Oral Answers to Questions
Tony Baldry Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Esther McVey
The Work programme is the largest programme of its kind, helping people into work on an unparalleled scale. It is superseding all the expected levels and targets; it is better than anything that has gone before it.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
With the Banbury and Bicester job clubs, we seek to help people who are out of work to get back into the world of work, irrespective of age. Am I not right in thinking that 50,000 over-50s who are in work now were not in work last year? So 50,000 over-50s have found work in just the past year, and it is right that we should not write anyone off simply because of their age.
Esther McVey
My right hon. Friend is correct about that. We are seeing what extra support we can give to the over-50s, which is why, with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions, we have brought together the “Fuller Working Lives” document. It is also why we are looking at: how we can do extra IT; how we can do extra CVs and résumés; and how we can have older worker champions going into business to really sell the benefits of older employees, because it is key that they should be there to share their experience.
Mr Harper
If the hon. Gentleman is referring to mandatory reconsideration when somebody is found fit for work, he will know that the average length of time taken to decide one of those is 13 days, not 13 weeks. He will also know that if someone is found fit for work, they are able to claim jobseeker’s allowance and they will receive support from the jobcentre to help them get back into work.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
T9. In the past five years, how many people have moved from benefits into work? Is there any comparable five-year period since 1945 when so many people have moved off benefits into the world of work?
Mr Duncan Smith
The record now for people moving from benefits into work is remarkable. Some 600,000 have moved back into work. Peak to peak, the figure is over 800,000, and we have many, many more people back in employment. There have never been as many people in work and that number is still growing, with some 700,000 vacancies in the jobcentres every week.
Oral Answers to Questions
Tony Baldry Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Duncan Smith
I am afraid I simply do not recognise the kind of case the hon. Lady raises. She knows that if she wants to raise a case directly with me or with the Minister for Employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), she should do so, but there is no such rule in jobcentres or in respect of sanctions. [Interruption.] Yes, I am very happy to see the hon. Lady, but let me bring her to the wider issue, which is simply this: the report made it very clear that there are multiple issues. What the Opposition have tried to do non-stop, as they have with the spare room subsidy and other matters, is try to scare everybody up and down the country into believing that there is a magic wand. Let me remind her that under her Government the number of food banks doubled. The reality is that long before the coalition came to power, they were already delivering a failed economy and forcing people out of work and into difficulty beyond whatever we may have done.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
One of the reasons for using food banks—a reason given by those who use them—is delays in benefit payments. Am I right in thinking, however, that the average time for sorting out benefit payment disputes has been reduced to under two weeks?
Mr Duncan Smith
My right hon. Friend is correct. The reality is that delays in benefit payments have fallen under this Government. There are now fewer delays. The Opposition say that we need to speed up the payment of benefits. I remind them that under Labour benefits were not paid until two weeks after the claim, so unless they are now saying that benefits should be paid earlier than that, I really have no idea what the Opposition’s policy is on this. We pay benefits as quickly as possible. There is no determination to delay payment. Jobcentres and benefit offices do their level best to ensure that people get money when they need it, and hardship funds are available if anybody has any difficulty.
Housing Benefit (Abolition of Social Sector Size Criteria)
Tony Baldry Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that the housing benefit social sector size criteria, otherwise known as the bedroom tax, should be abolished with immediate effect.
Today, Members of this House have a chance and a choice: a chance to put right one of the worst injustices we have seen under this unfair, out-of-touch Government; and a choice to make about where they stand on the question of how we treat some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of our society. In just a few hours, we could vote to abolish and repeal the bedroom tax, an extraordinarily cruel and unfair policy that has hit half a million low-income households, two thirds of them including a disabled member and two fifths of them including children, with a charge of more than £14 a week, on average, which most cannot afford to pay, simply because they have been allocated by a council or a housing association a home that the Government now decide has too many rooms.
One week before Christmas we have a chance to bring hope and relief to hundreds of thousands of people who are struggling to stay in their home, pay the bills and put food on the table by scrapping this cruel and punitive tax on bedrooms, which is yet another example of Tory welfare waste.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
There is a slight groundhog day quality to this debate. I am sure that we have had an identical debate before. Indeed, I was thinking of making the same speech that I made last time in this debate, and wondering whether anyone would be interested. There is something that I do not understand, and have never understood. The previous Government introduced exactly the same policy for tenants in the private rented sector on housing benefit, so why is it thought appropriate to have that policy for tenants on housing benefit in the private rented sector, but not appropriate for tenants in social housing on housing benefit?
