Valedictory Debate
Stephen Hammond Excerpts(6 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you so much for allowing me the honour of speaking this afternoon. I start by thanking you, and your fellow Deputy Speaker, for all your service to this House. May I also thank Mr Speaker for the kindness that he has shown me over so many years?
It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones). We came into the House at the same time, and as he suggested, he and I probably have different views on what he regards as his greatest triumph. It is also a great privilege to follow my great friend, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), although there was one moment when I thought I was not his friend. When I had the honour to be Parliamentary Private Secretary to Eric Pickles, he said to me one morning, “Will you come in on Friday, Stephen, there’s a meeting I want you to attend?” It was a particularly tricky negotiation with the Fire Brigades Union. Bob opened the meeting. He then said “I have brought along the PPS to the Secretary of State today. Stephen, what would the Secretary of State like to say?” at which point I was completely blindsided—a bit like with much of his cross-examination.
I realise that as I stand here today it is 19 years and five days after my maiden speech in this House. I was elected on 5 May and I spoke on the 19th. I said then, and I still believe, that Wimbledon, combined with Raynes Park, Motspur Park and Morden, is the best place in the world to live. We have a unique suburban village, a revitalised town centre, and a business community which I described then as “lively” but which is now vibrant.
The tech sector in Wimbledon is thriving and home to many brilliant companies, but I think particularly of various companies such as Rockborne and a med tech company which is changing the way we can treat arthritis. Wimbledon has many small businesses and is often portrayed as a leafy suburb, but the reality is that as many people commute into Wimbledon as commute out. I still believe it to be the best place to live and it has been an honour to represent it.
Since announcing I was standing down, I have found people say, “What is your greatest achievement while in Parliament?” I suspect all colleagues here can think of a few. I am particularly proud of the fact that I have been part of a Government who have transformed school standards across Britain. That gives life opportunities and life chances that were not there before. I was very pleased to be PPS to the inspirational Eric Pickles and it was a great honour to serve with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) in his team as a Minister of State.
But what I particularly remember was a visit on 13 May 2005 when I held my first surgery. A constituent came to that surgery as the flat above had flooded her flat. For six months she had wanted for a piece of carpet to replace the carpet that had been taken away. That piece of carpet cost £77. She came to me as her last resort: she had been to Citizens Advice and to the local council; she had phoned her local councillor. I took up the issue with the council and two weeks later a cheque for £77 arrived.
That is actually a part of my proudest achievement: the service that I and my team have given to thousands of people. We should never forget that, when we are here in this place, there is the excitement, the pressure, the gossip, the chance to have a drink with a friend, but it is our work and help to our constituents that changes their lives.
I believe that we act as the advocate for our constituents against authority in the widest sense of the word. We should never forget that, for that is the power of good. I was saying something similar on the Iain Dale show about two years ago. Valerie from Wimbledon phoned in and said “Stephen Hammond is a wonderful MP; he is really great for the local community.” Iain Dale said, “Well I’m sure he’s pleased to hear that.” She said, “I doubt it, I’m a Labour voter and I’m never going to vote for him.”
But actually that is the whole point. Once we are here, we are here to represent all our constituents. We would like them all to vote for us but we know not all of them will. For those colleagues who are going out on the fight, I say, “Remember that, go out and fight for every vote, for you know not where it may come and it may well serve you in time.”
I think of a lot of things that I have heard in this Chamber today, and I am pleased to have sat through so many wonderful speeches. One thing that I think is important is that as Members of Parliament we should remember compassion. What we do and how we help is hugely valuable. It is a bit like what my great friend, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, said: centre-right, compassionate conservatism is the way forward for our party, and it is the way back for our party to Government.
I particularly remember a constituent who came to me a few years ago. His wife had given birth to a child in Greece about 13 or 14 weeks premature. She was airlifted back to St George’s via various methods. Her son was treated at the wonderful neonatal unit at St George’s that I have had the pleasure and honour of visiting several times. I met that constituent a few years later.
