National Employment Savings Trust

Steve Webb Excerpts

Friday 12th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

I am pleased to announce that, yesterday, the NEST Corporation awarded the second stage of the scheme administration contract for the NEST pension scheme to Tata Consultancy Services.

This significant milestone for workplace pension reform follows my statement on 27 October, about the making automatic enrolment work review, and the decisions that were taken as part of the spending review.

The NEST pension scheme will be available to all employers who wish to use it and will ensure that employees currently without access to a good quality workplace pension scheme have the opportunity to save for their retirement.

NEST will be self-financing in the long term through the charges paid by its members. It will therefore be delivered at nil overall cost to taxpayers. Until charge revenues are sufficient to meet the full costs of the scheme, it will be funded through a loan from the Department to cover its initial set-up and operational costs.

The contract runs until June 2020 and includes a possible extension for up to a further five years.

On 2 March, the House was informed that the contract to deliver scheme administration services for NEST was being awarded to Tata Consultancy Services Ltd in two stages.

Housing Benefit

Steve Webb Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

I am going to make a little more progress.

There is a substantive question, and that is: on what evidential basis do the Government assert that rents will fall? In the debate involving the Bishop of Leicester last week in the other place, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Baroness Hanham, in response to being challenged directly on the evidence that the Government could adduce for a fall in rents as a result of the changes, said that it was a “suggestion”.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

I think that the shadow Secretary of State is a measured and reasonable man who will not want to be hysterical but will want to look at the facts. Since November 2008 private rents have fallen by 5% and local housing allowance rents have risen by 3%. LHA is pushing rents up. Does he accept that?

[Mr Alexander]

I have already covered the point that LHA is calculated in relation to rent in the private rented sector. The Minister generously characterises me as a reasonable fellow, but the fact is that this is the second time in as many days that a coalition Minister has accused the Government’s critics of being hysterical. I think that it was the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government who yesterday told London councils, when perfectly reasonable questions were being asked, to “grow up”. I hope that when the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions speaks in this debate we will have a more measured and reasonable account of why the policies have been decided on and of whether the Government are willing to reflect on the points being raised, and in turn change their mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Douglas Alexander]

I shall resist the temptation of suggesting that the one person who should be dispatched from Sheffield is the Deputy Prime Minister. I acknowledge the fact that in communities such as Sheffield, and in cities across the whole of Britain, there is deep anxiety and concern about the impact of these changes. That is why the Local Government Group agreed that the move to the 30th percentile is

“ likely to increase homelessness costs,”

since it will diminish

“the willingness of private rented sector landlords to let to housing benefit customers. This will have hugely variable and disproportionate effects on different parts of the country.”

The Government’s impact assessment of the 30th percentile change goes into great detail to demonstrate that at least 30% of the market is available in every area. However, is it not the case that the inevitable consequence of the LHA cap and the CPI cap is that, over time, the proportion of the available market will shrink below 30%?

Finally, let me come to one measure that has absolutely nothing to do with welfare reform and everything to do with a welfare cut. The Government propose that someone who is doing everything that we would ask of a person on benefits—applying for jobs, going to interviews, and even getting on the Secretary of State’s famous bus from Merthyr Tydfil—will still lose 10% of their housing benefit if they cannot find a job within a year.

Let me unpick the statistics in two communities. Wolverhampton has six claimants for every job. If they were to be sanctioned tomorrow on housing benefit, 1,116 families would lose 10% of their benefit. To take Norfolk, a very different community from Wolverhampton, the figures say that there are 5,000 jobs, mainly casual, and 15,600 claimants—and that under these rules, 1,254 families would be sanctioned tomorrow. How can such an approach be fair when there are five claimants chasing every vacancy in the British labour market?

On Sunday, the Secretary of State’s colleague, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, stated:

“Sanctions in the welfare system only apply when people don’t take advantage of the help and support that is on offer.”

Such a statement is irreconcilable with the policy that the Treasury has now imposed on the Department for Work and Pensions. I have to say to the Secretary of State, for whom I feel great respect, that he is losing even old and dear friends as he tries to defend the measures that he has signed his Department up to. Indeed, when Bob Holman, the man who brought the right hon. Gentleman to Easterhouse in 2002, was asked why the Secretary of State had changed track, he said:

“It is hard to say. I think he has come very much under the influence of George Osborne, who is very much more aggressive, who is much more anti-working class and I think that Iain probably is looking at it—if I am to get my big reform through, the universal credit system, I’ve got to go along some way with the attitude of Osborne.”

Indeed, how does the right hon. Gentleman want the unemployed to answer the question originally asked by Norman Tebbit? The truth is that homes are cheaper where there are fewer jobs. Should the jobless from Middlesbrough move to London where there may be jobs but fewer homes, or should the homeless from London move to Middlesbrough where there are homes but fewer jobs? I hope that the Secretary of State will take the opportunity to answer that question in the course of his remarks.

The right hon. Gentleman once styled himself as “the quiet man”. I simply cannot believe why, given all the work he has done over recent years, he stayed silent in his conversations with the Chancellor when the latter told him that this was a progressive move to help people into work. It is the very opposite of a progressive move. The party that once said that unemployment was a price worth paying now wants to fine the unemployed if they cannot find a job. We were guaranteeing work for the long-term unemployed, but the Conservative party seems to be threatening them with homelessness.

[Steve Webb]

My eyes may deceive me, but I sense that the shadow Secretary of State is on the final page of his speech. He must have dropped a very long section in which he was to set out Labour’s alternative. Perhaps he will do that now.

[Mr Alexander]

It might help the hon. Gentleman if he recognised that as he has chosen to align himself with the Conservative party in government, it is now his responsibility to answer the questions. I know that, as a former professor of social policy at the university of Bath, he is a man of great erudition and deep thinking. May I commend to him the speech I made on Friday in which I went through each of the measures and set out our thinking, as I have done on a range of them today?

