Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Lloyd Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

We sometimes hear enough fake news in this Chamber, but it is disappointing to see the former leader of the SNP employed by a purveyor of fake news, even if we welcome employment opportunities in the round.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

T9. Universal credit is proving to be a real challenge for self-employed people as it fails to account for fluctuations in income from one month to another, meaning that many are losing out on hundreds of pounds of benefits. This is totally counter to the aspirational vision of universal credit that the Government preach, so will the Minister commit to immediately reviewing the benefit’s suitability for the self-employed and fixing this anomaly?

[Damian Hinds]

On the contrary, universal credit specifically responds each month to what a person’s earnings have been in that month. That is at the heart of its design. We want to help people in self-employment to grow their earnings and to ensure that they have sustainable remunerative work, so we have introduced a programme within the new enterprise allowance to help people to do just that.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Stephen Lloyd Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams]

No, I do not.

It is so important to stress that half of those in rent arrears under universal credit entered arrears after making a claim. We know that one in four is waiting more than six weeks, and one in 10 is waiting more than 10 weeks.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

There are 1.5 million people on housing benefit in the private rental sector, and private landlords do not have the flexibility or even the patience of housing associations and councils. Does the hon. Lady agree that if 50% of the 1.5 million people who will ultimately be on universal credit lose their homes, it would be an absolute catastrophe?

[Debbie Abrahams]

We know the real issues involved in the housing crisis at the moment, so the hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point.

The Government claim that the purpose of making payments once a month in arrears is to mimic the world of work, but that is not the case. Data published just yesterday by the Office for National Statistics shows that a quarter of the lowest-paid—those most likely to be on universal credit—are paid every week or fortnightly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) has said, given that nearly 400,000 more people are due to go on to universal credit over the winter, at this rate 80,000 people will be waiting more than six weeks for a payment, with 40,000 people waiting more than 10 weeks for their first payment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

What I was going to come to was why I do not think it is right to pause the roll-out. One of the important aspects of the roll-out is the housing portal which will enable social housing landlords in the first instance to communicate with the Department to deal with tenants when there are rent issues. If we were to pause the roll-out, the Department would not have an opportunity to deal with the real issues that are raised, and to fix them.

[Stephen Lloyd]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Harper]

I am going to make some progress. I have only a couple of minutes left.

The Minister has been very clear today, and, like the Secretary of State last week, he has listened carefully to the issues that have been raised and, I think, has dealt with them. If we just paused, we would not have the opportunity to deal with any of those issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, which serves to show that there are some inconsistencies in the Opposition’s argument against universal credit.

The Government are doing a gradual roll-out, so that testing can take place, and they are then able to modify the implementation based on what is learned from the experience of the practical implementation of the scheme. As Ministers have made clear, claimants who cannot afford to wait can get advances up front. These payments are made straight away. The Opposition are irresponsibly scaremongering in an attempt to frighten existing and potential claimants, and trying to negatively portray the universal credit system as a bad thing, rather than talking about the benefits to the people of this country.

[Stephen Lloyd]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I will not give way at the moment.

The Opposition are scaremongering rather than talking about the benefits of universal credit in helping people move into work and making it easier for claimants in the long run. Universal credit is a good step forward in how benefits are delivered to the people who need them. Claimants who need these advance payments because of their particular circumstances will receive advances within five days, which is quicker than for new claimants applying for the old jobseeker’s allowance.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Stephen Lloyd Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

rose—

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I apologise, but I am about to conclude.

Universal credit is the single biggest change to the welfare system. Those who care about it know that it is capable of dramatically changing lives for the better. My party should be proud of it. I will therefore not support the motion because it intends to stop the roll-out and damage universal credit for short-term political reasons. We should resist that, ask the Secretary of State to make the changes, but not stall the roll-out because universal credit changes lives and delivers an improved quality of life to thousands of people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I am fortunate to have served on the Work and Pensions Committee since my election in 2015, and that has given me a really detailed understanding of universal credit. To reiterate my question to the Prime Minister last week, I believe that universal credit will be the most significant positive transformation of the benefit system in decades. The principles of universal credit are different and the support provided by work coaches is different, but that must not detract from the concerns that I and many Members from across the House have with the design of universal credit. I am disappointed that the Government did not pause the roll-out of this service while some of the system build flaws are resolved, but the Secretary of State has already given the commencement order, and that moment has passed. There is, however, another one-month roll-out delay in January, so all eyes will be on that.

I want to focus my efforts now on convincing Ministers that there are easy and relatively inexpensive ways of improving the design. I wish to put on record my thanks to the Prime Minister for meeting me and colleagues yesterday afternoon to hear our proposals. We were joined by the Secretary of State, and I am positive that we were genuinely listened to and that there was a shared determination to make improvements.