I have been proud to campaign for summer born children. I believe that summer born children have the right to start school a little later; that improves their lives and life chances. It makes them happier, more confident, more academically successful and more likely to achieve their real potential in life. I am grateful to successive Ministers at the Department for Education, who have listened and changed the guidance to local councils at least three times. Although that is not law, it is now guidance—and up and down the country summer born children have benefited.
Over the 19 years, much about this place has remained constant. As many colleagues have reflected, there is still the camaraderie of friendship and the wisdom and knowledge of colleagues. To be fair, I also remember that on my first two days in the House two colleagues, meaning very well, told me how to run my constituency office and organise myself. Their versions were completely contradictory. What that tells all of us in this place is that the camaraderie binds us, but we each represent individual and different constituencies. I have always believed that everyone in this House, of whatever political colour, comes here for the right reasons. All too often, people forget that we are in this for the right reasons and although, as some colleagues have reflected today, politicians are maligned, what we do in this place for our constituents is important. Almost everybody I have met has come here for the right reasons.
The role of MPs has changed dramatically. When I arrived, there was a postbag every day; now I am lucky if I get one letter. But I do get well over 100 emails every day, which bring huge expectancy of a faster and greater response. Yet the reality is that sometimes the local council, the housing authority and—dare I say it—even Government Departments frustrate our ability to provide that for constituents. We also have a much greater local role than ever before. That is hugely important, but we should not forget that we are elected to this place to contribute to national life as well. In playing that important local role, we must remember that we are here to scrutinise and hold Governments to account. That is becoming increasingly important since we left the European Union because there is a greater burden of scrutiny on this House.
I join several colleagues in mentioning that the coarseness of political discourse is a concern and should be not just for the future but particularly for the next six weeks. People should, if possible, talk about hope and the sunny uplands and what they want to do for their constituents, rather than badmouthing opponents. Remember that they are in this for the right reasons.
I am pleased to see that the Government have made some real steps forward on social media, but some actors on social media still engender political hate. We must remain vigilant against that. Like so many colleagues, I would like to use this Oscar moment to say a few thank yous. I thank the Clerks and the Doorkeepers, and the police and security men who keep us safe. Many colleagues have commented on the wonderful people in the Tea Room. I think that I should acknowledge the people in the Pugin Room, who always used to say, “Ah, Mr Hammond—white Burgundy, family size.” I always seem to arrive.
I have been fortunate to have a wonderful political Conservative association in Wimbledon. I thank all my friends there. I recognise, like so many colleagues, that we are here only because we are part of a team—this is the Conservative team—and what I do for my constituents is because of the team of people I have. Over the years, the team has included Jerry Sherman, Ben Carleton Jones, Charlie McClelland, Alice Hopkinson, Paul Holmes—I can say that, even though he is now my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh—
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
That must have been a dark time in your office.
Stephen Hammond
May I gently advise the deputy Chief Whip of that when he is thinking about future Government appointments? Jay Crush, Miles Jordan and Louise Stevens have also worked with me and put in extraordinary efforts.
As ever, my biggest thanks, like those of so many here, are to my family: to my wife, who is looking after her father today; and to my daughter, who is in the Gallery. No one could have wished for a more supportive family. They went through the ups and downs—mainly downs in my case— of political life and put up with it so tolerantly.
Finally, I thank the people of Wimbledon, who for the past 19 years have put their trust in me to represent them here, to serve their interests and to look after them in this House. It has been a huge and extraordinary privilege to be a Member of this place for 19 years. As I go, I do so, like many, with regrets that I am going, but it the right time to pass on the torch. I am hugely privileged and thankful for having had the opportunity to be here for so long.
Budget Resolutions
Stephen Hammond Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Again, I hope we will not have my right hon. Friend’s welcome ambition to reduce national insurance traduced in the way that it has been. I do not think we will get very far by continuing that argument. Indeed, you will probably reprimand me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I go too far down that rabbit hole.