We disagree fundamentally about the balance between the cuts that have to be borne by the poor and the vulnerable relative to the contribution that should be made by the banks. So we disagree about the deficit. We also disagree with measures such as the 10% cut in housing benefit relative to jobseeker’s allowance—[Interruption.] What do we support? In the March Budget we made it clear that we wanted to take the top rental—forgive me, Mr Speaker. I should not get into a debate with someone who is sitting down. I shall address you, Mr Speaker. We have made it clear that we could support a phased approach to caps, and that we want to look into regional caps. We have made it clear that we are willing to consider the proposal—once we receive an impact assessment—on the deductions available for non-dependent individuals living in households that receive housing benefit. We have also made it clear that we regard the 10% cut in housing benefit for those who have been unemployed for a year as completely unacceptable—and in his previous persona, I fear, the Minister would have found them unacceptable as well.

I need to draw my remarks to a conclusion, as was kindly anticipated by the Minister. Let us be honest: this package of rushed, ill-considered and potentially devastating cuts has raised concerns beyond the debates in this Chamber in communities across the country. In the 1980s, the previous Conservative Government showed that higher homelessness, like longer dole queues, ends up costing the taxpayer more, not less. These ill-thought-through proposals have already led a number of MPs of conscience and concern, on both sides of the House, to register their disquiet. I do not claim a monopoly of concern about the proposals for any one party. Perhaps that is why the Government have run scared of putting an amendment to the House today endorsing explicitly each of the present proposals on housing benefit that they continue to advocate. Fortunately, however, there is still time for the Government to think again about these proposals. I urge Members on both sides of the House to take the opportunity this evening to reflect on these changes, and I commend the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Lloyd]

I think that that was nearly the apology I sought, although it was not quite the apology that my constituents were entitled to hear from the hon. Gentleman, who supports this coalition. It was not quite the apology needed by those who will lose significant sums of money and will be forced to absorb that loss by not being able to spend their money on other things.

[Steve Webb]

I think the hon. Gentleman’s own manifesto pledged this precise policy.

[Tony Lloyd]

I am talking about the Minister’s policy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) made it clear what a Labour Government would have done. That was clear also from the statements of the then Secretary of State, and it was very different from the current Government’s proposals. The proposed income loss is not something that I recognise from any Labour manifesto.

The income loss will be significant for those in one, two or three-bedroom houses. In my constituency, for example, 8,000 people face an income loss of £12 to £14 a week. That sum may be trivial to a Minister or Secretary of State, but £12 to £14 is a significant part of the disposable income of somebody on housing benefit or on benefits more generally. The House ought not to countenance taking away that amount of money. It penalises the most vulnerable people in our society to prop up the Government’s policies. That is not scaremongering; it is a disgrace. Ministers and their supporters should recognise that.

There is another aspect of the proposals that we should not countenance. The Secretary of State made a long and complicated speech, which gave no comfort whatever to those in my constituency who will lose money. It gave no comfort to those who will potentially lose their homes. It gave no comfort because the right hon. Gentleman is far more concerned with the polemic of his speech than with the reality of human beings who will lose out in respect of both housing and their finances.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and others on the Government Benches will think again, particularly about some of the most difficult aspects of their proposals. There are parts of them which, with proper care and attention, we could all begin to agree with. The problem, at least in part, is the ridiculous speed of their implementation and the lack of acceptance of the impact that they will have. Were the Secretary of State to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that the Government are prepared to look again at the speed of their implementation, we might have a basis for real debate.

The worry among my constituents is that the proposals are driven, first, by concerns of budgetary restraint—the battle that the Secretary of State fought with the Chancellor and lost—and secondly, although this is a claim that I do not make against the Secretary of State, by the apparent desire among some of his Back Benchers to penalise the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. That rhetoric has come through in some of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Raynsford]

The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the subject. The right to buy now has a relatively minor influence on the supply of housing, because most people in social rented housing are on incomes that make it impossible for them to buy. I would not change the current rules. I think it is right to have an option for people to buy, but in the current market there will not be many who take that up. I want the focus to be on securing a good supply of rented accommodation through social and private providers at rents that people can afford, supported by a proper benefit system.

We know that a substantial number of local housing allowance recipients are in properties where the rent is higher than the LHA. I have quoted the answer given by the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), earlier this month that 48% of LHA recipients had to meet a shortfall because their rent was higher than the LHA. It is absurd for the Government to argue that the LHA is driving increases in rent, when the evidence that I quoted from the Evening Standard shows that it is the private market and the huge demand in the private market that is driving the increase. A very high proportion of LHA recipients will find it increasingly hard to compete, because their LHA is already below the rent that they are paying.

[Steve Webb]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Raynsford]

No. I will not give way because I have very little time left. The Minister should remember that private tenants who are dependent on housing benefit may find that they are priced out of the market as a result of the Government’s policies. I am surprised that he and his party are prepared to countenance that.

The hard questions that Ministers must answer—they have not done so—is simply: where will the tens, and perhaps hundreds, of thousands of LHA recipients go when their allowance is cut to a level that makes it impossible for them to make up the shortfall, and their landlord declines to reduce the rent?

[Steve Webb]

The right hon. Gentleman cited a £500 rent on a four-bedroom property—he quoted that from a newspaper—which is above our cap. Is it his policy that taxpayers should pay someone £500 for a four-bedroom property?

[Mr Raynsford]

No, it is not, and the point has already been made that that is not a housing benefit letting; it is a market letting being driven by the market. The Minister finds that difficult to understand because of his extraordinary prejudice that the local housing allowance is somehow driving the increase. I would have thought that he understood that, because he has some grasp of economics. He should also understand the cumulative effect of a series of such changes: not just the cap, not just the local housing allowance, but the change in non-dependant deductions, the restriction of the entitlement of social housing tenants of working age who are deemed to occupy larger accommodation than they need, the extension of the shared room rate to single applicants aged 35—the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) raised that anxiety—the change to the uprating formula using the consumer prices index rather than the retail prices index, the 10% cut in benefits for those on jobseeker’s allowance for more than a year, and the overall cap on benefit entitlement. Cumulatively, those changes will have a devastating effect. Why has the Minister, with his distinguished background in social policy, not insisted on proper appraisals of the cumulative impact, and the impact over a period, of all the changes, which will have dire consequences for many people on very low incomes?

