Minister trying to hide behind the statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain). My right hon. Friend came to this House and answered questions in this House, and he made some of the difficult decisions that we hoped would set Remploy on the road to success. Recently, however, there has been only one debate in this House on the future of Remploy, and that was held, thanks to the courtesy of the Backbench Business Committee, in Westminster Hall on 15 December. Today, the Government have tried to abrogate their responsibility as the custodian of the Remploy legacy and as the ultimate employer of the 1,752 people who today found out by written statement, or in some cases from telephone calls from Members of Parliament, that they will no longer be in a job in three months’ time.
Nobody in this House disagrees with the Minister when she says that disabled people want to have a choice about where they work. Nobody argues that such opportunities have not opened up over the past few years for many disabled people. However, many of the opportunities have been offered by organisations such as Remploy that give disabled people a real job in the jobs market. It was clear even from the Sayce review that the best factories offer job satisfaction, a supportive and accessible environment, and a reasonable income for their employees.
I will not run away from the fact that my Government, and I as a Minister, had to wrestle with the issues relating to Remploy. We cannot rewrite history. However, our position on disabled people in 2007 was astonishingly different from what the Minister has put before us today. If she truly believes in co-production, why was there no co-production with the trade unions, the disabled people who work in Remploy and the Remploy board over the past few months? I have the greatest admiration for Liz Sayce and for some of the work that she has done, but to put forward a closure programme that will potentially put 1,700 on the dole on the basis of a report by an individual is not acceptable.
We must recognise the legitimacy of the position of the mainstream of the disability movement, which is that it does not like supported factories or Remploy. However, that does not mean that it is wrong to support people in these factories. Perhaps the mainstream needs to recognise that Remploy offers a real job in a supported environment.
I will put some questions to the Minister before you call me to order, Mr Speaker. In opposition, the Conservative party supported the five-year modernisation plan, so why did the Minister embark on a review nearly two years before that timetable had been exhausted? Why are the Government pulling the funding from the next financial year, which leaves a period of only a few days? Was warning given to the Remploy board before the last couple of weeks that it would have to manage this speed of change and a massive redundancy programme over the next few weeks?
When the modernisation statement was made to the House in 2007, the now Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling)—[Interruption.] Please do not laugh if I pronounce “Ewell” wrong. I do not know how it is pronounced. He said at that time:
“Let me assure Remploy and its employees that the next Conservative Government will continue the process of identifying additional potential procurement opportunities for them and the public sector work force.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 451.]
What has the Minister done, now that the Conservative party is in office, to ensure that her ministerial colleagues fulfil that promise? What discussions has she had with the major procurement Departments, including the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence? Did she look at the procurement opportunities that her Department could have offered to Remploy? What discussions has she had with her colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to encourage local authorities to consider opening up opportunities for their local factories? What efforts has she made to encourage her colleagues to identify procurement opportunities under article 19?
Given the Minister’s intention to embark on this course of action, how did she involve the board of Remploy and the trade unions in the discussions about the issues identified in the Sayce report? I am not talking about their responses to the consultation, but about what real co-production she was involved in. What recognition did she give to the trade union analysis of the current operation of Remploy’s enterprises and the questions that it raised about the company’s business practices?
There is a feeling around the House that the consultation was flawed from the beginning because the Minister said that she was
“minded to accept the recommendations of the Sayce review”.
A Government cannot start a consultation if they have already said they are minded to accept the recommendations.
By how much will the Minister reduce the subsidy to Remploy in the next financial year and the one after? She highlighted the fact that there may be options for the so-called stage 2 factories. What will those options be, and what criteria will she lay down for the transfer of any business and its associated assets to the open market?
The Minister says that the support that she will give to disabled people who are made redundant will last for up to 18 months and potentially be a personalised budget of £2,500. How is that £2,500 expected to meet the needs of many of the people in Remploy?
Where will the jobs come from? At the factory in Ashington, 35 people are chasing each job, and in Acton—
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to the shadow Minister that I know these are extremely important matters, but I feel sure that she is bringing her questions to a close. In fact, I am certain that she is in her last sentence.
Mrs McGuire
I am indeed, Mr Speaker.
I finish by saying to the Minister that in each constituency where there are factories at which redundancies will be made, there are tens of people chasing every job. She made a point about the increase in Access to Work, but that scheme requires jobs. Tonight, 1,700 people do not know whether they will have one in three months’ time.
Mr Speaker
Order. There is much interest and I am keen to accommodate it, but brevity is of the essence.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
I welcome the extra £15 million that the Under-Secretary has announced today for helping disabled people. Does she agree that we are likely to secure better value for money for that extra funding, and we will be able to help more disabled people, if it goes to individuals rather than institutions?