The biggest single criticism of universal credit is the time it takes for people to receive their first payment. Although I appreciate the announcement that advance payments will be made available to all, it is clear to me that, as the number of people requesting these is already rising, it must mean that the inbuilt six-week wait does not work. If we want universal credit really to replicate the world of work, payments must be built around a four-week cycle. Removing the initial seven-day wait must be the very least we can do. At a minimal sum of £150 million to £200 million a year, this would be an inexpensive fix that would benefit all claimants.

Rather than developing another system to prop up a flawed system, let us stop convincing ourselves that advance payments are the answer. Of course there will always be vulnerable claimants who will need financial support today, and, for them, advance payments have an important role, but if, today, more than 50% of claimants have taken up an advance payment—that is before the Secretary of State has said he will advertise them more widely—we must accept that there is a reason that that percentage is so high. Let us stop administering and paying out advance payments hand over fist and reduce the default waiting time for all awards to fortnightly payments at two and four weeks from the moment of a claim. Let us keep paying fortnightly until the work coach and claimant together decide that being paid monthly is okay, and let housing payments go direct to landlords. That would dramatically reduce the number of families going into rent arrears, turning to food banks and spiralling further into debt.

Having discussed this personally with the Prime Minister—I would appreciate another 20 seconds if somebody could give me some time, please. Will anybody intervene? No.

[Stephen Lloyd]

rose—

[Heidi Allen]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Stephen Lloyd]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I concur with a lot of what she is saying. Like many Members on both sides of the House, does she agree that the principle of universal credit can work if those two or three key changes are made? Without those changes, it will collapse.

[Heidi Allen]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I agree that we risk undermining the success of the system if we do not get these basic things right.

Having discussed this matter personally with the Prime Minister yesterday, it is probably too ambitious to expect a response just yet, but I am confident that she will consider our proposals. Why? Because as well as being the smart thing to do, it is the compassionate thing to do.

Two years ago, almost to the day, I made my maiden speech:

“a country and its economy does not function…if the people who run the engine cannot afford to operate it. We need every teaching assistant, care worker, cleaner and shop worker”—[Official Report, 20 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 874.]

to secure our economic future. With Brexit looming, the call could not be more clarion than it was when I said it two years ago. To pull ourselves out of debt, we should not be forcing working families into it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

This has been an important and interesting debate on an important issue, and I thank the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for bringing it to the House. I have been listening to speeches from both sides of the House for hours, and people from both sides have been constructive in their comments. Like many, I believe that universal credit could be a tremendous benefit—I supported it years ago—but unless the Government fix some remaining issues, it will fail.

First, I was disappointed that the then Chancellor took £3 billion from the universal credit budget shortly after the 2015 general election, meaning that work does not pay anymore. It may pay a tiny bit, but the original concept was that work really would pay. I urge the Secretary of State and the Government to put that money back into universal credit.

Secondly, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), a former Secretary of State, said that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has supported universal credit. I was a bit surprised by that, so I did a quick check. The JRF actually said that it would support universal credit if it was properly funded—I just mentioned the £3 billion—and if payment and waiting times were reduced, which is exactly what many people have been saying today.

I have one final point to make in the limited time available to me. We have been discussing housing associations and housing benefit, but it is the private rented sector where there will be a car crash unless payments are made directly to landlords. Owing to the nature of their business models, private sector landlords will not wait two, three or four months for their tenants’ money to be paid. I urge the Government to fix those issues.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Lloyd Excerpts

Monday 9th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

T10. As universal credit comes to Eastbourne, my constituents face the double horror of a 10-week delay for their first payment and no hope of benefit increases in the years ahead. Now that the latest research published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation warns that the benefits freeze will push a further half million people into poverty by 2020, will the Minister commit to lifting the freeze, thus avoiding the severe poverty trap that will affect my constituents and hundreds of thousands of people around the country?

[Mr Gauke]

The benefits freeze was a measure that this Government took to contribute to reducing the deficit. On the point about people having to wait 10 weeks before receiving universal credit, 80% get paid in full and on time after six weeks. The system of arrears is inherent in universal credit because the payment is based on how much a person has earned over the previous month. That has always been part of the design, and it was part of the design that, presumably, the hon. Gentleman voted for when the coalition Government passed the legislation.

Housing and Social Security

Stephen Lloyd Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, he will very clearly hear the Government’s track record on social housing.

This is the progress that the Government have made since we first took office in 2010: we have a resilient, growing economy; the labour market is in its strongest position for years; and the claimant count is at its lowest level for 45 years, with millions more people in work compared with 2010. That is thanks in part to our wide-ranging process of welfare reform: 520,000 people are receiving universal credit, which is helping to transform lives and to make sure that people are always better off in work than on benefits. In the past year, the number of disabled people in work has increased by more than 170,000. The Department for Work and Pensions has launched tailored support for people with a disability or ill health through our personal support package. We of course remain committed to a strong, humane welfare safety net. Every year, we spend some £90 billion supporting families, people with disabilities, jobseekers and people on low incomes. By 2020, we will have given local authorities £1 billion in discretionary housing payments for residents who need extra help.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

The Secretary of State mentioned extra money for people on disability benefits. Does he agree that changing the work-related component so that from April this year people in the work-related activity group have received £30 a week less is hardly the most intelligent way to persuade disabled people to get back into employment?