This is not evidence-based policy making; it is faith-based policy making, using assumptions that most of the commentators in the outside world who have a real understanding of these things believe to be seriously flawed. I put it to the Minister that unless the Government can give us evidence that their policy will reduce rents in the private sector—for which there is not a shred of convincing evidence—and that the cumulative impact of the changes will not have dire consequences for many vulnerable people, the only decent thing for them to do is to withdraw their package and say that they will look again at the measures and discuss with the Opposition agreed arrangements to deal with abuses of the system without causing vulnerable people to suffer. If they do that, they will have our support. If they do not, I hope that all hon. Members with open minds will vote for the motion tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

Let me begin by referring the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate, and I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), although I beg to differ with her interesting interpretation of the word “fairness”.

The Government’s £1.8 billion cuts in housing benefit will push the most vulnerable families in our society into poverty and debt. It has been estimated that up to 12,000 households in the north-east could be made homeless. The Government are using extreme examples to justify their wholesale swingeing cuts, but the simple truth is that most housing benefit recipients are low-income, hard-working families, pensioners, carers, and people with disabilities. The housing charity Shelter estimates that only one in eight housing benefit recipients is unemployed. We should not lose sight of the fact that housing benefit is also an in-work benefit. In fact, the average housing benefit award to private sector tenants in Sunderland is just £93 per week, and for social tenants it is even less: £69 per week.

What concerns me most is that the cuts in housing benefit will affect not only hard-working, low-income families, but pensioners. In Sunderland alone, more than 20,000 housing benefit recipients are over 60. Those people have contributed to society throughout their lives, but in return—when they need help from the state at the time when they are at their most vulnerable—their security is threatened, and they are treated as mere statistics.

[Steve Webb]

I am sure that the hon. Lady does not wish to alarm pensioners in her constituency. The figures that she has given relate to housing benefit, which applies overwhelmingly to social tenants who will not be affected by this change. Will she correct the record?

[Bridget Phillipson]

What I will say is that many older tenants will move into different tenancies at different points, and will be affected by the changes that the Government are introducing. Many older people will, at times, vacate social homes and move into the private sector as their needs require, and may be affected by the Government’s changes. The only alarm being caused is coming from the Government Benches. I hope that the Minister will think again about some of these measures.

The Chartered Institute of Housing summed things up best when it stated that the Government’s motive

“appears to be reducing expenditure with little co-ordination or regard for the purpose of the benefit itself.”

This is not a genuine attempt to reform housing benefit and introduce a better system in its place; this is a Treasury-driven hit on the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Glenda Jackson]

If the hon. Gentleman had been here from the beginning of this debate, he would not have been as ill informed as he is ill mannered. There are not people in my constituency claiming housing benefit at that rate, as I have had occasion to say. The majority of housing benefit claimants live in one and two-bedroom properties. We have already said that we would certainly introduce a cap, but not by the method that his Government propose. There should be a regional element.

[Steve Webb]

indicated dissent.

[Glenda Jackson]

From a sedentary position, the Minister is waving his hands in disbelief. This afternoon he was leaping to the Dispatch Box asking questions about what my party would have done if we had been in government. He knows, and I know, that if my party had been in government and his party had still been in opposition, and we had introduced the policies that he is supporting now, he would have fought them tooth and nail.

The Minister has absolutely no cover any more. As I have had occasion to say before in the House, his party has become the “30 pieces of silver” party, and nowhere is that more marked than in what it is proposing to do to some of the most vulnerable people in all our constituencies. I say to Government Members that the problem is not exclusively London’s; this will affect the whole country. When the second tranche of the Government’s approach to social housing comes in—the increase of rents to at least 80% and the removal of secure tenancies—the impact will run and run.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

This has been a worthwhile debate. We have learned a number of things. Most of all, we have learned that no Labour MP actually read the manifesto on which they stood. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Hon. Members are in a state of almost uncontrolled excitement. I want to hear the Minister talking about his position, and about manifestos.

[Steve Webb]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Housing benefit will be reformed so that we do not subsidise people to live in the private sector on rents that other ordinary working families could not afford. When we do that, Labour Members are against it. When we propose a cap, they are in favour of it —until we set a figure, and then they are against it. When we propose to cut non-dependant deductions they are in favour of that—unless it actually affects anyone. The shadow Secretary of State said that he wanted regional caps, when the cap would principally affect central London, because he does not want a cap that actually caps anyone. What we need are credible Opposition propositions, not opportunism.

Three main themes have emerged from the debate. The first is that the impact of these changes has been grossly exaggerated. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the beginning, talk of highland clearances and the final solution is a disgrace. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) pointed out how offensive such language is to people, but even in this debate we have heard talk of highland clearances, and of Paris.

The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) does not seem to appreciate that in substantial parts of central London—in the borough of Southwark, for example—48% of properties are in the social rented sector, and will not be affected by either the cuts or the percentiles. The suggestion that central London will be devoid of people on low incomes is complete nonsense. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to correct himself, he is welcome to do so.

[Mr Lammy]

The Minister proposes to increase social rents to 80% of private rents, which will lead to a removal of poor people from central London. The Minister knows that.

[Steve Webb]

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has followed the proposition. It involves new houses and new build. People in existing tenancies do not face that change.

We have heard talk of the impact of these changes. I appreciate that it is a shame to introduce facts at 9.45 pm, but I shall give it a try. As was pointed out by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Miss Begg), this is not just a London issue, but obviously the impact of the cap will be felt particularly in London. There are 400,000 people on housing benefit in inner London, which ought to be where the impact will be greatest. Of those, 313,000, or 77%, will be unaffected because they are in social tenancies, and a further 30,000, or 7%, will be unaffected because they are in the non-local housing allowance sector. That adds up to 84%. A further 6% receive local housing allowance, but will not be affected. That means that 90% of people on housing benefit in central London will not be affected at all, while another 3% will be affected by less than £10 a week.

The mistake made during the debate is that people have assumed that any shortfall is equivalent to homelessness. That is a ludicrous leap. We know that people experience shortfalls in a number of ways. Of all the people on housing benefit in central London, 7% will experience shortfalls of more than £10 if there is no change in rents.

[Mr Raynsford]

Will the Minister confirm that he has just misled the House? Tenants in social housing will be subject to increased non-dependant deductions. The housing benefit of those who have received jobseeker’s allowance for 12 months will be terminated or reduced by 10%, and the benefit of those who are deemed to be occupying accommodation larger than they need will be reduced as well. All those social tenants will be affected by the Minister’s changes. Will he now admit that?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman intended to include the word “inadvertently” in his intervention.

[Steve Webb]

I am sure that he inadvertently forgot, Mr Speaker.