Rachel Reeves
If the right hon. Gentleman participated in previous debates on this matter, he would know that the rule for private housing was not retrospective, so it did not affect people who were already living in their accommodation. In addition, in the private sector there is no security of tenure, which has hitherto existed in the social rented sector.
The numbers affected by this indefensible policy are shocking, but it is individuals and families whom we must keep in mind. I want to tell the House about a young man I visited at his home in west Wales a few weeks ago. Warren Todd is 15 years old. He has a rare chromosomal disorder called Potocki Shaffer syndrome, which affects the development of his bones, brain and other organs, and means that he suffers from epilepsy, autism, skeletal problems and learning disabilities. For most of his life, Warren has been cared for by his grandparents, Sue and Paul Rutherford. They have dedicated their lives to giving him a decent childhood and, by enabling him to live at home instead of residential care, they are saving us, the taxpayer, thousands of pounds every week.
We should celebrate and applaud the incredible contribution that these people are making to Warren’s life and to our country, but instead this Government have deducted £60 a month from their housing benefit, because they live in a bungalow with three bedrooms, one of which is deemed a spare bedroom, chargeable under the bedroom tax. They asked the Prime Minister to visit them in their home and see why they needed that room. Warren’s grandfather said:
“If he”—
the Prime Minister—
“saw how we were living he would end the tax straight away. But of course he hasn’t been to see us”.
I have seen this “spare bedroom”, which is crammed with special equipment for Warren and a sofa bed for respite carers to use. There is nothing remotely “spare” about it. Without it, the Rutherfords could not possibly do the incredible job they do of looking after Warren at home.
The bungalow has been fitted with a track system and hoist to help Warren into the bath, his bed, and on to the sofa. It would cost a fortune to replace and reinstall it if they had to move to another property. There are countless other cases like that of people whose lives have been turned upside down by this punitive and indefensible tax on bedrooms.
Oral Answers to Questions
Tony Baldry Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Duncan Smith
I am interested in the hon. Lady’s question because in the report Alan Milburn brought out as part of his commission he recommended that we should
“supplement the existing child poverty targets with new measures to give a more rounded picture of those in poverty”,
and I agree with that. That is what we have set out to do. We took a consultation, and we are now considering that consultation and we will be bringing forward recommendations.
May I just say to the hon. Lady, however, that many of the forecasts about child poverty proved to be wrong? Child poverty has actually fallen, and, interestingly, I notice that the figures for her area show that Tower Hamlets has seen the largest fall of any local authority in England, down 7.1%, and down 9.6% since 2010 for those on tax credits and below the poverty line.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
I am sure that when I voted for the welfare cap I was surrounded in the Division Lobby by large numbers of Labour Members of Parliament. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one can only have an effective welfare cap, and cap the welfare bill, if benefits do not rise faster than wages?
Mr Duncan Smith
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right and he is approaching this from the logical perspective, which is that we have a responsibility to make sure that the economy is in balance, that we get the deficit down and that we are able to afford what we want to do to support the most vulnerable. What the Opposition fail to recognise time and again is that the economy that they left in a totally wrecked position has got to be sorted out; we cannot just go spending what we do not earn.
Affordable Homes Bill
Tony Baldry Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
It is always a genuine pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford). We have both been Housing Ministers in our time, and I concede that he was always a genuine expert on housing and local government policy.
I will start by focusing on the cost of today’s Bill. Listening to the right hon. Gentleman’s speech and some of the interventions from Labour Members, I reminded myself—I thought I might have forgotten—that there was an agreement earlier this year to introduce a welfare cap. Such are the wonders of modern technology, that even I can now google “welfare cap” on my BlackBerry, and I am reminded by the BBC that on 26 March this year—
Sir Tony Baldry
I am. I am quoting from the BBC. I can read. It states:
“MPs approve annual welfare cap in Commons vote.”
[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would rather I did not read this and remind the House of the reality, but I think we ought to share it:
“MPs have overwhelmingly backed plans to introduce an overall cap on the amount the UK spends on welfare each year. Welfare spending, excluding the state pension and some unemployment benefits, will be capped next year at £119.5 billion. The idea, put forward by Chancellor George Osborne in last week’s Budget, would in future see limits set at the beginning of each Parliament. With Labour supporting the idea, the measure was approved in the House of Commons by 520 to 22 votes…The cap will include spending on the vast majority of benefits, including pension credits, severe disablement allowance, incapacity benefits, child benefit, both maternity and paternity pay, universal credit and housing benefit…Under the proposed system, if a government wanted to spend more on one area of the welfare state it would have to compensate by making cuts elsewhere, to stay within the overall cap.”