[Sajid Javid]

Where that happens, we will compensate people in other ways and make sure that the welfare policy remains fair to everyone.

In the last year, we spent £24 billion on housing benefit, helping people to cope with the ever-increasing cost of housing.

We are not just tackling the symptoms of our broken housing market; we are taking action to fix the causes. Our housing White Paper, which was published earlier this year, set out exactly how we will go about that: releasing more land where people want to live, building the homes that we need faster, getting more companies involved in the housing market, and supporting people who need help now. The Queen’s Speech, which promises proposals to

“help ensure more homes are built”,

marks a significant step in turning that blueprint into bricks and mortar.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on his maiden speech. As an Ulster Scot who has a very strong relationship with those on the mainland, it is always good to have a Scottish cousin in the House. I invite him to come to Strangford—then we will see whether he still thinks he has the most beautiful constituency in the whole United Kingdom. It is a pleasure to have him in the House, and we wish him well in all that he does.

It is no surprise that the Queen’s Speech mainly included issues relating to Brexit. This is the most crucial time in recent British history for good legislation, and it is clear that there must be a focus on getting the best approach to our exit from Europe. This debate is on housing and social security, and when we talk about housing, we should also focus on where that housing is. Where we have housing we need good healthcare, so we need to ensure that there is investment in GP practices nationwide—the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who is not currently in the Chamber, referred to the lack of investment in his area. We need to encourage young students to commit to service as a GP. We need to strengthen the ties between GPs and their local surgeries, and we can give GPs the support they need in the form of initiatives such as treating minor ailments in chemists, thereby using the available professionalism and capability to the fullest.

Returning Members will know about one of my passions in this House, and new Members will hopefully know shortly: I am well known for being the Democratic Unionist party spokesperson for human rights and for my concern about persecution throughout the world. Sadly, this has been exemplified on our shores recently with terrorist attacks against freedom and democracy—attacks on the very core of our communities. The world is changing. As chair of the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief, I believe that understanding the religious dynamics playing out in different communities must be of the utmost importance when Her Majesty’s Government form any internationally focused policy. I appreciate that the Government are committed to that.

Some 80% of people worldwide live in countries where social hostility and restrictions on religion are high or very high. Freedom of religion or belief is a human right that is often overlooked. In 2016, nearly 90,000 Christians were killed simply because of their religious beliefs. In more than 100 countries around the world, more than 215 million Christians continue to face intimidation, imprisonment, forced conversion or assault.

[Stephen Lloyd]

Does the hon. Gentleman, like me, support Open Doors, an organisation that publicises some of the shocking discrimination and prosecutions against Christians around the world, and that urges Her Majesty’s Government to step up and make it absolutely clear that this is unacceptable, as it would be against any religion?

[Jim Shannon]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Open Doors does excellent work, and I am aware of it day to day. There are many organisations in the House, but Open Doors also takes the opportunity to stand up for and talk to people around the world.

So-called Islamic State has nearly succeeded in its attempt to eradicate the Christian communities of Iraq and Syria; the Christian population has plummeted from 1 million to 200,000 in Iraq, and from 1.25 million to 500,000 in Syria. Many Christians remain displaced and face discrimination that prevents them from gaining equal access to food, shelter, education and work. In May, 122 Christians in Eritrea were rounded up from their homes and detained, including disabled people and entire families. That escalation in the crackdown on Christians coincides with the Orthodox archbishop’s 10th year under incommunicado house arrest.

In April we saw the Russian Supreme Court’s decision to declare the Christian sect Jehovah’s Witnesses an extremist organisation, banning their headquarters and all 395 local organisations from operating and ordering their property to be seized by the state. That shows a clear escalation.

In Pakistan, only last week a Shi’ite man, Taimoor Raza, was charged with blasphemy and handed the death sentence, contrary to international law. That underlines the issues there. In Myanmar, since 2012 over 168,000 Rohingya Muslims have fled the country because of attacks by the military, including the burning of homes and the raping of women. Those are vile, evil, wicked deeds, and in some cases they are carried out by its Government.

Advancing freedom of religion or belief between faith communities helps to build tolerant and cohesive communities. I believe that it is a crucial component of Government policy, not only in preventing further violent attacks on people because of their faith, but in preventing violent extremism and achieving the sustainable development goals. There is a role to play for the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and, I believe, the Ministry of Defence. I am pleased to see the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work on the Government Front Bench. This is not her responsibility, but I know that she will take my points on board.

The Government’s recent manifesto declared that they would

“expand our global efforts to combat…violence against people because of their faith”.