The impact of the cap, the impact of the 30th percentile and the impact of the removal of the £15 excess have been elided in the debate. The hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) mentioned the figure of 20,000 pensioners in her constituency—most of whom will not be affected by any of the changes. As I was explaining, less than 10% of people receiving housing benefit in the area most likely to be affected—inner London—will experience shortfalls of more than 10%.

The exaggerated impact has been made clear. However, one point has not been made clear. It has been suggested that the private rented sector is somehow an oasis of stability and settled communities, but there is massive churn in that sector. I want to give an example of that. The people affected by the caps and the 30th percentile are on local housing allowance. Local housing allowance was introduced in April 2008, so pretty much all those people did not even move into their current properties until April 2008; in the vast majority of cases they have lived in them for less than three years. The idea that we are suddenly churning up some settled permanent community is complete nonsense.

[Emily Thornberry]

The hon. Gentleman is saying that a huge proportion of people will not be affected, but let us say, for example, that we are doing our best to move a woman in Islington from a three-bedroom house into a smaller flat. Would she lose her secure tenancy if she moved?

[Steve Webb]

When there are specific instances of vulnerable people about whom local authorities have concerns, those local authorities have discretion to do something about the situation. But when people might reasonably be expected to move, that, of course, is part of the equation. If everybody went on staying exactly where they were at the same rent, there would have been no point to the policy.

On the basis of the debate so far, Mr Speaker, you would imagine that this year’s £21.5 billion housing benefit budget was about to be slashed. [Interruption.] Labour Front Benchers are saying that it is.

[Mr Douglas Alexander]

indicated dissent.

[Steve Webb]

Sorry; the shadow Secretary of State is disowning the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), who got it wrong. In 2014-15 the housing benefit budget will have been “slashed” from £21.5 billion to £22 billion. We are not slashing. We are making changes.

It has been said that we are being too hasty. The Labour party has decided that after 13 years of making the problem worse, doing something about it is “hasty”. Labour was so unhasty that it never got round to doing anything about the problem before it lost office. We are getting a grip.

First, we have established that the impact of the changes has been grossly exaggerated. Secondly, we have established that rents will not stay as they are. During the debate it has been suggested that the fact that the British taxpayer is putting more than £20 billion a year into housing benefit has no impact on the market. We, the taxpayers, pay housing benefit towards 40% of private rented tenancies. It is a long time since I studied economics, but I reckon if we pay for 40% of the tenancies and we put £20 billion a year into the market, we might just be having some impact.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The hon. Gentleman is using the figure of 40%. Recent research done both in Scotland and England is completely different. It produces a figure of 20%. In fact, in Scotland it was 17%; the report was produced for the Scottish Government. Only 8% of that was for housing benefit. We need to see the evidence that differs from the research that the Government themselves commissioned.

[Steve Webb]

I am not sure what the hon. Lady is questioning. Some 40% of private rented sector tenancies have housing benefit. That is a fact.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out earlier, people have said in this debate that rents will not fall. There is an assumption that rents have to go up. I have news for those people: since November 2008 private sector rents have fallen by 5%, while LHA rents have risen by 3%. So there is a void. That is further evidence. Opposition Members have asked for evidence, and here is clear evidence that LHA is driving up rents.

[Mr Slaughter]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? I want to respond to 35 different contributions; I hope that he will forgive me for responding to the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Mr Heald) pointed out how LHA is inflating the market. LHA rents are on average 10% higher than the housing benefit rents that have carried on from the previous system—more and more evidence that we, through our taxes, including taxes on hard-working families, are inflating rents. That is not benefiting tenants. During the debate it has been suggested that we are against the tenants, but we are actually against our taxes being spent on inflated rents, because that is not what the money should be for.

We have established that if we can get a grip on the rents, that will benefit tenants and help people in lower-paid work to pay those rents. There have been exaggerated stories about the impact, an assumption that rents will not fall, although we believe that our changes will have an impact, and thirdly—

[Mr Slaughter]

When the local housing allowance was introduced, the hon. Gentleman wrote on his website:

“Proposals of this sort risk creating ‘ghettos’ where low-income tenants are forced to move to accommodation in lower rent parts of town, whilst those who are better off continue to rent the best properties.”

When did he change his mind and stop worrying about that problem?

[Steve Webb]

That is interesting. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman still supports the housing benefit cut taking away the £15 excess that the Labour party was going to introduce before the general election. If I remember rightly, Labour delayed that cut by one year—until after the election. Does the hon. Gentleman still support that Labour cut in housing benefit? I suspect not.

It is important that we have a discussion about fairness. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) raised the situation of vulnerable people, particularly families with children. We are clear, first, that the impact of the changes as a whole is much narrower than has been assumed; secondly, that they will have an impact on rents, which will reduce the shortfalls and the number of people who will have to move; and thirdly, that there will be individual vulnerable cases. My hon. Friend is right to say that the position of families with children is very important. That is why we have trebled the money available to local authorities for discretionary housing payments specifically to help the most vulnerable. I recently had a conversation about a London authority that estimated that it would need to double its discretionary housing payments to cover these costs. We are trebling them, which we believe will enable local authorities to address the situation of the vulnerable households about which my hon. Friend is rightly concerned. I am grateful to him for raising that point.

The issue of fairness was raised by other Members too. My hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) and for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) rightly pointed out that many low-paid workers cannot begin to afford the sorts of rents we are paying for housing benefit recipients. The Labour party used to agree with us on that. Since they became the Opposition, however, they have stopped agreeing with themselves. There is a fairness issue therefore, and as we bring down rents we will improve the fairness of the system.

One of the key issues is housing supply, which my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester and others also raised. The shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), rightly raised that issue as well. However, the housing shortage was caused by the Labour party, which failed to build sufficient numbers of houses when in office. Many Labour Members said that they wished the situation was different. Well, they had 13 years to make it different. It is no good their wishing in opposition that houses had been built. As they held the levers of power and they did not pull them, they have to accept and live with the consequences. That is why I welcome what my ministerial colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government are doing to generate new social house building so that there will be diversity in the social housing sector, with the most subsidised rents and also near-market rents—80% of market rents—which will provide the resources needed for the significant increase of 150,000 new social homes. We desperately need that increase during the course of this Parliament.