Sir Tony Baldry
Let me finish this point and then I will gladly give way to the hon. Lady.
My hon. Friend the Minister intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) to say that the Government and Department have costed this Bill at £1 billion. Could that calculation and the arithmetic that supports it be put in a written answer in Hansard, and the figures placed in the Library so that we can all see them? This is important because it follows a decision the whole House took overwhelmingly earlier this year that if this Bill for example, costs £1 billion, then £1 billion of cuts must be made elsewhere in the welfare budget.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can help us. The Government’s original estimate of the saving to the taxpayer of introducing the bedroom tax was £490 million. Today apparently, with a suspiciously round figure, the cost of getting rid of the bedroom tax would be £1 billion. How can that be possible?
Sir Tony Baldry
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives sought to lull us all into a sense of reasonableness by asserting that this was just a Bill to tidy up and amend the spare room subsidy. It is clear, however, from the comments of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, that the real intention of those who support this Bill is to remove the spare room subsidy completely, so the purpose of the Bill is not what my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives said; it has a completely different purpose.
My fundamental point is still valid. If this Bill costs £1 billion, then given the welfare cap—which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and pretty much all Labour Members voted for earlier this year—the consequences of enacting it will mean that £1 billion must be saved from somewhere else in the welfare budget.
Mr Harper
I had not intended to intervene, but perhaps I can help to clear up the point. The cost of reversing the removal of the spare room subsidy is around £0.5 billion, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) confirmed. I spoke about the cost of the Bill because, whether the hon. Gentleman knows this or not, the Bill as drafted goes much wider than the removal of the spare room subsidy and fundamentally changes the way housing benefit is calculated—for example, it removes deductions for other people living in the household. That adds a further £500 million to the cost of the Bill. Members need to know that when they decide whether they will vote for it.
Sir Tony Baldry
May I invite my hon. Friend to intervene on me one more time to clarify and confirm this important point? Am I right in thinking that as a consequence of the welfare cap, whatever this Bill costs, whether it be £0.5 billion or £1 billion, that money must be saved and found somewhere else in the welfare budget?
Sir Tony Baldry
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The whole House must recognise that when we debate issues of welfare, we cannot pretend that we did not collectively, and by a very large majority, vote for the welfare cap.
Sheila Gilmore
I heard one of the right hon. Gentleman’s colleagues on the radio this morning saying that there is no problem for disabled people and others affected by this because discretionary housing payments would cover it. Leaving aside the fact that I know full well that such payments do not cover everyone, if they did, it would balance out anyway. Why incur the additional administrative costs, as well as putting people through the anxiety of applying for discretionary housing benefits, if his colleagues think that the money is there anyway? Why not simply exempt those people and make it much simpler?
Sir Tony Baldry
If I recall correctly the hon. Lady was one of those who voted for the welfare cap. Discretionary allowances have been working. Indeed, the constituency of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich still has discretionary grant to spare.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman should not let the Minister escape the question he was asked: will he put those figures in the Library so that we can see how that calculation of £1 billion has been made? We will then see whether those figures are real. Labour did agree to a cap on the welfare bill, but there are many other ways of bringing that down, such as getting employers to pay proper wages, bringing down unemployment, and many other things.
Sir Tony Baldry
Having been in the House for nearly a third of a century, I implicitly trust what those on the Treasury Bench say. If the Minister says that the cost of the Bill will be £1 billion, I am sure that it will be and that he will be able to demonstrate to the House how he has come to that figure. The fundamental point, which I think we are all agreed on, is that whatever the Bill costs, whether £0.5 billion or £1 billion, that sum must be found somewhere else in the welfare budget. We cannot simply come to the House and seek to spend taxpayers’ money without that having consequences. Given that everyone has pretty much signed up to the welfare cap, one consequence is having to make savings elsewhere in the welfare budget.
When I first saw the Bill, one of the policy conundrums for me was why the previous Labour Government introduced almost identical proposals for tenants in the private rented sector—[Interruption.] I will come on to this in some detail, don’t you worry! Why did they think that it was appropriate to treat tenants on housing benefit in social housing differently from tenants on housing benefit in the private rented sector? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda, who is probably one of the greatest chunterers in the House, says that it was not introduced retrospectively. Given the length of the average private rented tenancy, if his best point is that there is somehow a distinction because shorthold assured tenancies usually run for six months it is not a very good point.