Mr Speaker
Order. Members can have their opinions. Let us cool it and hear the Minister’s answer. I say that to no particular individual but to the whole House. Let us hear the Minister.
Maria Miller
I suppose that I should remind the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) that he supported a Government who closed 28 factories. What is inexcusable is that his Government did absolutely nothing on tracking to establish how to put in place the right support for individuals affected by their decisions. The simple truth is that as a result of the Labour party’s approach, the factories have lost £225 million since 2008. That is money that we should have been using to support more disabled people into work, and that is at the heart of our proposals today.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before the Minister replies, I seek confirmation from the right hon. Lady that she was not suggesting the Minister misled her here in the Chamber.
Mr Speaker
No. We are grateful for that confirmation. The Minister will have heard the question, and she can answer.
Maria Miller
And I can say to you, Mr Speaker, that I would never want to mislead the right hon. Lady at all, here or in any other place. I would gently bring to her attention the fact that there are 37 disabled people employed in the Aberdare factory. The loss at that factory last year was £800,000, and that is against an estimated 13,600 disabled people in Cynon Valley who are of working age. Does she not believe that we should be doing more to support those individuals? The proposals in today’s statement will do just that.
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)
I have to say that once again I find myself in disagreement with my coalition colleagues on this matter. Can the Minister give an assurance that those companies that are not—[Interruption.] I have to apologise, Mr Speaker: that was a call from the Remploy factory. Can the Minister give an assurance that there will be sufficient help to enable—[Interruption.]
Mr Hancock
May I seek an assurance from the Minister that those factories that are happily not up for closure at present will be given all sorts of assistance? I would also like her to give an indication, if she can this evening, of what help will be given to those Remploy operations to stay in business. Does she also accept that some people employed by Remploy—many in my constituency have been there for 10 or 15 years—will find it difficult to find other employment?
Oral Answers to Questions
John Bercow Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
T4. My constituent Vicki Gilbert relies on the disability living allowance mobility component, which gets her the blue parking badge she needs to go about her daily life. Despite the fact that she is an amputee with no possibility of recovery, she has been forced to go through periodic reassessment, and because of the backlog she has had to wait five weeks without a blue parking badge. Does the Minister agree that the process is superfluous in such situations, and will she look at this issue so that others in similar circumstances do not have to wait for their badge?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
I know that blue badges are incredibly important for disabled people in getting out and about and I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), is looking into the issues to do with blue badges, and I will make sure that he is aware of the comments that have been made.
Chris Grayling
We support any sensible measures to tackle youth unemployment, because it is a challenge for all of us. The hon. Gentleman needs to answer this question: why is his hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) chairing a protest movement that is designed to stop young people getting the work experience opportunities that would get them into work and do the right thing for them?
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will not be answering anything now in the Chamber and is under no obligation to do so, but I know that the Prime Minister looks forward to doing so after his statement.
Welfare Reform Bill
John Bercow Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that financial privilege is involved in all the Lords amendments. If the House agrees to the amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.
Clause 11
Housing costs
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 3B, and Lords amendment 26B.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That this House does not insist on its amendment 19A, and agrees with Lords amendments 17B to 17D and 19B.
That this House agrees with Lords amendment 73BA.
Chris Grayling
If I may, I shall deal first with amendments 17B to 17D and 19B, on employment and support allowance time-limiting, and amendment 73BA, on child maintenance. The Government wish to accept these amendments.
Amendments 17B to 17D and 19B do not change the Government’s existing policy on the time-limiting of contributory ESA. The limit will remain at 365 days for those in the work-related activity group and will take effect from April 2012. I believe that the limit strikes an appropriate balance between the needs of sick and disabled people and the interests of taxpayers who contribute towards the cost. It will make a significant contribution to reducing the fiscal deficit, which I remind hon. Members once again is the most pressing priority facing the coalition Government. We estimate that the one-year time limit will reduce expenditure by £1 billion a year by 2014-15.
We have listened carefully over the course of the debate, however. The amendments would allow a future Government, if they could identify an appropriate funding source, to increase the length of the time limit by order rather than further primary legislation. We have considered that and decided that it is a sensible and appropriate use of an order-making power and we are happy to accept the amendments.
Amendment 73BA clarifies some of the powers introduced by the previous Government under the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 and gives examples of the provisions that may be made under regulations. I should stress again that it does not imply any change to our proposed policies on charging. Specifically, I highlight the fact that we maintain our commitment to a maximum application charge of £20 and to collection charges within the ranges set out in the January 2011 Green Paper.