The Prime Minister has made a commitment to stand up for the freedom of people of all religions to practise their beliefs openly and in peace and safety. Perhaps the Minister responsible will clarify what those measures will be. For example, will they ensure that displaced communities in Iraq and Syria can return home safely? I offer the Government the APPG’s assistance in taking those measures forward.

As part of its membership of the EU, the UK has routinely asserted its commitment to promoting the right to freedom of religion or belief as part of its global human rights diplomacy. The UK regularly reports on its implementation of the EU guidelines for freedom of religion or belief and has made further commitments within the EU human rights framework. I ask the Minister responsible whether Her Majesty’s Government will retain the commitment to monitor and report their implementation of freedom of religion or belief through their representatives globally. I urge the Government to deepen their work with multilateral organisations such as the Commonwealth and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

I believe that the Government are committed to that in some of their policies, but I am seeking an assurance because it was not mentioned specifically in the Queen’s Speech, and I think it is important that we put down a marker now. There are many things that we would wish to see happen. This matter is very close to my heart, as it is to the hearts of many people across the whole United Kingdom. The fact that people are intimidated because of their religious beliefs, having to live in endangered neighbourhoods, or even killed, indicates how important this issue is.

I want to mention a few other things that also concern me. There are many aspects of Brexit that we wish to support and take forward. I commend the financial guidance and claims Bill. Age UK recently contributed to the Government’s consultation on the future of the Money Advice Service, the Pensions Advisory Service and Pension Wise. I support the proposal to create one agency, which I think would be a step in the right direction, as the Government have recognised. I also welcome the smart meters Bill, which I believe will help older people to manage their energy costs. We should support that initiative. There are many other issues that we also need to work on.

The votes are in and the Government are in place. The agreement between the DUP and the Government is not done just yet, so let us see how that goes, but we look forward to carrying out the business of this House for all our constituents in the years to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I wish to associate myself with the earlier comments from the Front Benchers on the Grenfell Tower tragedy. I also wish to congratulate the right hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke) on his appointment as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I am glad to be back, and, as I have been appointed the Liberal Democrat spokesman on work and pensions, I shall be having numerous conversations with him. Today, there are four particular aspects of social services on which I want to focus. There is an awful lot to cover, but I shall restrict myself to four: universal credit, WRAG, WASPI and PIP.

When I was thinking of those four this morning in preparation for my speech—I was involved with all of them during the coalition, to a greater or lesser extent, often trying to improve or change things—I saw that they were shocking combinations of poor quality. Universal credit has poor-quality policy. I remember years ago, under the coalition Government, when it was first mooted, that I supported the concept of bringing all benefits together to one point of contact. That would be more sensible for the recipient. The key, though, was the taper. I was very disappointed that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who now edits the Evening Standard, insisted on an absolutely ludicrous taper that means that people on universal credit are barely better off in a low-paid job than they are on benefit, which defeats the whole purpose of universal credit. I look forward to the new Secretary of State using his charm with his close colleague, the current Chancellor, to get a more intelligent taper. Without that, universal credit is doomed to fail, and we all know in this Chamber the problems people already face with its delivery. The taper was bad policy.

WRAG is an acronym for work-related activity group, and is meant for disabled people who have had a disability or have had a disability for quite some time and believe that they can—and the DWP believes that they can—get back into jobs, with the correct levels of support. That is something that I am passionate about, and that I was passionate about when I was last in this House. From April this year, the Government took a decision to reduce the income of those in the WRAG by almost 30%. Anyone with any experience of disability at all will know that if someone has been disabled for quite some time, they can get out of the habit of getting into work. It takes a bit of support to get them back into employment, so they go into the WRAG. To then cut their income by 30%—folks, we know what will happen. People will do their darnedest to stay in the support group, which means that they do not get back into jobs. I think that that was a stupid decision by the Government.

Thirdly, on the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, this decision was profoundly unfair. My partner, if she will forgive me for giving her broad age to the Chamber, is one of those affected. Many women between 55 and 58 across the United Kingdom are affected and it is profoundly unfair. We hear that under the new consensual approach to government the Conservatives are ready to loosen the austerity strings, to listen more to people and to be fairer, and I would urge them to have the WASPI women at the top of the list for reconsideration.

Last but not least is PIP, or the personal independence payment. Again, I am very frustrated because I worked hard with Lord Freud in the other place to try to get PIP to work. The concept is about individual personal income, allowing people with disabilities to control the money they have and use it in the right way. The concept is good, but then guess what happens? I go and lose the election in 2015—I am sure that I am far too insignificant to have made any difference at all, but PIP has not improved things. We are still getting a high rate of people failing the work capability assessment and going to tribunal; more than 80% of them are winning, which means that PIP is not working and the delivery of PIP is not working.