Chris Bryant
I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman is talking utter Baldrydash. First, the truth of the matter is that the first measures on size criteria were introduced by a Conservative Government in 1989. Secondly, the Labour Government never introduced any retrospective measure. Thirdly, but far more important, the key point about social housing is that it is allocated on the basis of need. Our measure was completely different.
Sir Tony Baldry
One thing I will miss when I eventually leave the House is the hon. Gentleman’s charm. I suspect I will not miss it for long, but I will miss it.
I looked back in detail at the local housing allowance legislation, which was introduced for new claimants living in the deregulated private sector from 7 April 2008. Following the Social Security Act 1986, the housing benefit scheme was introduced in April 1988. As the House knows, housing benefit is a means-tested benefit administered by local authorities. It is paid to eligible tenants who live in the social and private rented sectors. Entitlement to housing benefit is calculated by comparing the needs and resources of the household, taking the liability for rent payments into account in calculating household net income. Before local housing allowance was introduced, private sector tenants also claimed housing benefit.
On 17 October 2002, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith), my county colleague, who was then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, announced plans for a new form of housing benefit that could no longer be directly linked to rent. He described the plans as
“the biggest reform in Housing Benefit since the benefit began.”
One characteristic of housing benefit reforms is that Ministers always say that their reform is the biggest since the benefit began, but he did seek to make significant savings.
The new approach was introduced in nine pathfinder areas from November 2003 and was extended to a further nine areas from April 2005. At the time, this is how the Department for Work and Pensions described the aims and objectives of the local housing allowance:
“Local Housing Allowance…is the cornerstone of the Government’s Housing Benefit reform programme which aims to simplify Housing Benefit and ensure it supports the wider objectives for welfare reform.”
Most hon. Members are sufficiently savvy to recognise the phrase
“ensure it supports the wider objectives for welfare reform”
as Treasury-speak for making public sector savings. That is exactly what the Labour Government sought to do. The Department for Work and Pensions website at the time said:
“The fundamental aims of the LHA scheme are to promote…Fairness…LHA bases the maximum amount paid to tenants on the size, composition and location of the household. Benefit will no longer be based on actual rents but on median levels of rent within localities.”
Sir Tony Baldry
I will give way in a second.
The current Government have extended the same principle to social housing tenants of paying the benefit on the size and composition of household.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Tony Baldry
I will certainly give way to the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.
Dame Anne Begg
I assume the right hon. Gentleman wants savings in the housing benefit bill. Rents are much higher in the private rented sector, yet that sector is growing, partly as a result of the bedroom tax. Does he accept that the bedroom tax pushes people who are in cheaper social housing into more expensive private housing, which results in a greater call on the housing benefit bill?
Sir Tony Baldry
The hon. Lady is missing the point I seek to make, which is that the Labour Government, whom she supported, introduced almost identical provisions for tenants in the private rented sector, and there seems to be no reason why tenants in the private rented sector should be treated differently from social housing tenants.
Mr Nuttall
My right hon. Friend makes a compelling case. Does he agree that the measures the Government are taking to stimulate housing supply, and the increase in the housing supply, will help to keep private rented sector rents in check, notwithstanding the fact that more people might seek smaller accommodation within the private rented sector?
Sir Tony Baldry
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I suspect other hon. Members will enlarge upon the fact that, under Governments of both parties, new social housing has tended to be a planning windfall gain from new house building. Under the Labour Government, very little new housing was built. In Banbury and Bicester and throughout my constituency, more new housing is going up—as a consequence, new social housing is going up—than for a very long time. He is correct that that leads to new social tenancies.
Mr Raynsford
The right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that the average number of homes built per year during the lifetime of the Labour Government was 145,000. The lowest number in any one year was 124,000. The current Government have not completed 124,000 homes in any single year they have been in office, so it is simply not true that more housing is being built than was built under the previous Government.
Sir Tony Baldry
The right hon. Gentleman is a little selective in his use of figures. The previous Government were in office for 13 years, and had they not built houses in all those years, we would have been in serious difficulty. As a consequence of the economic mess they got the country into, during their final years in office and during the early part of the recession—the hangover of the recession overlapped with our being elected—the construction industry was in dire straits. I am glad to say that, wherever I go in my patch, I see signs saying “Bricklayers wanted” outside building sites. The construction industry tells me that it finds it very difficult to get the people with the skills it needs because the building boom, with new housing going up, is running apace, thanks largely to the policies pursued by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in turning the economy around.
I should get back to the central point to which I wish to draw the House’s attention. The experience of the pathfinder areas of the local housing allowance led to the previous Government legislating for a national roll-out from 7 April 2008. The local housing allowance measure was contained in the Welfare Reform Act 2007 and associated regulations.