On Report in the Lords, we committed to undertake a review of the charging policy 30 months after the implementation of the powers, to understand their effect and impact. The amendment clarifies that if changes to our approach are required following that review, we will have the ability to make them. Although our core proposals on charging remain the same, the amendment ensures that in future—particularly following our review—we will be able to change the charging regime, with specific reference to apportionment and waivers, if we deem such changes to be necessary.
I shall deal now with housing, where I am afraid we do not agree with Lords amendments 3B and 26B. As you indicated, Mr Speaker, the amendments infringe the financial privileges of this House, and if they are rejected that will be the reason given to the House of Lords.
Let me first ensure that the House is clear about the financial implications of the amendments. We know about the big financial challenges we face. Since we last debated the Bill, Moody’s has placed the UK’s triple A credit rating on negative outlook and made it clear that the Government’s strategy is necessary to retain the credibility of our nation in the international financial arena. That is not a context in which we can relax public spending. We made it perfectly clear on 1 February, when we last considered Lords amendments, that the earlier amendments, which could cost around £300 million a year, were unaffordable. The Government’s response to amendments costing £100 million, as these new amendments would, is no different.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before the Minister of State responds, may I remind the House that we have only an hour for Lords amendments? After the Minister, there is another Front-Bench speech. There are Back Benchers who wish to speak, so I exhort colleagues who are intervening to remember that they should do so briefly.
Chris Grayling
Indeed, Mr Speaker, and I shall try to be as rapid as I can for that reason.
It would be all too easy to bow to pressure to backtrack on these reforms, but we will not do that for precisely the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). There is a real problem of people in temporary accommodation, and we also have about a million spare rooms being funded by housing benefit. We must sort out the situation and solve the problem to which he rightly refers. These reforms are designed to do that.
Mr Speaker
We are extremely grateful to the Minister of State for concluding so pithily, and I am deeply obliged to him for doing so entirely when I expected him to.
Stephen Lloyd
I would welcome a response from the Minister on that issue.
To go back to disabled people and adjustments to their homes, I would like some detail from the Government as to exactly how they will meet that challenge, because clearly it makes no sense to move someone out after their home has been adapted to the tune of thousands of pounds.
Thirdly, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that there is enough housing stock when 2013 comes around? We have a year before that happens, so I would be interested to hear the Government’s plan. Last but not least, what plans are the coalition Government making, prior to implementation, to work with local authorities and housing associations in advance of April 2013 to ensure that the changes are made in a sensible and productive manner? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reassurances in response to those four important questions.
Mr Speaker
Before I call the next speaker, let me point out to the House that the Minister is being asked quite a lot of questions—which is absolutely fine—and if the House wants to hear the answers, I think he will need five minutes to provide them.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I agree with all the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, with the exception of the Minister.
As I understand it, the Government’s justification for prosecuting the bedroom tax against even very vulnerable people is that it will free up social housing and relieve the shortage. If that is the case, someone in a constituency such as mine—where 8,000 people are on the waiting list with no possibility of being housed in the private sector because of costs—should welcome such provisions. However, we know, because no alternative properties are available, that this is in fact simply a cost-saving measure. As for the idea of a property being empty for 20 years, as the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) described, properties are not empty for 20 minutes in Hammersmith before they are snapped up.
Everything that this Government are doing, whether it be the cuts to the social housing grant, the changes to affordable rents—I should say that the affordable rent at 80% of the open market value of a four-bedroom property in Hammersmith would require an income of £96,000 a year—the changes in homelessness legislation or the provisions of the Localism Act 2011, weakens the security and provision of social housing. What we are discussing is another measure to make social tenants second-class citizens and social tenants on benefit third-class citizens.
If I may do so in just one minute, I would like to give as an example my own local authority—a Conservative-controlled local authority and the favoured local authority of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. In the last two weeks it has given approval for more than 3,000 new houses to be built. Not one of those 3,000 properties will be a new social home for rent; rather, they are replacing 750 good-quality homes, which are in the process of being demolished, so we are already seeing downsizing at work. The authority received £100 million for that demolition from the property developer and another £100 million was received for selling off 300 good-quality social homes on the open market by auction, and it is building 25 new council homes. However, even though those council homes are on estates and will be low-cost homes that therefore could be rented, they will all be for private sale.
Welfare Reform Bill
John Bercow Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in a substantial number of Lords amendments. If the House agrees to these amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.
Clause 51
Period of entitlement to contributory allowance
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 15.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Lords amendment 17, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 18, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 19, and Government amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendment 23, and Government motion to disagree.