I was going on to say that it is not just workers, through the reduction in national insurance, who will benefit from this Budget, because of course pensioners will too. Pensioners will see a significant increase in their pension through the triple lock of a huge 8.5% this year. Together with the enormous rise in the personal income allowance that we have introduced over the years, from £8,500 to £12,500, that will affect not only those on the basic state pension but also those who earn a little bit of income on top. They will see that our measures have considerably benefited the amount that they receive in their pocket.
Moving on to our commitment to families, we recognise the importance of easing the financial strain, especially for parents. I have listened closely to those constituents in the Cotswolds who have contacted me about how they have had to tighten their purses since the covid pandemic, when so many found their work interrupted, as well as about the cost of food and energy price rises in the years following. People in rural areas will be particularly pleased to see another freeze on fuel duty, because they rely very much on having to use their cars.
I am pleased that the threshold for the high-income child benefit charge has risen from £50,000 to £60,000. It will directly impact nearly 500,000 families, providing an average boost of £1,300 per household, empowering families and ensuring that every child has the support they need to flourish. I welcome the British ISA, which allows for a £5,000 investment. It should have been more. I also welcome the incentivisation of nuclear investment assets. Rather than hitting savers, we bolster economic resilience and pave the way for a brighter future for generations to come. I welcome the disclosure moves for local government pensions that will encourage investment in UK infrastructure projects.
Our commitment to families and businesses remains unwavering, from child benefit to increasing VAT registration from £85,000 to £90,000. That should have been more, but it will help a number of businesses.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
One of the key measures yesterday, alongside what happened in the autumn statement, was the extension of full expensing relief to leased assets, which will drive up growth. Growth is now even tracked. As a percentage of GDP, business investment is now the highest it has been for many years, substantially higher than in the whole time Labour was in power.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Chancellor’s announcement in the autumn statement of £10 billion for full business expensing was one of the most important economic announcements of this entire Conservative Government. He is trying to address the problem of leasing that my hon. Friend just asked about. That is contained in the Red Book and the Chancellor is now looking at that important piece, so I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention.
Before I turn to public sector productivity, let me put it in context. Paragraph 2.14 is one of the most important paragraphs in the Red Book. It says that over the next 25 years, growth will be at 1.7% but spending will be at 2.5%. That is unsustainable and every Government in the next 25 years will have to address that. When average growth is 1.7% and health spending in modern, civilised countries like ours is growing at 4%, that too is unsustainable. So we have to do something to address public sector productivity.
From my role as Deputy Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I know that one of the quickest and easiest ways to deal with that is to increase the use of digital methods, as the Committee found when we visited Denmark. The Danes have their health service properly digitalised and they are a long way ahead of the NHS. Everything from booking patient appointments, patient experience in hospitals, procurement of equipment and medicine, and everything to do with the health service is digitalised. It works incredibly efficiently. That is why I welcome the £3.4 billion for NHS digitalisation. Such investment in productivity can yield huge dividends in future outputs.
It is not just in the health service where digitalisation can have an impact. The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is currently consulting on a relatively small investment in the digitalisation of the planning system. Every business, everywhere, wanting to do anything, complains about the slowness of the planning system and that local authorities do not have enough planning officers. Digitalisation will cut some of the bureaucracy for planning officers, allowing them to take better and quicker decisions. It will help productivity enormously and have a huge knock-on effect for businesses.
As I promised the Minister, I will now turn to tax-free shopping—he would be disappointed if I did not mention this subject as there was disappointment that there was very little mention of it in the Budget. There is a small mention in the Red Book and the OBR has produced a separate report, which I will come to shortly. In the debate on the autumn statement, in response to an intervention I made, the Chancellor said:
“We changed policy on this issue a year ago because it cost around £2.5 billion a year and we did not think we could afford to continue it, but we are looking again at the numbers in the light of the most recent data and we can see what has happened to comparative shops in Paris and Milan. We will review this to see if it is still that expensive, and I hope that it is not.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 349.]