Over the coming years—however long this Parliament lasts—I am looking forward to working with the Government in a spirit of compromise to improve these areas of the DWP and its remit so that it delivers what it is supposed to deliver: fairness, equity and ease of access. The latter is terribly important when someone has been on benefits for a long time, as there must be a smooth transition of funds.

On the pension side, I am delighted that the Conservative manifesto pledge to get rid of the triple lock was dropped in the Queen’s Speech. I remind the House that it was the Liberal Democrats in coalition who brought in the triple lock pension, so I am glad that despite those halcyon days the Conservatives are finally listening to the Lib Dems and have retained the triple lock.

Most importantly of all, it is good to be back. I pay tribute to my predecessor, who I know fought valiantly for Eastbourne. For me, it is a pleasure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

There is a sedentary comment that it is all zero-hours contracts. The employment numbers that came out last week are striking because the increase was overwhelmingly a consequence of full-time employment. We must bear in mind that those on zero-hours contracts constitute, what, 3%? [Interruption.] Less than 3%: 2.8% of the overall workforce. The majority of those people, when surveyed, say that that is what suits them. Moreover, the average number of hours worked by people on zero-hours contracts is 25. Let us not mischaracterise the nature of our labour market.

Let me now deal with universal credit, a landmark reform of the welfare system that will maximise people’s chances of getting work, staying in work, and progressing into better-paid work. Universal credit is working. People move into work faster, and there are encouraging signs in that connection. The roll-out of universal credit continues to deliver to plan. It is being rolled out in a gradual, safe and secure way to ensure a successful delivery and the best service for claimants. The programme has recently passed an important milestone, with well over a million claims made and the number of claimants higher than the number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance.

[Stephen Lloyd]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, because I am aware that time is short. Does he agree that the current taper is simply inadequate in comparison with what we planned a few years ago? Given that taper, what is the advantage of going into low-paid work?

[Mr Gauke]

We reduced the taper rate recently, so we have taken steps in that direction. One of the attributes of universal credit, however, is that it does not have the cliff edges of the legacy system that we have run up to now, which features all the disincentives to work for more hours and take on more work. We believe that one of the great benefits of universal credit is that it will always be sensible to do more work. I do not know whether I am being over-ambitious, but one of my objectives as Secretary of State is to convince Opposition Members at some point that this is an important and beneficial reform, and that they should get behind it rather than opposing it. That, however, remains to be seen.

Let me now say something about disability and health. There are more than half a million more disabled people in employment than there were three years ago, and the unemployment rate is at a record low. However, we know that we have further to go. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) spoke about the disability employment gap, and referred to our excellent record on the issue. I want to put on record that the Government are committed, and remain dedicated, to continuing our work in improving employment outcomes for people with disabilities and health conditions. We have made a commitment to get 1 million more disabled people into work over the next 10 years. That will enable them to enjoy the benefits that we know good work brings.

Let me now deal briefly with the issue of pensions. We are committed to ensuring economic security for people at every stage of their lives, including retirement. We are also clear about the fact that fairness must be maintained between the generations. The new simplified state pension provides a firm foundation on which to plan for retirement. Alongside the state pension, automatic enrolment has been introduced to ensure that the UK builds pension systems that enable individuals, with the help of their employers, to save towards achieving the lifestyle to which they aspire in retirement, and which is sustainable in the future. About 10 million people will be saving more for a private pension to top up their state pension by 2018.

The Government have worked hard to improve people’s lives. We are focusing on delivering more housing, and we have introduced successful welfare reforms on which we will continue to build. I am proud of this Conservative Government, of what we have achieved to date, and of what we have committed ourselves to achieving in this Parliament.

This is an important Gracious Speech. Part of what we will continue to do as a Government is ensure that we get people to work, reform welfare and deliver for the British people. Consequently, I commend the Gracious Speech to the House.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Mike Freer.)

Debate to be resumed on Monday 26 June.

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Reform (Disabled People)

Stephen Lloyd Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I do not doubt for one moment what the hon. Gentleman has just said, but I have not received one e-mail, one letter or one comment from one of my constituents about those remarks.

Of course there are times when there are policy disagreements on how best to enfranchise those with disabilities, be they physical or learning disabilities, and of course we should always be careful about the language that we use—as the former Prime Minister discovered when he referred to someone as a bigot. However, during the 40 years I have been in the House, I have been struck by the degree of consensus on how best to proceed with policy on disability, and I honestly do not believe that the exchange at the party conference justified the outbreak of partisanship that we have witnessed this afternoon.

Let me pick out two pieces of legislation relating to disabled people. The ground-breaking Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 started as a Private Member’s Bill, promoted by Alf Morris, and reached the statute book with Conservative support just before the 1970 election. Later in the 1970s, one of the first Bills whose Committee stages I attended introduced a non-contributory invalidity pension, which was the first of a new generation of benefits that replaced earnings for those unable to work.The other piece of legislation, which was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, is the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which introduced a new right to non-discrimination in employment and which had all-party support. By and large, the House has made progress, driving forward the agenda, when we have been able to reach a consensus.