Chris Grayling
Throughout the process of the Bill in both this House and the other place, we have listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised. We have taken them on board wherever possible and provided important clarifications on the Government’s position and responses to technical concerns. However, let us be clear that we stand firmly behind the aims and detail of our reforms.
As you indicated, Mr Speaker, Lords amendments 15, 17, 18 and 23 impinge on the financial privileges of this House. I ask the House to disagree to those amendments, and I will ask the Reasons Committee to ascribe financial privilege as the reason for doing so. It cannot be denied that we are in extremely difficult financial times, and that the Government have no choice but to take measures to address the situation. Tackling the unsustainable rise in spending on benefits and tax credits, as part of the Government’s overall deficit reduction strategy, is undeniably important. However, I emphasise that the affordability of the welfare system is just one objective of the reforms being introduced in the Bill.
We are making principled reforms that will finally tackle the trap of welfare dependency. Universal credit will ensure that work always pays, lifting 900,000 individuals out of poverty, including more than 350,000 children and about 550,000 working-age adults. The Bill will also deliver fairness for claimants and for the taxpayers who fund the system. We will discuss the benefit cap in the next group of Lords amendments, but it is clearly not fair, for example, that households on out-of-work benefits should receive a greater income from benefits than the average earnings of working households. Finally, our reforms will radically simplify the system, ensuring that it is easier for claimants to understand and for staff to administer. Hon. Members should be clear that those are vital principles, of which financial considerations are only one part.
I turn specifically to the provisions on employment and support allowance that are dealt with by this group of amendments. I shall set out the Government’s full rationale for rejecting the Lords amendments. First, Lords amendment 15 was simply a paving amendment that had no effect. Lords amendment 17 would increase the time limit for claimants receiving contributory ESA in the work-related activity group from the proposed 365 days to a minimum of 730 days, which would have to be prescribed in regulations.
Mr Speaker
Order. It is clear that at the moment, the Minister is not giving way. It is for her to decide whether to give way. I gently make the point that it is now four minutes to 6 and the debate must conclude at 7. If Members were to have the opportunity neither to make their points through interventions nor through speeches, I would anticipate an extensive disappointment. I am sure that the Minister will factor that into her calculations in tailoring her contribution to the debate.
Maria Miller
I reassure you, Mr Speaker, that I will make the rest of my contribution very brief indeed.
The average weekly reduction is likely to be about £14. However, that is the average. Nearly 80% of claimants are under-occupying their accommodation by just one bedroom and will see an average reduction of about £12 a week. Working for just a few hours a week could help to meet that cost. The substantial investment that we are making in the Work programme and universal credit will ensure that people are supported in finding work, and that that work will pay.
We have listened to the concerns about the impact that these changes will have on specific groups, so we have committed to increase the budget for discretionary housing payments by £30 million from 2013-14. That additional money, which could help about 40,000 claimants, is aimed specifically at disabled people and accommodation for foster carers. We are working closely with a wide range of stakeholders to ensure that we have an effective implementation plan that will support tenants, their advisers and housing providers.
Ultimately, the country cannot afford to fund what is approaching 1 million spare rooms from the taxes of hardworking families, when those spare rooms could be used by other families who are living in overcrowded accommodation.
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
I will not follow the same order as the Minister. I will deal first with under-occupancy, because rarely have I heard such a pathetic defence of a Government’s position as I have heard here today. Their proposals are not based on fairness, and they are not intended to deal with the under-occupation of social housing. They are a bare-faced attempt to cut housing benefit.
Sir Bob Russell
Does the right hon. Lady agree that successive Labour and Conservative Governments—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. That is not acceptable. The hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) should not shout across the Chamber, “My grandfather lived in a council house, you twit.” She should apologise. Frankly, she and other Members need to calm down. There is a decorum to this place. I know the hon. Lady. She would not behave like that across the dinner table, and she will not behave like that in this Chamber. That is the end of it. I hope we have an apology.
Sir Bob Russell
Successive Labour and Conservative Governments from 1945 to 1980 built a massive supply of family council houses, but for the next 30 years, they did not. It is a question of supply and demand. Does the right hon. Lady agree that we need more affordable rented houses?
Maria Miller
I thank the right hon. Lady. It is very gracious of her to give way so that I can clarify matters. She will obviously be aware of the new national home swap scheme, which, importantly, will help people to identify housing in other areas, which is what she is talking about. We are also providing funding to councils of some £13 million over the next four years so that they can support under-occupying tenants who wish to move.