Yesterday’s OBR review was not a full review. All it did was review its very limited 2020 forecast and its own figures, with no reference to how badly the UK is performing relative to our continental competitors. The OBR made no mention of the costs and benefits to the Exchequer of extending the scheme to EU visitors, and the OBR has never been asked to look at that.
I give the Government credit where credit is due. We have a new doctrine in the OBR, and it starts to address some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) was making. The Chancellor said that
“if we reduced the higher 28% rate that exists for residential property, we would in fact increase revenues because there would be more transactions. For the first time in history, both the Treasury and the OBR have discovered their inner Laffer curve.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2024; Vol. 746, c. 849.]
If they can do it for the cut in capital gains tax, why can they not do it for the reintroduction of the tourist tax?
I will acquaint the House with one or two figures, because I have some figures for what is going on in the real-world economy. If the Minister will bear with me, I am not sure the Treasury is truly taking them into account. When he and the House hear the figures, they will begin to think we should be investing in this. First, let me refer to two independent reports. One is the well-respected and well-renowned forecasting by Oxford Economics, which predicted that restoring VAT RES—the VAT retail export scheme or, colloquially, the tourist tax—could increase GDP by £6 billion. Another report predicted £7 billion. We are dealing with huge stuff here, and a potential huge benefit, so I cannot see why the Government will not at least do a proper study.
We know from our figures that British businesses lost out by £1.5 billion in 2022 and by even more in 2023. The measure would benefit many of our big retailers, hospitality venues, airports and cultural destinations, particularly tourist destinations, such as the Cotswolds. The report also shows that Britain is losing out on a £10 billion EU market, and that the measure would give the Exchequer a net benefit of £500 million in VAT alone.
The figures on how we compare with our competitors are stark. In 2022, spending by American visitors to Britain was at 101% of the pre-covid level of 2019, but guess what? In France, it was 226%. In Spain, it was 206%. In Italy, it was 190% of pre-covid levels, as compared with our level pegging with the situation pre-covid. This is big stuff, and I cannot understand why the Treasury will not study it properly. In 2022, spending by visitors from the Gulf Co-operation Council states in Britain was only at 65% of 2019 levels, but it was 198% in France, 158% in Spain and 166% in Italy. Those are not my figures, but figures from real traders that have given the Association of International Retail their actual figures audited from their books. They are not made up. I gently suggest that the Chancellor and the industry—industry would fund it, if necessary—jointly commission a proper independent study into the full impact of tax- free shopping on British businesses, the economy and the Exchequer, so that we can have a real evidence-based decision on this huge and important area. Will the Chancellor meet me and industry representatives to discuss it further?
I am delighted that we have seen inflation fall from 11.1% to 4%. Wages are rising, mortgage rates are starting to fall and interest rates will hopefully fall towards the latter end of this year. It has been a tough few years. Pandemics and wars cause economic strains that few countries have managed to avoid. I was vocal last year on rising energy and food prices, which are a regressive cost hitting low earners the most. I am pleased now to see the cost of living easing.
The people of The Cotswolds want to see their hard work pay, the innovation of small and medium-sized businesses encouraged, and public services such as schools and the NHS well funded but operating efficiently. However, those services can improve only if our economy is strong and thriving and the UK is seen as the best place to do business. That is why I am so pleased that yesterday my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s Budget covered so many world-leading sectors, including the creative economy, unicorns, artificial intelligence, and the financial and pharmaceutical sectors. We have much to be proud of in so many sectors, and the Chancellor did a lot yesterday to encourage every single one of those businesses, with their innovation and energy. I commend his Budget.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Hammond Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
The Prime Minister has asked me to review the matter of economic inactivity, and the results of that review will be shared with the House shortly.
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter, which of course is well known to the Chancellor and Treasury colleagues. We have a variety of discussions with the Treasury on those kinds of matters and others. Of course, tax policy is a matter for the Treasury.