The objective that I hope we all share this afternoon was put well by Nicholas Scott in 1992, when he was Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. He said then:

“There is no difference of opinion in the House about the ends that we seek: the integration of disabled people, their independence and their participation in a range of activities, including employment, the securing of proper housing, recreation and sport. Above all, we want them to have control over their own lives.”—[Official Report, 31 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 1251.]

I think that that is as valid today as it was then.

The thrust of policy under all parties has been to remove the obstacles that prevent someone with a disability from enjoying the same quality of life as someone without that disability. That has involved Government action, including action by my party.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I strongly support what my right hon. Friend is saying, and the tenor of it. As one who was involved in lobbying for the Disability Discrimination Act outside the House all those years ago, may I ask whether he agrees that a key part of disability empowerment is the Government’s Access to Work scheme? I should add, to be fair, that it was introduced by the then Government. It is very important for every penny that can possibly be invested in access to work to be invested, because it is a route that enables many people with disabilities to be helped into work.

[Sir George Young]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and in a moment I shall say a little about how more disabled people can be helped into work.

Over the past 40 years, there has been Government intervention to achieve the objectives that I have identified. We have the mobility allowance, which can sometimes be converted into the Motability scheme, and we have the disabled facilities grant. Both parties have used building regulations to make public buildings, in particular, more accessible to people with disabilities.

Let me now deal with the specifics. I shall try to adhere to the six-minute time limit, although it does not apply to me. We all want disabled people to have the sense of fulfilment, independence and comradeship that goes with having a job. My noble Friend Lord Freud was asking a genuine question, namely “How can we intervene in the market to enable everyone to work if some people work at a slower rate than others or need more supervision?” It was a genuine question, and we have not heard an answer to it from the Opposition today.

The debate then moved on to the minimum wage, in respect of which there are a number of exemptions, including one for company directors. During the meeting that took place at the conference, one delegate said that he had got round the minimum wage provision for his daughter by making her a company director, but that is a rather protracted and complex solution, which not everyone can adopt. What my noble Friend was trying to do was establish whether there were other solutions that would enable the same objective to be reached.

There is no dispute about the direction of social policy on those with disabilities, and I am not aware that the Opposition plan to repeal the measures that we have had to introduce in order to contain public expenditure. The speed with which we move in the direction in which we all want to move depends on getting the economy right. As with the national health service, so with support for disability: we need a strong economy if we are to take the agenda forward. No one has a greater interest in the success of the Government’s economic policy than those with a disability.

I think that the motion should be withdrawn, but if it is not withdrawn, it should be defeated, because it is an unwarranted personal attack. No alternative approach to disability has been advocated, and it risks breaking a bipartisan approach to disability that has served those with a disability well for the last 40 years.

Affordable Homes Bill

Stephen Lloyd Excerpts

Friday 5th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

I do not have that set of figures in front of me, but the hon. Gentleman probably has them. The point is that in all parts of the country, the people who are affected by this measure are dealing with it in different ways. Many of them are finding smaller accommodation to live in. Some of them are choosing to continue living in the accommodation that they are in and to make up the shortfall caused by the deduction from their housing benefit from other resources.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Does what my hon. Friend is saying not emphasise the point of the Bill? The Bill does not say that the spare room subsidy is wrong, but that we should protect people from the system if it means that they cannot move out to an appropriate-sized building. The Bill does not say that the spare room subsidy is wrong, but that it needs adjustment to ensure that it is fair. Surely that is the most sensible way forward.

[Mr Nuttall]

The removal of the spare room subsidy encourages housing providers to build more of the accommodation that people want. That is the key point.

I want to make progress with my remarks. As I mentioned earlier, 360,000 households in the social rented sector are living in crowded accommodation, all of which would love to move into bigger accommodation. With nearly 2 million families on social housing waiting lists in England, it makes sense for the stock of our nation’s social housing to be utilised as efficiently as possible. Tenants in the sector are moving to accommodation that is more suited to their needs. In the seven months to December 2013, nearly 19,000 households that were affected by the removal of the spare room subsidy downsized into more appropriate accommodation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Lloyd Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Sinn Fein needs to face up to its responsibilities and cannot have it all ways. If it gets the welfare Bill through, it will benefit from the support that it will get, but it cannot sit in limbo land. I support what the hon. Gentleman has just said—it is time for Sinn Fein to get on and do what an elected Government need to do.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Will the Minister provide an update on when the decision on the moratorium on funding for deaf interpreters for Access to Work will be announced, because we have been waiting for a report from the DWP?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Let me undertake to write to my hon. Friend as soon as I leave the House and give him the full details.