Many Members raised issues about the disincentive effects of the housing benefit system, and I want to draw attention in particular to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois). He made some powerful points about the fact that once people are in work and on housing benefit—I do accept that there are people in work and on housing benefit—the benefits systems then traps them, because if they want to do extra work they face very high marginal withdrawal rates. My hon. Friend highlighted the situation of people who are in work and do not want to do more hours because they will just find that their housing benefit is withdrawn. That is a crazy system: we, the taxpayers, pay £21 billion a year to subsidise rents, and put inflation into rents, and then we expect people to do low-paid work, and as soon as they do more work we claw the money back.

That is going to change. This Government are doing to do something about it. On Thursday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce plans to take forward the proposition of a universal credit, whereby for the first time people will be guaranteed to be better off in work.

[Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question accordingly put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

State Pension Age

Steve Webb Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

Plans to increase the state pension age to 66 were announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as part of the spending review. Today, the Government will publish details to show how the increase in the state pension age will be delivered.

More of us are now reaching state pension age and then living to draw a state pension for longer than ever before. Increasing longevity is a cause for celebration. Nevertheless, the legislated timetable for increases to state pension age was based on an expectation of longevity that has since been revised upwards.

Women’s state pension age is currently rising from 60 to be equalised with men’s at 65 by April 2020. To enable an earlier increase to 66, the equalisation timetable will be adjusted from April 2016 so that women’s state pension age will reach 65 by November 2018. Then, in December 2018, the state pension age for men and women will start to rise so that it reaches 66 from April 2020.

Copies of the Command Paper will be available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office and online at: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/spa-66-review.

Automatic Enrolment

Steve Webb Excerpts

Wednesday 27th October 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

Today, I am pleased to be able to publish the report of the independent review into making automatic enrolment work. The recommendations of the review team are a sensible and balanced package of proposals. In particular, the changes in scope and the deregulatory measures proposed will ensure the introduction of automatic enrolment is stable and proportionate. Therefore, I am pleased to announce that the Government will now proceed with implementation of the reforms on this basis.

The main recommendations are:

The earning threshold for automatic enrolment should be aligned with the personal allowance for income tax and the threshold from which pension contributions become payable should be aligned with the national insurance primary threshold. Workers may opt in to saving and receive an employer contribution if they earn between these two thresholds.

Automatic enrolment should apply to all employers regardless of size, as previously proposed.

There should be an optional “waiting period” of up to three months before a worker needs to be automatically enrolled. Workers may opt in during the waiting period.

There should be a simple system for employers to certify their money purchase pension scheme meets the required contribution levels.

NEST is necessary to support successful implementation of automatic enrolment.

A copy of the review team’s report will be available on the Department’s website at: www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/pensions-reform/latest-news, later today. Copies will also be available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office from 10.30 am today.

I am grateful to Mr Paul Johnson, Frontier Economics, who led the review team, and to Mr David Yeandle OBE, Engineering Employers’ Federation, and Mr Adrian Boulding, Legal and General Group plc, who came together to make this review a success.

Cold Weather Payments

Steve Webb Excerpts

Monday 25th October 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

I am pleased to announce that the cold weather payment rate which was due to return to its default level of £8.50 will be permanently increased to £25.00 from this winter. Amending regulations were laid today and will come into force on 1 November 2010, in time for the beginning of this winter period.

Cold weather payments provide help for pensioners in receipt of pension credit and to certain vulnerable groups in receipt of income support, income-based jobseeker’s allowance and income-related employment and support allowance to meet heating costs incurred, or likely to be incurred, in cold weather.

Payments are triggered when the average of the mean daily temperature for a period of seven consecutive days at given weather stations is recorded as, or is forecast to be zero degrees Celsius or below.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Webb Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

5. What plans he has to amend the eligibility criteria for winter fuel allowance; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

In winter 2010, the winter fuel payment will continue to be paid at the higher rate of £250 or £400, according to family circumstances. Decisions about the rates for future winters will be taken as part of the annual Budget cycle, as normal.

[Mr Cunningham]

Will the hon. Gentleman give the same undertaking with regard to the chill winter allowance?

[Steve Webb]

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the cold weather payments. The rate of cold weather payment will be announced on Wednesday in the comprehensive spending review. As the House knows, for the first 11 years of the previous Administration, the cold weather payment was frozen at £8.50 and, although it was increased to £25 for two years in the run-up to the election, the previous Administration made no financial provision at all to keep it at £25.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

According to the National Pensioners Convention, 36,700 older people died of cold-related illnesses last year. Will my hon. Friend’s Department work with the Department of Health and redouble efforts to reduce that unacceptably high number?

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend is right. Excess winter deaths are a scandal. That requires work across Departments, as well as our commitment to the winter fuel payment and the cold weather payment system. We are working with our colleagues not just in the Department of Health, but the Department of Energy and Climate Change, because proper home insulation is a key to tackling excess winter deaths.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Last week the Prime Minister said he stood by the pledge that he made during the election about retaining the winter fuel allowance. I note with interest the answer given by the Minister. Will he confirm, for the avoidance of doubt, that everyone who is today entitled to the winter fuel allowance will still be entitled to it on Thursday?

[Steve Webb]

I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the comprehensive spending review, but I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the wording of the coalition agreement, where we say that we are committed to protecting the winter fuel payment.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

6. What steps are being taken to improve the quality and accuracy of the work capability assessment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

14. What options he has considered for future support for mortgage interest payments for those out of work.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

We are in discussions with mortgage lenders about the scope for them to freeze benefit claimants’ mortgage accounts and apply a standard interest rate for a fixed period. In return for lenders receiving up-front interest payments from the Government, claimants getting help with their payments would not accrue any arrears or face the threat of repossession.

[Dr Coffey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that, in these times, when perhaps there will be a lag in finding jobs, speed is of the essence, particularly for vulnerable people in our society, when making decisions about future support for mortgage interest?

[Steve Webb]

We will certainly move as fast as we can on this issue. My hon. Friend may be aware that had we done nothing the higher rate of 6% was due to expire at the end of this year and revert, under the previous formula, to just over 2%. We felt that that was unfair, and we will pay 3.6%, which is the average mortgage rate.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

The Council of Mortgage Lenders indicated that financial support from the Government for home owners who got into trouble was one of the key reasons fewer repossessions occurred in recent years than in other recessions. Given the impact of the reduced levels of support for mortgage interest relief and the cuts in housing benefit, does the Minister think that the number of people requiring financial support because they are homeless will be higher or lower than now at the end of next year?