Sir Tony Baldry
I am sure the hon. Lady will have the opportunity to make her own speech in her own time.
Local housing allowance was rolled out nationally for new claimants in the deregulated private sector from 7 April 2008. The Library note makes it clear that local housing allowance
“is paid at the standard rate to the tenant based on the size of the accommodation they are deemed to need, e.g. a couple with no children would receive the LHA based on a one-bedroom property.”
I suspect that that is exactly the same provision as now applies to tenants in social housing.
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the other side of the coin of the spare room subsidy is that it addresses not only under-occupancy, but over-occupancy? It allows families previously overcrowded in unsuitable accommodation to move into larger properties vacated by families previously over-provided for.
Sir Tony Baldry
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point.
So much did the Labour Government think their policy would work that they were going to allow tenants to retain up to £15 a week in surplus benefit, if they could make sufficient savings on their rent. We might not remember it now, however, but as part of the 2009 Budget, they announced that the local housing allowance would be amended from April 2010 to remove that provision:
“The Local Housing Allowance…was introduced in April 2008, and costs have exceeded the planned expenditure for this policy. To bring the cost into line with what is affordable, whilst still ensuring all recipients can afford their rent, the Budget announces that from April 2010 there will no longer be scope for anyone to receive more LHA than they have to pay in rent. Existing claimants will move onto the new arrangements on the anniversary of their claim.”
That makes it absolutely clear that the last Labour Government introduced these changes in housing benefit for tenants in the private rented sector entirely, solely and totally to save money and reduce the housing benefit bill.
The effect of the proposal was summarised thus:
“All new customers claiming Housing Benefit in the deregulated private sector on or after 5 April 2010 would not be entitled to any excess benefit over their contractual rent…Existing customers, including those in the former LHA Pathfinder areas, who are currently entitled to an excess payment of up to £15, would see a reduction in their benefit when their claims are reviewed, usually on the anniversary date of their claim.”
Contrary to the blandishments of the hon. Member for Rhondda, that change was retrospective. A lot of people who thought they would be better off by £15 a week suddenly discovered, as a consequence of that Budget, that that money had been taken away from them.
Yvonne Fovargue
The right hon. Gentleman described this system as almost identical to the local housing allowance, but as he himself pointed out, the LHA is a median figure. In Wigan, therefore, somebody moving out of a three-bedroom local authority property can find a three-bedroom, non-social housing, private rented property at the median rent, while still being paid £10 a week more and receiving housing benefit. They could move out of and leave vacant a three-bedroom social housing property, but still have a three-bedroom property even though they only have one child.
Sir Tony Baldry
The hon. Lady and other Labour Members are refusing to acknowledge some fundamental points about the Bill. She voted for the welfare cap and the Minister has said that the Bill would cost the Treasury £1 billion. If it were passed, therefore, and if, by any mischance, a Labour Government were to be elected next spring, they would have to find £1 billion of savings elsewhere in the welfare budget. If Labour votes in support of the Bill, it will behove Labour Front-Bench team, given that the Labour party is governed by collective responsibility just as much as the Government are, to tell the House and the country exactly where they would find £1 billion of savings elsewhere in the welfare budget to compensate for the cost of the Bill.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
For clarification, all the figures were adjudicated by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, not the Government. The Opposition and the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who is promoting the Bill, have said they want the figures checked, but the OBR is an independent body and therefore the figures stand and include all the costs and savings.
Sir Tony Baldry
I am sure the whole House is grateful to my right hon. Friend for that clarification and confirmation.
I thought it would be interesting to go back and read the Committee proceedings of the Welfare Reform Bill in 2006. Hon. Members might not recall, but, interestingly, when the proposal for limiting housing benefit for those in the private rented sector was first mooted, the original consultation paper also consulted on a proposal to limit housing benefit for those in social housing on exactly the same basis. Nowhere on Second Reading or in Committee did the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), the then Minister, ever explain to the House or the Committee why the then Labour Government decided only to focus the housing benefit changes on the private rented sector and not to include social housing.
In Committee, various hon. Members sought to make exactly the same proposals and changes as are being proposed today. For example, Members were keen to know whether alterations could be made for under-25s in the private rented sector, and the Minister said that the changes were
“part of a package that is intended to make housing benefit more transparent and more understandable to people….I hark back to our short debate on Tuesday evening: the new local housing allowance applies only to those in the private rented sector.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 2 November 2006; c. 424-45.]
In other words, the changes were being introduced entirely because the last Government thought it necessary to save money.