The right hon. Lady will also know that there is a great deal of commitment from the Government in terms of helping to build affordable housing: some £4.5 billion will help to deliver up to 170,000 new affordable homes. Those are all ways in which we can make the sort of changes that she wants. Just to clarify, as a lady who was born in a council house—
Mr Speaker
Order. This really is an abuse. It is a novelty, in my experience, for a Minister to intervene from the Front Bench reading from a folder. That really will not do. Interventions should be brief, and it would be good if the House—both sides—could get back into the courteous mood in which it found itself yesterday and for part of today.
Mrs McGuire
I listened to what the hon. Lady said, but she has obviously had no experience of trying to arrange a mutual swap in a small local authority area. We will have not only mutual swaps in small local authority areas, but national swaps, all supported by some anonymous Government agency. Frankly, the hon. Lady is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Mr Speaker
Order. Let me just make it clear. It is obvious that the shadow Minister is not giving way at the moment. On the Government side, during my time in the Chair since 5.30, there was a preference—on the whole—not to give way to Opposition Members and that is now being replicated by the right hon. Lady. Members may make what they like of that, but there is nothing disorderly about it. It is no good people yelling from a sedentary position to express their frustrations. They must try to contain those frustrations, which I notice the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) is now successfully doing.
Mrs McGuire
Thank you for your wise words, Mr Speaker.
We welcome the reduction that the Minister announced today, and for the record, we welcomed in the other place the additional funding of £20 million that was going to be put in to encourage—
Anna Soubry
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you help me? If a Member asks a question of the whole House, how does one respond to that question other than by asking that Member to give way?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady is asking me to speculate about a hypothetical. We could probably have a seminar about the matter, and it might be instructive. There could be a time for that, but it is not now. I feel sure that the hon. Lady has raised not a point of order, but a point of disappointment.
Mrs McGuire
I always hate to disappoint Tories, Mr Speaker.
The Minister mentioned some concessions, but it remains an unfair imposition on parents with caring responsibilities to make them pay a fee to obtain, in her words, a calculation of what they may be entitled to. The Government are always keen to say that people should do the right thing, but what happens when they try to do the right thing and adopt a collaborative approach? Frankly, all the evidence shows that a collaborative approach is often the last thing that people can get when a marriage breaks down—all sorts of issues to do with personalities, emotions and children being part of the bartering process between two parents make that almost impossible.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Bercow Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Byrne
Perhaps I can help the Secretary of State: the truth is that over the course of this Parliament—over four years—the housing benefit bill is set to rise by an extraordinary £4 billion. We do not want, on top of that, another bill for council tax payers—a bill to clean up the cost of homelessness. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has already warned us that 20,000 people will be made homeless as a result of the way in which the cap will be introduced, and this morning, the Department for Work and Pensions published an impact statement that puts up the number of families who will be affected by the cap by a third. It is almost as if the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is making the policy up as he goes along. I hope that this afternoon he will accept Labour’s safeguards against a new risk of homelessness. If he dismisses that risk—if he wants to be so glib about it—why does he not accept the amendment this afternoon? If he does not, we will support the lord bishops’ amendment to safeguard against a new bill for council tax payers. That is the way that we will get this vote—
Mr Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman has had his say, and we are most grateful to him.
Mr Duncan Smith
First, I do not accept the bishops’ amendment, because of course it would raise the cap on the level of income to roughly £50,000; it would be rather pointless having a cap set so high that nobody could ever hit it. Interestingly, I have just had an e-mail from a vicar, who wondered why the bishops fail to recognise that he is paid only £22,000 a year. He wonders why they are getting excited about £26,000 being a poverty-level figure. As regards housing benefit, let me remind the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) that we are saving £2 billion a year; housing benefit doubled under him.
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind right hon. and hon. Members, in the light of the extensive interest in topical questions, that topical questions and answers need to be brief. Let us be collegiate towards each other.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
T2. The benefits bill this year will be some £15 billion higher than in the last year of the Labour Government, and that costs about £600 per family per year. What will the Government do to cut unemployment, which is what is pushing up the benefits bill so fast?
Mr Duncan Smith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The cap is fair and popular, and it helps to put right the welfare system that we inherited, which is in a mess and is trapping people in dependency when we could free them. My hon. Friend is right that the Opposition position is ludicrous. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) has taken more different positions on the issue than a Jane Fonda work-out.
Mr Speaker
I call Mr Jim Cunningham, not necessarily on the subject of work-outs, but on whatever appeals to him.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
May I ask the Minister whether employers can still take a pensions contributions holiday and, if so, how many?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues. There is a great deal of interest, but we must now move on.