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Lady is very knowledgeable about housing matters and I welcome her to her new role. She may not be aware that we will spend more money in the next two years on support for mortgage interest for people who are out of work than the previous Government planned to do. They planned to cut support to 2%, which would have led to many more homelessness cases.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

15. If he will remove eligibility for child benefit in respect of children not resident in the UK from non-UK EU nationals working in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

16. What progress he has made on his plans to introduce automatic enrolment into workplace pensions in 2012.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

The Government remain committed to the introduction of automatic enrolment. We have now received the conclusions of the review that we set up, and we will make an announcement to the House shortly. I am pleased to confirm that we will go ahead with auto-enrolment according to the previously intended timetable.

[Stuart Andrew]

Saving for old age is often not viewed as a pressing concern for the young. Given the likely pressures on graduate funding following Lord Browne’s review, it is likely to fall even lower. What steps will my hon. Friend take to encourage a savings culture among the young, and will he please ensure that the future needs of the young are taken into consideration when setting the age limit for automatic enrolment in workplace pensions?

[Steve Webb]

We have asked our review group to look at the age limits for auto-enrolment, but my hon. Friend is right to say that getting young people interested in pensions is a challenge. We think that automatic enrolment will be part of the answer to that because, for the first time, they will have to decide whether to stay in a workplace pension. We also have to ensure that it always pays to save.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

The beauty of auto-enrolment, as set out by the Labour Government, was that it would benefit all workers. Will this Government honour that commitment, which will support those on low incomes most of all, as well as temporary and agency workers, who often have the worst pension provision? Or will the Government water down those plans, storing up problems of pensioner poverty for the future?

[Steve Webb]

I welcome the hon. Lady to the Dispatch Box for the first time, and I look forward to working with her to establish cross-party consensus on pension reform wherever possible. She mentioned the actions of the last Labour Government, which I think she will recall were taken on an all-party basis. Our review was not meant to undermine automatic enrolment but simply to make it work, and work effectively—and that we will do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

T6. Does the Secretary of State accept that the result of changing indexation from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index is that pension increases in 2012 will be cut from 4.6 to 3.1%? Is that what he regards as fairness?

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

The right hon. Gentleman is probably not aware that the planned increase in 2012 under the Labour spending plans was 2.4%, which was what the previous Government thought earnings would be. Whatever the pension rises, we have guaranteed that the increase will be at least 2.5%, so whatever we do, it will be more than he had planned.

Housing Benefit

Steve Webb Excerpts

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

I am very grateful, Mr Gray, to all the right hon. and hon. Members who have joined me today to take part in a hugely important debate on what I consider to be the Government’s very ill-conceived plans to slash housing benefit for the poorest families in the poorest communities—plans that will inevitably force thousands of people to leave their homes, their families and their friends as they try to find an affordable roof over their heads and the heads of their loved ones. In my view, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), can feel nothing but shame at having to come to Westminster Hall to defend such ill-conceived proposals. With his background and knowledge, he should know better.

When we last debated this issue, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) eloquently outlined the devastating implications of the Government’s plans. In addition, we have all been provided with evidence on the impact of the proposals by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), whom I congratulate on her well deserved place on the Opposition Front Bench, and by the research carried out by a range of organisations working in housing.

The Government’s proposals on housing benefit have to be considered alongside the other proposals that were announced at the Conservative party conference last week: the capping of all benefits that a family can receive at £500 a week and the ending of the universal child benefit. All of that comes on top of the housing benefit cuts set out in June and the cuts to child tax credit, maternity allowance and the child trust fund.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way and I congratulate her on securing this debate. Because I am sure she wants to be part of a responsible Opposition, I think it might help our discussion if, in her remarks, she set out the alternative proposition. Is it her position that rents and housing benefit should simply be uncapped and that people on benefits should be able to choose to live wherever they want to, without any limit being imposed, or does she accept the principle of a cap?

[Margaret Hodge]

As the Minister will know, the Labour Government themselves set the housing allowance. The purpose of this debate is to demonstrate that the intent of the present Government and of the Minister himself will not be achieved by the proposals that he has put before us. That is what I intend to do this morning.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

I have already congratulated the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) on securing this important debate. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck); the Select Committee’s loss is the Labour Front Bench’s gain. She and many other hon. Members who have spoken bring to the debate a great deal of expert knowledge on housing. In the eight minutes remaining, I shall do my best to respond to some of the key points that were made.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) is a doughty campaigner on housing issues and I hope that he always will be. He raised very important questions. Are the measures not bad for child poverty? What about disabled people? A number of hon. Members mentioned the position of vulnerable groups. My response to my hon. Friend is twofold, but principally it is that if we examine what we are spending on housing benefit, we see clear evidence that a significant part of our spending is not subsidising people in need to have decent housing, but subsidising landlords. In each of the past five years, we spent an additional £1 billion in real terms; each year it was another billion, then another and then another.

I want to put a hypothetical scenario to my hon. Friend. The Department for Communities and Local Government says to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, “We want to spend £1 billion next year building affordable homes.” The Chancellor says, “Yes, I’d like to do that.” Then he goes to the Department for Work and Pensions and we have just put in a bid for another £1 billion and another £1 billion for housing benefit, and he has to go back to the DCLG and say, “I’m sorry. The DWP has claimed that £1 billion. It’s not available for affordable housing. It’s not available for tackling child poverty.” The crucial point is that we have a housing benefit system that protects the vulnerable but does not pre-empt resources that could be spent on the very things on which we in this Chamber want to spend money.

[Ms Buck]

rose—

[Steve Webb]

I wonder whether the hon. Lady will forgive me—

[Glenda Jackson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

No. I will give way to the right hon. Member for Barking, who initiated the debate, but in the remaining seven minutes, I want to respond to some of the points made in the debate.

I want to correct a number of the inaccurate impressions that have been given. As the hon. Member for Westminster North said, it is a helpful focus in this debate—as distinct from our July debate, which was on the position of tenants—to ask about the position of the receiving local authorities. That is an entirely valid point. We are in discussions with our colleagues in the DCLG. We are working with the local government associations across the country to work out how best to support local authorities, which will face challenges; I do not dispute that for a second.