Jobs and Work

Stephen Lloyd Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow a fellow Staffordshire Member to speak in the Queen’s Speech debate on jobs, particularly on what is, of course, a great day for jobs and for the job prospects of millions. It may not be such a good day for the job prospects of the Opposition Front-Bench team, which may be why they have spent rather less time than they might have done talking about today’s good news.

Today is good news for my town, and this Queen’s Speech is good news for Tamworth. The situation in which we now find ourselves compared with the situation in 2010 when we had our first Queen’s Speech could not be starker. In 2010, at the end of the last Labour Government, the unemployment rate in Tamworth was running into double digits; today, we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. In 2010, at the end of the last Labour Government, one could walk down the Glascote road and see repossession notices on window after window as mortgage companies foreclosed on properties. Under the last Labour Government, people were losing not just their jobs, but their family homes. Those notices are now gone; growth is returning; hope is being restored. In my town, Jaguar Land Rover is recruiting; BMW is recruiting; John Lewis is recruiting. They are recruiting skilled workers because our educational outcomes are improving, with GCSE results going up, and the Torc centre has been named the automotive hub for Staffordshire.

I want to speak about this Queen’s Speech in relation to jobs, and I shall make three particular points. I am glad that Her Majesty made it clear that her Government will continue to cut taxes in order to increase people’s financial security. I hope that those tax cuts will also include business tax cuts—cuts in corporation tax and cuts in national insurance contributions. Small businesses are the engines of growth in this country—not Governments, not multinationals, but small businesses up and down the country. We need to reduce the burden of taxation on them so that they can expand, invest and create more jobs.

I was also pleased to hear the Secretary of State talk about deregulation and cutting red tape. We have to get on and go even further. I rather hope that the Government will look at regulation as if it were a tax. A small business man may have to juggle the responsibilities of being IT director, finance director and HR director with the all-important task of being sales director. Any Government activity that detracts from the ability to focus on selling or any Government activity that is a tax on time is a tax on business—and it is in those terms that we should think of regulation. I am astonished that we still have so many regulations. There is even a regulation on how to build a staircase. It seems to me that if we were to get rid of that regulation, carpenters up and down the country would not be left helpless. We do not need many of the regulations under which businesses still appear to labour, so I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will continue his work on that.

I was pleased to see further help being given to the exploitation of our shale gas opportunities. It is unfortunate that the Labour Opposition seem to blow hot and cold on shale gas. In the Finance Bill Committee, the Front-Bench team did not seem to know quite what they wanted with respect to shale gas. I believe that shale gas opportunities in our country could create between 60,000 and 70,000 new jobs. It could create billions of pounds of extra revenue to the Exchequer, which could be invested in infrastructure, creating even more jobs. If the Opposition are serious about the cost of living challenges facing our country, they should surely embrace a resource that will help to even out the cost of our energy. The fact that they seem to refuse to do so seems to make their position illogical.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Christopher Pincher]

I will not. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, many Members want to speak: they have things to say—or think they have things to say—and they should be allowed to say them.

In conclusion, this Queen’s Speech helps my town. It drives growth, it drives opportunity and it drives forward our long-term economic plan—and we are the only Government, the only party, who seem to have one.

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Stephen Lloyd Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is true that there has been bad litigation, and certain solicitors have settled for woeful amounts. Also, there are a number of people who had claims but died and never pursued them.

I find it strange that we started with a figure of 70% and ended up at 75%. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford, who was not present when I started speaking, said that she would like to see 80%, but I suggest that she should have started a bit higher and worked down from there. In negotiations, people should never start at the figure they actually want, so perhaps she should have started at 95%. If she is lucky enough to get on the Bill Committee, I suggest that she start at, say, 88% and work downwards to the 80% figure that she wants. There is no rationale for the 75% figure.

The hon. Lady made a very good point about future liability. Since 1972, such insurance has been compulsory, so most future cases will be covered by insurance policies. Potentially, the next biggest area is public buildings and schools, but most such cases will not come under this scheme because it will be possible to prove who the insurer is and who is liable for the risk. It is therefore not clear to me what the 75% figure is based on. The Minister said that he will produce the various figures. It would have been helpful to have had those during the debates in the other place and today, so that we could have examined the basis of the negotiations.

As I said earlier, it seems that the insurance companies have been in the driving seat in these negotiations, which is a very strange way of negotiating on behalf of the victims, which is what I expect the Government to be doing. They will have done the modelling and know exactly the various costs involved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough said, we are not talking about people who do not calculate risk. They calculate risk, and they also calculate the age profiles of the groups that will be affected. I therefore find it odd that we do not have the relevant figures before us today. Again, that should not be the starting point for the insurance companies. The starting point should be to ask what the maximum compensation could be for the victims of this missed justice, and I believe that 100% is the right figure. I know that the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford thinks differently, but if we at least start at 100%, we might end up with a better figure than the one that is on the table.