Stephen Hammond
I commend my right hon. Friend for the work that the Department is doing to try to reduce economic inactivity. He will know that many of the over-50s moving out of employment and into economic inactivity are concentrated in the self-employed and part-time workforces. Can he confirm that his review will look at measures to bring those people back into the workforce?
Mel Stride
I can reassure my hon. Friend that we are most certainly looking carefully at that particular cohort of people who have prematurely retired—if I may use that term—and are over the age of 50. It is one of the biggest cohorts that we are trying to encourage back into the workforce, and I will have more to say on that matter in due course.
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman is prejudging an awful lot of potential outcomes. He should wait until the Chancellor and I have taken those particular decisions. I am focused on a variety of metrics. Life expectancy is one of them, as is regional impact. The fiscal impact certainly cannot be ignored, and I would be surprised if he suggested otherwise. Fairness between generations and the period of life in which one is expected to be healthy in later years are also important considerations.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Pensions
Stephen Hammond Excerpts(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
John Cridland looked at exactly those issues and concluded that the divergence within the regions and nations on this matter was greater than the divergence between them. However, if the Scottish Government believe that there should be more support from the state for those approaching retirement age, they will have the power to provide it. If they wish to provide that support in Scotland—effectively, providing support a year or two years earlier than in the rest of the United Kingdom—they have the power to do that. I would not particularly advise them to do it, but that is their decision, and I really do not think there is a complaint to be raised with the UK Government on that front.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his statement. He is right to be tackling the issues of intergenerational fairness, but retirement is not about the state alone. What other measures, alongside this one on intergenerational fairness, will he propose to ensure that younger people can save for their retirement alongside state provision?
Mr Gauke
One thing I would highlight, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) did a moment ago, is what we have done on auto-enrolment. That means 10 million more people saving for retirement, which is a huge step forward. I am delighted with the success of auto-enrolment—the very low opt-out rates—and that is one example of how the Government are ensuring that people will have a dignified retirement, but we must remember that the public finances need to be in good order as well.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Hammond Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Maria Miller
As the hon. Gentleman will know, there were problems with the system that we inherited. It was a harsh system, which we have been working hard to make work better, and I hope he will join us in supporting Professor Harrington’s work in this area, which is leaving us with a work capability assessment that better serves the people of this country.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
6. What recent assessment he has made of the benefits for jobseekers of undertaking work experience.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
11. What recent assessment he has made of the benefits for jobseekers of undertaking work experience.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
Early analysis shows that approximately half of participants are off benefit within 21 weeks of starting a work experience placement. I am delighted that, despite a campaign run by anarchists and members of the Labour party, just like hon. Gentlemen on the Benches opposite me, to try to blight the chances of these young people, employers continue to come forward to join this excellent scheme. Young people have overwhelmingly shown that they want this valuable experience by continuing to volunteer to do their part.
Stephen Hammond
It is good news that young people and people on work experience schemes come off them within 21 weeks. How does that compare with the new deal set up by the previous Government?
Mr Duncan Smith
It compares very favourably. First, it is better. Secondly, it costs a lot less. Labour paid huge sums of money up front, whereas we pay the jobseeker’s allowance. The key point is that not once has any Opposition Front-Bench Member got up to defend this work experience programme, which many of their colleagues attack and try to destroy.
Disability Benefits and Social Care
Stephen Hammond Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Byrne
I am grateful that the Secretary of State decided to temper his language, in contrast to the crass words that he used from a sedentary position.
The truth is that the housing benefit bill is spiralling out of control because this Government have strangled the recovery and put unemployment up to its highest level since 1996. There are now more than 1 million young people out of work, and long-term unemployment is up 10%. A third of the people on the dole have now been out of work for more than a year, because of the catastrophic failure of the Secretary of State’s back-to-work programme. That is why the dole bill and the housing benefit bill are going up. He should be ashamed of the record that he has presided over.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
And all that from the gentleman who left us the note to say that there was no money left! Would he like to correct a statement he made earlier? This Government have already recognised that some of the eligibility criteria and some of the testing will need to be changed. They have stated that they are open to those changes, so will he correct his statement on the record?