The allocation of the discretionary housing payments, which will be trebled from £20 million to £60 million, is part of the picture. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) pointed out, one of the issues for people will be difficulty in securing deposits, and one of the things that discretionary housing payments can be used for is to assist people in paying for deposits. That is part of the purpose of the scheme. We have deliberately trebled that money and, although I cannot say anything definitive about the allocation of that funding, inevitably we shall want the money to go where the need is greatest, and inevitably that means that London will get a significant slice of that money. That is clear, and I think that it will help.

I want to question the description that we have heard of the private rented sector in London. I hesitate to do that in a room full of London MPs, but I shall give it a try. It has been presented as though it is an incredibly static situation, in which people live in communities for generations and it is always the same property, yet surely hon. Members would accept that there is massive turnover in the private rented sector in London. People move in and out of properties all the time.

The idea that there are static communities where any disruption will somehow undermine the community seems to me a parody of what is actually going on. The same applies to the suggestion that in the most expensive parts of London, there are mixed communities, with people at all income levels. The only people who can afford very high rents are the very rich and the very poor; there is nobody in the middle. The suggestion that we are somehow disrupting those terribly cosmopolitan, mixed communities is not true. [Interruption.] Indeed, it is not true. What can we do about the situation?

[Margaret Hodge]

I think that the Minister has demonstrated, as he will have heard from the comments around the room, a lack of understanding of the nature of the population affected. I am referring to the families, about whom we have concern, who will be dislocated by his proposals. Will he give an undertaking to do just a little bit of research that will demonstrate the potential impact on movement across London, which families that will involve and how they will be impacted? If we shared that research and the evidence, we could then have a sensible debate about the impact of the Minister’s proposition. Will he give us that assurance today?

[Steve Webb]

Like the right hon. Lady, I am keen to have a sensible debate on this subject. She mentioned the evidence that the Mayor of London has produced. The Mayor met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State towards the end of September, and we are in close dialogue with London local authorities and others so that we do understand the implications of the changes.

With regard to turnover in the private rented sector, the local housing allowance scheme only came in just over two years ago, in April 2008, and 75% of private rented sector cases are now within the scope of that scheme. There is huge turnover of people. People are making decisions about new—

[Emily Thornberry]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

No. People are making decisions about new tenure choices all the time, and we are saying this: why should those whose rents are wholly paid by the taxpayer not face the same constraints as those who are in low-paid work? I take the point made by the hon. Member for Westminster North that the two are not distinct categories; there is movement between the two. However, people in low-paid work are not choosing to live in the most expensive parts of the city, because they know that they would have to be able to pay those rents out of their wages. Why should people on benefit be in an advantageous position, in terms of their housing choice, compared with those in low-paid work? That simply is not right.

I am convinced that nothing in my language or my ministerial colleagues’ language is about clearances or scroungers. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about value for money for the taxpayer, including the low-paid taxpayers in the constituencies of each hon. Member present, whose taxes are going to subsidise those exorbitant rents. Although we have heard that those very high rents are exceptional, I was appalled when I discovered that the 5,000 families to whom we pay the most housing benefit cost the taxpayer an annual £100 million—5,000 families receive £100 million a year just in housing benefit, leaving other benefits aside. It cannot be right that low-paid workers in our constituencies, people dealing with child poverty and disabled people are paying taxes to pay those rents.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester asked about the position of disabled people. One of the changes that has not been reported is the improvements to the system of housing benefit for disabled people who need a non-resident carer. We are spending an extra £10 million on writing off that extra bedroom in the housing benefit assessment, because we recognise the particular needs of disabled people.

These are huge issues and it is disappointing to have only a few moments to respond to them. The crucial consideration is to be fair—yes, to people on benefit, but also to the low-paid taxpayers whose taxes are paying for these things. If we simply pay the full, very high rents, we make it very difficult for people to take work, which will ultimately be the best antidote to child poverty and the best long-term prospect for people. That is the goal of the reforms.

Work and Pensions

Steve Webb Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2010 Ministerial Corrections

[Mrs McGuire]

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the change in expenditure in the Financial Assistance Scheme attributable to the use of the consumer prices index for pension indexation in the next five years.

[Official Report, 27 July 2010, Vol. 514, c. 1154-1155W.]

Letter of correction from Steve Webb:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) in response to Named Day PQ 10/11057 on 27 July 2010.

The answer given was as follows (error indicated by italics):

[Steve Webb]

The figures show the estimated annual reduction in Financial Assistance Scheme expenditure as a result of switching the indexation of payments in payment and revaluation of payments in deferment from RPI to CPI from 2011.

Figures are in cash terms and are rounded to the nearest £100,000. The reduction represents 0.1% of estimated total FAS spending in each year.

[Steve Webb]

The figures show the estimated annual reduction in Financial Assistance Scheme expenditure as a result of switching the indexation of payments in payment and revaluation of payments in deferment from RPI to CPI from 2011.

Figures are in cash terms and are rounded to the nearest £100,000. The reduction represents 0.1% of estimated total FAS spending in the first year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Webb Excerpts

Monday 19th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

3. What assessment he has made of the likely effect on pensioners of his proposed changes to the welfare system.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

Since the general election a number of changes have been announced to benefits and pensions. The most significant for pensioners was our decision, after 30 years of decline in the pension’s real value, to restore the earnings link with the basic state pension.

[John Robertson]

I thank the Minister for his answer, but he is well aware that the earnings link will not help pensioners as of January, when they start to pay their increased VAT. That increase amounts to almost £8 billion over the life of a Parliament, so when will the hon. Gentleman stick by his party’s promise during the general election campaign to fight any VAT rise? What will he do to protect those elderly people who, through no fault of their own, will be left with enormous debts, thanks to this Government?

[Steve Webb]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that the country’s structural deficit is now more than £12 billion larger than it was thought to be at the election. I do not know where he would have got that £12 billion from. As for pensioners, not only will we ensure that we restore the earnings link, but in April 2011 the full value of the cash increase in the state pension will go through to the poorest pensioners on pension credit.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that if the pensions in payment today had been linked to the consumer prices index rather than to the retail prices index for the past 20 years, pensions would be 14% lower than they are now? Does not the proposed shift in the definition of price indexation represent a huge raid on pension benefits, which gets worse and worse as time goes on and makes all current and future pensioners poorer?