Mr Harper
Perhaps I can help my right hon. Friend. In 2004, my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) asked the then Minister, the late Malcolm Wicks,
“for what reasons the local housing allowance applies only to the de-regulated private sector.”
The then Minister replied:
“We hope to implement a flat rate housing benefit system in the social sector, similar to that anticipated in the private rented sector…We aim to extend our reforms to the social rented sector as soon as rent restructuring and increased choice have created an improved market.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 1075W.]
It is clear, despite all we hear from the Opposition, that the last Labour Government intended to do exactly the same thing.
Sir Tony Baldry
It is clear they had exactly the same intentions.
In the final debate in Committee on the revisions of the local housing allowance, when asked to make amendments similar to those being invited in the Bill, the Minister said:
“I reassure the Committee that we already have powers to make different provisions for different classes of people…However… adding the qualification suggested by the amendment to the local housing allowance would undermine its main advantages of simplicity, transparency and fairness….As I said during a debate on a previous amendment, the discretionary housing payment scheme is also in place. That flexible system will enable the local authority to target help to those who most need it.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 2 November 2006; c. 434-5.]
May I suggest that this Government’s discretionary payment scheme for tenants in the social housing sector is exactly the same? Indeed, those comments could have been made by a Minister in this Government in exactly the same way as suggested by the amendments and reforms proposed for changing housing benefit for tenants in the social housing sector.
I conclude by saying that this Parliament has to be grown up about the issues. If the House introduces a cap by an overwhelming majority, we cannot gaily come along, turn up on a Friday in September and seek to spend £1 billion of public money without making it clear to the House and to the country where the consequential savings are to be made elsewhere in the welfare budget. This will happen whether it be under this Government or any other Government. It behoves the Labour party, Labour Front-Bench Members and the shadow Minister when he gets to the Dispatch Box to tell us in terms where he intends those savings to be made. If he cannot do that, it would be irresponsible to support the Bill in the Lobby today. There is no justification for a Labour party and a Labour Government who introduced reforms and changes to housing benefit for those in the private rented sector to think that tenants in the social housing sector should be treated any differently.
Oral Answers to Questions
Tony Baldry Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Duncan Smith
Let me explain to the right hon. Gentleman that the reality is that we have agreed—I can run through the list for him—all the spending that is relevant to the plan that we set out at the end of last year. The final point relates to the full lifetime of that programme, which will take it all the way through, probably beyond all the years that anybody present will be in government. [Hon. Members: “Certainly you!”] To be fair, I do not think Labour will be in government given the way its Members behave. That is now being agreed and the reality is that it has to be done very carefully. I genuinely believe, from my discussions, that it will be signed off very shortly. The result will be that the programme will be seen for what it is: a programme that will deliver hugely to those who have the toughest lives and need the most support and help.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
22. One can see the advantages of the introduction of universal credit to those whose lives are toughest, but will my right hon. Friend tell the House what the benefits to both employers and businesses might be once universal credit is fully implemented?
Mr Duncan Smith
I invite anybody in the House to visit areas where universal credit is rolling out—across the north-west, and even here in London—not to talk to the likes of me but to the staff who operate the jobcentres, who will say that it has allowed them to get people started into work far quicker, so that they are taking work earlier and staying in work longer. It means that businesses on the high street can afford to take people on, to begin with for lower hours than they might otherwise have been able to do—in other words, not creating a job—and then expand it into a much fuller-time job, so improving the economy and improving lives.
amendment of the law
Tony Baldry Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Coventry and Banbury are not that far away from each other. When the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) and I entered the House of Commons together about 30 years ago, I think that the unemployment rates in our constituencies were not dissimilar at about 15%. Unemployment in my constituency today is 1%, so it is possible to make progress if the community works together and drives forward jobs.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
Indeed, progress is being made in Coventry South, where the number of jobseeker’s allowance claimants has fallen 17% year on year. In the 18-to-24 age group, it has fallen 20% and the number of long-term unemployed in Coventry South has fallen 16% in the past year.
Sir Tony Baldry
But, of course, Opposition Members simply are not willing to acknowledge that there has been a persistent fall in unemployment. I am not sure that their dirge of pessimism will resonate with electors, however. This past week was a defining week. By Friday, the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was acknowledging on “Any Questions?” that the Opposition would support the Government’s pension changes. She obviously had a busy weekend, because on Sunday she acknowledged in The Observer that Labour
“will vote for a cap on welfare spending to keep the overall costs of social security under control.”