Mr Byrne
I will believe it when I see it. As for the fiscal position, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Chancellor had to confess to the House that he was borrowing £150 billion more than would have been needed under Labour’s plans.
The truth is that there is no plan to get disabled people back to work. The reform of ESA is being so botched that 40% of people are winning their appeals, and those appeals are costing us £50 million a year. Charity after charity is saying that the descriptors used in the work capability assessment are failing. This is the point about reform: if we introduce changes, we have to adapt. We have to be flexible, and move as we learn. This Government are not doing anything. The charity Mind has so little confidence in the Government’s ability to get the reforms right that it has resigned from the advisory group. The Royal National Institute for the Blind has told me that someone who is totally blind can be found fit for work and put straight on to jobseeker’s allowance. That is why our motion, which I hope the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) will support, calls for the right reform of the work capability assessment.
Comments reported in The Guardian say that the Secretary of State has been warned by his civil servants running job centres that people are being pushed to suicide by the botched reforms of employment and support allowance—a system that costs us £50 million a year and in which 40% of people are winning their appeals. How can that reform be right?
Stephen Hammond
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He is being very generous with his time. I assume that he will accept, in the interests of accuracy, that the level of the overall specialist disability employment budget is to remain at £320 million, and that in the last two years the Government have increased the Access to Work budget. I think that Members in all parts of the House accept Access to Work.
Maria Miller
Obviously, we will want to look into all such issues. The hon. Gentleman and I have already had a number of conversations about his factory, and I applaud the work he does in supporting disabled people in his community, but I should also draw his attention to the facts I gave him before: there are many thousands of other disabled people in his community whom I want to make sure are getting support, and our reform of Remploy will help to achieve precisely that.
Stephen Hammond
For the sake of accuracy, can the Minister confirm that there is a period of transitional benefits for anyone leaving a Remploy factory? Can she also confirm that last year Remploy employment services found work for 15,000 disabled people whose disabilities are similar to those of employees at Remploy factories?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend makes some important points, and we will ensure that support is in place for people affected by the announcements we are making. But what we are about is supporting thousands more disabled people into mainstream employment, and we have clear support for our approach from disabled people and from disabled people’s organisations.
Given that they had to be reminded, the Opposition seem to have forgotten that they closed 29 of these factories. The difference is that when they did that, little attempt was made to find any alternative buyers. Worse, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury did nothing to put in place a comprehensive support package for those made redundant. Perhaps that is why so many Labour Members know that in their own constituencies many of the people affected by the previous redundancies did not get back into work, and perhaps Labour Members should hold their previous Chief Secretary to account for that. We should contrast that with the £8 million package of support that this Government are putting in place. That shows the importance that we attach to the measure.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Hammond Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
As the hon. Lady will know, exemptions are already in place for the most vulnerable people, and those will continue. The package of reforms set out in the spending review, particularly the introduction of the universal credit, will make a huge difference to women on some of the lowest incomes, particularly lone parents seeking to get back into work. The credit will make that journey much easier and mean that they are better off going back to work than they would otherwise have been.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
16. What assessment he has made of the likely contribution of the proposed universal credit to his Department’s objective of encouraging people to work.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I just gave.
Stephen Hammond
I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend’s previous answer. Given the benefits for so many of the introduction of the universal credit, what chance is there that the Government might be able to accelerate its introduction beyond the 2017 time scale currently announced?
Mr Duncan Smith
I will resist the temptation to accelerate anything. I simply say to my hon. Friend that the plan we have put in place allows us to spend the right amount of time making sure that we are integrating those on the current benefits correctly and that we are not making any mistakes. We do not plan to accelerate that, but clearly we hope that this process will go smoothly—we believe it will. That is the most important thing.