It was also pointed out that the figure is not simply 75%, but 75% of the average. People should not expect payments that are on a par with those resulting from litigation settlements or other insurance policies. These arrangements will not be like that at all, and many of the people who should rightly get compensation because they have been affected by the disease through no fault of their own are going to be short-changed. Let us remember that the insurance companies took the premiums and benefited from them for many years. There is a debate to be had in Committee on that.

Will the Minister tell us how the negotiations have taken place? If the rules were set by the insurance companies, rather than by the Government setting down the starting point, they will have been poor negotiations because they will have started from the wrong premise. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon wants to question the Government’s motives in this regard, and he has every right to do so, but if we are on the victims’ side, we should be trying to get the maximum compensation for them irrespective of our political party allegiance.

It is also remarkable that the insurance companies seem to have been in the driving seat in setting the date of diagnosis from which the scheme will apply—namely, 25 July 2012. Lord Freud spoke in the other place about how that decision would affect insurance companies. He said that if an earlier date were set, the levy would go up, which would be unaffordable. Like the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford, I would like to see the figures. How did the Government arrive at that position?

It has been pointed out that the insurance companies have known since February 2010 that this change was coming. I doubt that they are so bad that they will not make provision for this in their calculations, but the Government need to explain why that date of July 2012 has been stuck to. Was it at the insistence of the insurance companies? I guess it was, because it will limit their liabilities. Frankly, if I were them, I would be laughing all the way to the bank if I could cut my liabilities in that way.

I accept that, whenever we set an arbitrary date, there will be people who fall either side of the line, but many of those campaigning on behalf of loved ones who died from mesothelioma before that date will not get a penny out of this scheme. What is the logic in what has been decided? People have argued that it would be logical to set a 2010 date because that was when the consultation started and that it would be fair to the insurance companies to give them some warning, but that is complete nonsense. The insurance companies have known about this for years; it has not come as a surprise to them. There would at least be some logic in going back to the date of knowledge of mesothelioma, in regard to the other legal cases, because that argument has been formed in law.

When I suggested this approach earlier, the Minister intervened to say that a huge group would be included, because it would include families. There are two issues involved here. First, a number of people will have died in the intervening period, so we are not going to get any new cases from that—this is about historical cases. I accept that legacy cases could come from families who want to pursue a claim, but there will be very few of those. I have done asbestos work for a number of years and I know the detail of it. In these cases, someone needs detailed knowledge of where individuals worked and were exposed to asbestos. In addition, a lot of these people who died of asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma would have died without even knowing this. I find it difficult to believe that the insurance companies have not done some modelling to know what that figure could be. It would have been good for us today, and when the Bill was introduced, if someone had at least asked how many potential cases could be in that group, but that has not been asked. Again, we have just accepted that this would be onerous for the insurance companies—that may be true, but let us find out what the number is. That debate has not been had. That earlier date would be more defendable than even the 2010 decision, which would be arbitrary in that respect. I am not a lawyer, so I look to the lawyers in the room to answer whether or not people will legally challenge a date, if it is agreed, of 2012 or 2010 on the basis that the date of knowledge goes back to 1965. There is a potential there for more delay.

One thing that the Minister said in opening was that we needed to get on with this, and I do not disagree. However, as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford said, it is important that we get it right because once this deal is signed with the insurance companies, there will be no going back. There will be no trying to open this up later for other cases or trying to change the scheme, because the insurance companies will be wedded to this in terms of what they want.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said, but am I right in saying that as a colleague in the other place laid this down as a regulation rather than a ministerial order, there is more flexibility for Parliament to improve, change or reorder the scheme as it goes forward? We could improve it specifically by laying it down that way.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is being very optimistic. I do not know whether he has ever dealt with insurance companies, but if he thinks they are going to reopen this one, he is being naive, to put it politely. He is a Liberal Democrat, after all, so that is possibly acceptable. The answer to his question is no, he is not; once this has been done, that will be it. That is the important point.

The other issue I wish to discuss is other conditions. Mesothelioma is clearly a death sentence. [Interruption.] Sorry, I am never fair to Liberal Democrats. The hon. Gentleman may be trying to get some sympathy from me on behalf of Liberal Democrats, but he is certainly not going to get any after what they have done in supporting this Government. If he is looking for sympathy for Liberal Democrats, he can forget it.

There are other diseases involved here, and it is very interesting to read what Lord Freud said in the other place. He said:

“The issue of individuals who have developed other asbestos-related diseases through negligence or breach of statutory duty and are unable to bring a civil claim for damages of course needs to be addressed.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 May 2013; Vol. 745, c. 690.]

It would be interesting to know what other compensation schemes or other redress the Government are considering introducing. I would not hold my breath, given the record of other Conservative Governments. They have never done anything. This is the first time they have done something for asbestos victims. We do need to know though, because Lord Freud, who has a strange relationship with the Conservative party, is clearly sympathetic to looking at some of the other debilitating asbestos-related conditions.