Of course, the Chancellor has attached the welfare cap to the charter for budget responsibility in such a way that tomorrow, essentially, the Opposition will be voting for the coalition’s deficit reduction programme. Having spent pretty much all of this Parliament resisting every welfare reform and every attempt to reduce the budget deficit, at the end of the Parliament with just over a year to the next general election the Opposition are suddenly trying to catch up, accepting the fundamentals of the Government’s economic policy and recognising the strength of the Government’s long-term economic plan.
The Opposition can do the big stuff, but when it comes to the detail they still cannot quite bring themselves to acknowledge what they must do. They say that they will reverse the spare room subsidy. I still do not understand why they want to treat tenants in the social housing sector differently from the way in which they treated tenants in the private rented sector, notwithstanding that they will have to find nearly £500 million to reverse that policy. Where do they say the money will come from? The shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said again from the Dispatch Box today that it would come from taxing higher rate taxpayers through the winter fuel allowance, but that would bring in only £100 million. We can already see that they are about £400 million adrift on just that simple question. It is all very well talking the talk about signing up to the welfare cap, but they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge what they will have to do to enforce that. Welfare budgets were completely out of control under the previous Government. The number of households in which no one had ever worked nearly doubled under Labour. This Government have taken difficult decisions to bring the benefits bill down, saving £19 billion a year for the taxpayer. The new welfare cap will ensure that never again will the costs of welfare be allowed to spiral out of control and never again will the incentives to work be distorted. The level of the cap will be allowed to rise only in line with forecast inflation. Of course people who have worked hard all their life deserve security in their retirement, so the cost of the state pension will be excluded from the cap, as will cyclical unemployment benefits. We need to see a welfare system that returns to the safety net that Beveridge intended, instead of the entrapment that it had become.
We have seen the Government make some brave and positive moves to get the welfare budget back under control. The latest workless household figures show a dramatic fall of 450,000 since 2010. We have record employment figures. I can recall at the beginning of this Parliament Opposition Members all saying that the Government’s long-term economic plan would lead to the disappearance of a million private and public sector jobs. What has actually happened since 2010 is that more than 1.7 million more people are employed in the private sector, which is more than four times the number of jobs lost in the public sector.
As we heard in an intervention from the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) in the speech of the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), the Opposition’s answer to any conundrum is more public sector jobs. Their default position is still more public spending and more public sector jobs. In reality it is in the private sector that more jobs are being created. Indeed, almost 80% of the rise in private sector employment has taken place outside London, in constituencies such as mine and Coventry and in the constituency of probably every Member who has spoken in the debate. Almost 90% of the new jobs went to British nationals.
There are those, such as the Bank of England, who argue that the increase in employment has to a certain extent been as a consequence of the tightening of the eligibility requirements for some state benefits, which have caused people to see whether they cannot find their way back into the world of work. I visited one of the Work programme providers in my constituency the other day, which is doing a really good job of ensuring that the long-term unemployed get back into work. So the increase in private sector employment is now more than four times the number of jobs lost in the public sector. The rise in employment is being driven by businesses and entrepreneurs across the country who are feeling increasingly confident with the improving economy.
I have few large employers in my constituency. The continuous driving down of the unemployment rate month on month, week by week, in constituencies such as mine is being achieved by the private sector and by entrepreneurs, all of whom found measures in last week’s Budget that were supportive and which they supported.
We heard much about young people in the debate, but the number of young people in work has increased by 43,000 in the last three months alone, and the proportion of 16 to 24-year-olds not in employment, education or training is at its lowest in five years.
Employment is at a record high, up by over 1.3 million since the election. For the first time in three decades, the number of people employed in the UK is better than that in the United States. Unemployment in other European countries is going up, whereas unemployment in the UK is going down. That bodes well and will bode well for the Government come the general election next year.
Inherited Social Housing Tenancies
Tony Baldry Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Esther McVey
We are looking through all that at the moment, and anyone who can prove that they are covered by this loophole is of course getting that funding back. That is what we have said people should do, as well as paying towards the administrative charges.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Is it not a fact that we inherited more than 1,000 pages of regulations on housing benefit and that there would inevitably be some lacunae while we sought to simplify the system? The real question, which still has not been answered, is why Labour wants to treat people on housing benefit in the social rented sector differently from those on housing benefit in the private rented sector. We still have not had an explanation for that.
Esther McVey
My right hon. Friend is quite right. At the moment, the Opposition say that they would like there to be a difference between the people in the private sector and those in the social rented sector. Actually, they had had discussions about introducing this policy too, so they were going to align the policies and do exactly the same as we have done. The only question that they have never asked, as they have sought to reverse what is happening in the social rented sector, is this: should there be a legal challenge by those in the private rented sector against whom they were discriminating, would they reverse the rules for those people too, so as to have fairness and equality for everyone?
Oral Answers to Questions
Tony Baldry Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Penning
Our thoughts and prayers are with the people and families who have lost their loved ones. There is a system in place for people with life-threatening illnesses, and particularly for those who are likely to die. As I said to the Work and Pensions Committee, the Chairman of which is in the Chamber, we are trying to get the decision making down to seven days, which we would all welcome.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Am I right in thinking that we spend more than £13 billion on sickness and incapacity benefit for almost 2.5 million people of working age? Is it not right to ensure that the support goes to those who need it most?
Mike Penning
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. Of course, the scheme was brought in by the previous Administration—the Opposition have selective memory loss about that. We are determined to get the scheme right to help people get back into work and to help those who cannot get back into work through the benefits system.
Food Banks
Tony Baldry Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Due to the time limit, I have had to reduce significantly what I intended to say, but I will ensure that a full version of my speech is put on my website.
In following the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), may I commend to the House the report published by the Church Urban Fund in September, entitled “Hungry For More: How churches can address the root causes of food poverty”, which can be found at www.cuf.org.uk/research? As part of their mission to the communities they serve and as part of their mission as the national Church, thousands of parish churches around the country play an active role in their local community, including by running food banks, the majority of which have been set up in the past two years. The report suggests that if churches are to contribute to a long-term solution to food poverty, there is a need to rebalance church-based activity away from emergency crisis support and towards long-term work that tackles the underlying problem.
There is a policy conundrum that I think the whole House has to recognise. Food banks do not tackle the root causes of food poverty, and they do not aim to resolve any of the underlying problems of food poverty. I suspect that all right hon. and hon. Members would agree that we should view food aid only as a short-term emergency response to problems of food poverty.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The right hon. Gentleman is enunciating what food banks do, and they also give advice on how to recover from debt. Christians Against Poverty is an example of what food banks in Northern Ireland are doing. Does he recognise the good work that they are doing in advising people how best to manage their resources and how to get themselves out of the benefits trap?
Sir Tony Baldry
The research in the Church Urban Fund report shows that some food banks do that, but not enough. Many of them simply give food aid, which is important, but we need to develop longer-term solutions.
Sir Tony Baldry
I will make some progress.
If the situation is to be resolved, the root causes need to be tackled. In April, an online survey was sent to 3,000 Church of England incumbents. The Church Urban Fund asked clergy in parishes right across the country questions about their perceptions of food poverty and what was going on in their parishes. The respondents were invited to indicate what they considered the causes of food poverty, based on their experience of running food banks. These figures come to more than 100% because some clergy selected more than one topic, but 62% chose low income, 42% chose benefit changes and 35% chose benefit delays. As it happens, these three issues match those identified by the Trussell Trust as the most common reasons for food bank referrals last year. It is also worth noting that some respondents believed that individual behaviour was a contributing factor, with 27% selecting poor household budgeting as a significant cause of food poverty.
Alongside others set out in the report, those results suggest that if churches are to contribute to a long-term solution to food poverty, church-based activity needs to be rebalanced away from emergency crisis support and towards long-term work to tackle underlying problems. In its recent report on monitoring poverty, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has observed:
“Making comparisons of people using food banks over time is not easy, as there simply are more food banks now than five years ago. They may well be meeting need that was previously going unmet.”
However, there is obviously a need to look at the impact of benefit changes and, in particular, benefit delays.
Sir Tony Baldry
If I may, I will make my own speech in my own time. I am conscious that many right hon. and hon. Members want to take part in the debate.
I want to say a word of caution about all this. Whoever is in power after the next general election, public spending is going to be difficult. Indeed, as far as I can discern, all three main parties are agreed on public spending limits until at least 2016-17. Although the Labour party has opposed every single welfare change made by the Government, I do not think that the Opposition are suggesting that they would, if elected, significantly increase the overall welfare budget. In those circumstances, it is disingenuous to suggest that a future Labour Government would increase welfare spending, just as it is disingenuous to suggest that they would have the ability to control food and commodity prices.
The Church of England has just embarked on a one-year joint research project with Oxfam, in partnership with the Trussell Trust and Church Action on Poverty, with the aim of exploring why people are using food banks and identifying interventions that would reduce the need for food banks. The findings will be published in September next year.
It is not an adequate policy response simply to say that because people are using food banks there needs to be a massive increase in welfare spending, particularly at a time when everybody is in agreement that the nation has to get welfare spending under control.