[Steve Webb]

It pains me to suggest that the hon. Lady is being selective in her use of statistics, but if she looks at the increase in pensions as a whole—the basic state pension and additional pensions—she will see that we have linked the basic state pension to earnings, which over the course of 20 years, for a typical person retiring this year, will add £15,000 in extra state pension compared with price indexation, which was the policy of her Government.

[Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

In a written statement, the Minister said that the Government would force occupational pensions to be linked to the consumer prices index instead of the retail prices index. What powers do they have, or will they have, to take to make that happen?

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions for her question, as this matter has not been well understood. Statute provides a floor above which occupational pension schemes have to operate. In other words, we will not force occupational pension schemes to cut their increases; we simply provide a floor, which used to be linked to the RPI and is now linked to the CPI. Schemes remain entirely free to go beyond that if they wish.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

4. What discussions he has had with the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council on industrial injuries linked to the mining industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

10. What public consultation will be held on proposed changes to the retirement age for state pensions; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

On 24 June we published a call for evidence for plans to increase the state pension age to 66 on a more rapid time scale. The closing date for that consultation is 6 August.

[Miss McIntosh]

There is a general understanding of the need for such a change, but those who will be affected by what will be an arbitrary date desperately need the knowledge to enable them to plan their finances, to give them certainty and security in their retirement.

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and we are seeking to move as quickly as possible to reach a conclusion on the change to the age of 66, to give people the maximum notice so that they can make appropriate plans.

[Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab)]

Notwithstanding the need to increase the age at which people draw the state pension, will the Minister and his Department look into the social class dimension? According to the latest statistics, 19% of men from the poorest social backgrounds do not survive to get their pension. Those from poorer backgrounds, who often do heavy manual work throughout their lives, die much earlier in their pension careers than those from better-off backgrounds. Will he look into the social class dimension?

[Steve Webb]

The right hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable about pensions and social issues, and he has highlighted an important matter. We specifically referred to this in the call for evidence for the change to 66. The good news is that life expectancy is increasing across all social groups, but the factor that he mentioned is an important one, and we will consider it when we examine state pension ages.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

11. What steps Jobcentre Plus plans to take to assist education leavers into employment and training in 2010.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

T4. In my constituency, a large number of people—much larger than the national average—are pensioners, and in my region an amazing 22% of pensioners are in effective poverty. What will my hon. Friend be doing for the most vulnerable pensioners?

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

We need to ensure that, as well as lifting the level of the basic state pension, the most vulnerable pensioners, who receive the pension credit, get the full benefit of the increase that we will be introducing next April. However, in the longer term we do not want to allow people to retire poor and then try to catch them through a means test; we want to ensure that more people have, for example, workplace pensions, so that fewer people retire poor in the first place. That is a better strategy for the long term.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

T3. Given the brief opportunity afforded by Lord Young for others to input into his review of health and safety legislation, what comfort can the Minister give my constituents that its motivation is a serious effort to ensure that the right protection is in place to prevent disasters such as the one that occurred in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), at Stockline, rather than another excuse to trot out the usual litany of myth and distortion for the gratification of the Daily Mail?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

T6. Does the Minister agree that more must be done to help the unemployed over-50s, who are not necessarily on benefits? A constituent of mine, Mr Kevin Forbes, who was made redundant, has applied for more than 4,700 jobs without any luck. What comfort can the Minister give him and many others that we will radically improve back-to-work schemes for the over-50s?

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, not least about ageist attitudes, particularly among employers. One of the worst examples is that it is currently legal to sack somebody for being over 65. We think that that is outrageous. The previous Government talked about it, but we are going to change the law, and that will be part of a cultural change. We need to see longer working lives. Many people want to go on making a contribution, and, like my hon. Friend’s constituent, they are thwarted in their attempts to do so. We need to change that culture and to change attitudes.

[Mr Speaker]

It is always a pleasure to listen to the Minister. May I just ask him to face the House? It is a very natural temptation to look backwards, but facing the House helps us all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

My question is on pensioner poverty. Parts of my constituency are more than 1,200 feet above sea level and in the winter they can be very cold, so will the Minister guarantee not to cut the cold weather payments in the coming five years?

[Steve Webb]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the underlying level of cold weather payments has been £8.50, which was increased to £25 for the past two winters. We are considering the rate for the coming winter, but we take representations each year on cold weather stations to make sure that they match the exact geography of local areas, for the sort of reasons that he gives.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

T8. Will my hon. Friend inform the House of the estimate of the number of benefit claimants who are addicted to alcohol and/or drugs? Will she outline the opportunities that will arise under the Work programme to reduce dependency, which can often be both on drugs and alcohol, and benefits?

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

T9. At my surgery on Saturday, Liz Harlow, a benefits adviser, told me that it is taking weeks to process applications for crisis loans. Given that they are described as loans that can provide help in “an emergency or disaster”, can Ministers reassure me that they will be processed more quickly in future?

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend raises a vital issue. We need to ensure that crisis loans are administered far more efficiently than they are at present. I am aware that there are delays. I am happy to look not only into the individual case that he raises, but more systematically at whether the social fund is delivering—I do not think that it is.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Given the vital role that Jobcentre Plus staff play in getting people back to work and given that about 13,500 of them are on fixed-term contracts, some of which are due to end in November, can the Minister give the House an assurance that talks are taking place to extend or make permanent job contracts?

Social Fund Reports (2009-10)

Steve Webb Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

I am pleased to announce the publication of the annual report by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the Social Fund 2009-10 and the Social Fund Commissioner’s annual report 2009-10.

The Secretary of State’s annual report on the Social Fund for 2009-10 was published today and has been laid before Parliament. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.

The report records that total gross expenditure in 2009-10, excluding winter fuel payments, was over £1.3 billion. This figure included over 263,000 non-repayable community care grants and almost 4 million interest-free loans together worth £850 million. Also, cold weather payments worth £290 million, funeral payments worth £47 million and sure start maternity grants worth £139 million were paid.

In addition an estimated 9.1 million households benefited from a winter fuel payment at an estimated cost of around £2.7 billion.

The Social Fund Commissioner’s report has also been published today and copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses.