Pensions Bill [Lords]

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

This is an incredibly important stage of the Bill, about which I have received hundreds of e-mails. I am sure that Members of the House from across the political divide have received e-mails specifically concerning women aged 58 and 56. We have had a number of discussions about this matter, including a Westminster Hall debate at which the Minister was present.

I know that I may sound very boring if I repeat again the concerns of those women and of Opposition Members about why this particular provision should not go through. Everyone accepts that the state pension age needs to rise in order to pay for a more generous basic state pension. This principle underpinned Labour’s Pensions Act 2007, which continued the 1995 timetable for equalising women’s state pension age with men’s by increasing it to 65 by 2020, and then legislated to increase both SPAs to 66 by 2027, to 67 by 2036 and to 68 by 2046. That was agreed and there was cross-party consensus on that.

The coalition agreement stated:

“The parties agree to....hold a review to set the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66, although it will not be sooner than 2016 for man and 2020 for women.”

However, the Bill proposes an acceleration in the equalisation for women by 2018 and increases both men’s and women’s state pension age to 66 by 2020. This will hit women aged between 56 and 58 particularly hard, as they will have very little time to prepare or amend their existing plans. As has been pointed out by my colleagues countless times, those women have worked very hard in their lives but often for not very high pay, so they will not be getting very generous pensions in any event, yet they are going to be hit even harder.

The proposal will affect 4.9 million people—2.6 million women and 2.3 million men. Some 500,000 women born between 6 October 1953 and 5 March 1955 will have their state pension age delayed by more than a year, and 300,000 women born between 6 December 1953 and 5 April 1954 will have theirs delayed by 18 months exactly. For the 300,000 women facing an 18-month delay, the loss of income will be around £7,500; for those in receipt of pension credit, the figure will be closer to £11,000. That sudden and dramatic change in women’s expectations regarding their state pension age and retirement income comes with just five to seven years’ notice, which simply is not long enough for them to make adequate alternative arrangements in their retirement planning.

Women are already at a disadvantage in terms of pension provision. The median pension saving of a 56-year-old woman is just £9,100, whereas the equivalent figure for men is £52,800—almost 600% higher. It is not fair to speed up the equalisation timetable because it will hurt women disproportionately, especially those aged between 56 and 58. I know that we hear about the financial constraints, but if the Government can find £3 billion for the completely unnecessary reorganisation of the national health service, which nobody wants—we have not heard any practitioners in the medical field say that those provisions are right—are they really saying that they cannot find a bit of money for women who have worked hard for so long in their lives? The proposal is measly penny-pinching. The Government are hurting the people who are already the poorest in our society and hitting them even harder. If money can be found for the wasteful reorganisation of the NHS, I am sure money can be found for the provision to be deleted.

I urge the Minister to reconsider this aspect of the Bill and think about those women, who have worked hard all their lives. He should think for once about ordinary working people who are looking forward to some kind of pension, although they will retire later than they thought they would, and he should give them time to prepare for their pensions.

[Steve Webb]

It is a pleasure to support Government amendments 13 and 14 and to ask the House to reject amendment 1.

I welcome the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) to his new role. With due deference to the good people of Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, I hope he will forgive me if henceforth I refer to him as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld—I hope they will not take offence at that. As he knows, his predecessor, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), to whom he referred in his speech, enjoyed a meteoric rise by shadowing me for 18 months. I hope to do the same for his career.

Before I move on to the amendments, I want to place on record my appreciation of one of the Department’s officials, Evelyn Arnold, who has worked for the Department for 36 years. I know that the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) will have enjoyed working alongside her as well. She is stepping down from a legendary career. It is not often that we pay tribute on the record to the officials who make us sound far better informed than we otherwise would, so I would like to do that formally today.

We have heard £1 billion described today as “window dressing”, “a bit of money” and “penny pinching”. That summarises the difference between opposition and government. It reminds us how we came to find ourselves borrowing £150 billion a year when £11 billion, which is the cost of amendment 1, is regarded as small change and not worth worrying too much about. When pressed about where the £11 billion would come from, the Opposition said, in effect, “We’ll find it at some point,” but there was no specific answer.

It was revealing that the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) said, “We keep being asked this question.” They keep being asked the question because they keep making unfunded promises. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor pointed out that last week’s Opposition amendment cost £20 billion. Today’s would cost another £11 billion and, as the man once said, “Soon you’re talking about serious money.”

The Government amendments are, as the Chair of the Select Committee graciously said, a huge achievement, which is to say that at a time when the public finances are, if anything—because of the global economic situation—under even more pressure than they were at the time of Second Reading back in June, to identify £1 billion is an important sign of the Government’s commitment to fairness in pension reform.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi]

The Opposition and Government agree on many things in the pensions debate. It was the previous Labour Government who introduced the Turner commission that looked into the ageing population and the need to sort out pensions, but that is not to say that a certain group of women—about 500,000 of them—should be penalised. [Interruption.] Government Members are smiling and talking, but we are talking about 500,000 women who will be drastically affected by the pension cuts. Everybody talks about how we do not have enough money, but the Government have found tens of billions of pounds for quantitative easing, and they can waste £3 billion on the unnecessary transformation or reorganisation of the NHS, and yet they find it difficult to find money for those ladies.

The Labour Government also wanted to introduce auto-enrolment, but under our proposals many more people would have benefited through enrolling automatically at £5,000; now the figure is £7,475, which means that 600,000 people will not be able to enrol automatically in a pension scheme, which again will hit women disproportionately. The Government have indicated that the rise is in line with income tax, but we know that in the next few years or so the increase will continue, which will exclude 1.5 million to 2 million people, as compared with the Labour party’s original plan. The Government have also introduced a three-month waiting period before auto-enrolment, which they predict will result in 500,000 fewer people being automatically enrolled in a pension scheme. We estimate that each person will have about 11 different employers overall. I know that it is very late—there are only three minutes to go—but in light of what has happened and the fact that 500,000 women will be affected, along with 600,000 people who will be affected by the changes in auto-enrolment, I would urge the Government to reconsider.

Hon. Members have claimed that the Labour party did nothing about pensions when it was in power, but we should remember that in 1997, after years of Conservative government, the biggest challenge that we faced was tackling pensioner poverty and improving older people’s quality of life. Between 1979 and 1997, the state pension declined from 20% of average male earnings to 14%. In 1997, 29% of our pensioners were living in poverty, which was absolutely disgraceful. Between 1997 and 2010, Labour made huge achievements, of which we are proud. Average gross pensioner income increased by more than 40% in real terms, ahead of the growth in average earnings. More than 1 million people were lifted out of poverty, with no pensioner living on less than £130 a week, compared with £69 a week in 1997.

The winter fuel allowance, free off-peak travel on local buses for 11 million people over 60, free TV licences for the over-75s and an increased threshold to ensure that 60% of pensioners pay no tax at all have made a difference. Those policies cost money, and of course money was spent, but this Government might remember that, when they were in opposition, they agreed to all Labour’s expenditure plans. For them now to turn round and say that they did not know what was going to happen, or that they did not know how much money there was in the Treasury, is completely wrong. The coalition agreement stated that there would be cross-party consensus on this matter, and at that point, the Government knew exactly what the state of the finances was. At the last minute, however, those promises have been reneged on, and they are not the only ones—

Pensions Bill [Lords]

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I have been a little bemused by suggestions from Government Members that the previous Labour Government did nothing on pensions. When Labour came to power in 1997, one of the biggest challenges it faced was tackling pensioner poverty and improving the quality of life for older people. We must bear it in mind that the Tories had been in power for 18 years. Between 1979 and 1997, 29% of pensioners were living in poverty. Between 1997 and 2010, Labour made huge achievements, as a result of which average gross pensioner incomes increased by more than 40% in real terms, and more than 1 million pensioners were lifted out of poverty. No pensioner need now live on less than £130 per week, compared with £69 per week in 1997. The winter fuel allowance, free off-peak travel on local buses, free television licences and other benefits have helped to take 1 million pensioners out of poverty.

Government Members seem to suffer from collective amnesia. The previous Labour Government established the independent Turner commission because they recognised, as we all now do, that there was an ageing population and that the retirement age had to be changed. However as a result of the Turner commission a consensus was built on three things: linking the basic state pension to earnings; raising the retirement age to 68 by 2046, starting in 2024; and making private pensions opt-out instead of opt-in pensions, with employers also making a contribution. However, the Government’s proposal goes back on that consensus, raising the state pension age for women so rapidly that some women in their 50s will have to work an extra two years that they have not planned for, and raising the pension credit age so rapidly that the poorest pensioners would lose around 10% of their lifetime retirement income. Reducing the number of people eligible for automatic enrolment in a pension scheme has also had an effect. Let me deal with each of those separately.

Labour’s Pensions Act 2007, in which we accepted some of the things carried out by the Conservative Government in 1995, set out the timetable for equalising the state pension age for men and women, legislating to increase it to 65 for men by 2020, and then to 66 by 2027, 67 by 2036 and 68 by 2046. The coalition agreement stated that the parties had agreed to

“hold a review to set the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66, although it will not be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women.”

However, the Bill proposes to accelerate equalisation for women by 2018, and then to increase the state pension age for both men and women to 66 by 2020. As so many Members have mentioned today, this is a U-turn that hits women aged around 56 to 57 particularly hard. It means that 4.9 million people are affected, 2.6 million being women and 2.3 million men. Some 500,000 women born between 6 October 1953 and 5 March 1955 will have their state pension delayed by more than a year, with the 300,000 born between 6 December 1953 and 5 October 1954 waiting an extra 18 months or more. The 33,000 women facing a two-year delay will suffer a loss in income of £10,000, while for those in receipt of pension credit, the figure is closer to £15,000. Those women are being made to accommodate the changes within less than seven years.

Women are already at a significant disadvantage in pension provision. The median pension savings of a 56-year-old woman amount to just £9,100, which is almost a sixth of the same figure for a man, which stands at £52,800. That is why this is such an important issue and why so many Members have concentrated on it. It is not fair to speed up the equalisation timetable. We oppose any change before 2020. The Government must stick to their coalition agreement promise. However, we support an acceleration of the timetable for both men and women from 65 to 66 between 2020 and 2022. That would achieve the aim of reaching a state pension age of 66 more quickly, but would affect 1.2 million fewer people than under the current plans, and affect an equal number of men and women.

The reason given for the changes is that we cannot afford not to make them because of the budget deficit. With respect, that is just incorrect. When the coalition Government made their promise, they knew what the deficit was. This is another example of the coalition saying one thing to get into power and another thing in power. For example, during the election the Tories said that there would be no VAT rise. They knew the deficit then, so why did they promise no VAT rise? They also said that there would be no top-to-bottom review of the health service, which would cost £3 billion. The Lib Dems knew about the deficit, yet they still said that there would be no rise in tuition fees. The Tories said that Equitable Life people would get a fair share of remuneration, yet they have backtracked on that, too, even though, as some of us have suggested, if the deficit is the issue, those people can receive some payments now and some later—that is, after 2015. Further, we are told that the Government’s measures will cut the deficit by 2015, yet the provisions in the Bill will come into play after 2015.

The Bill also deals with automatic enrolment. The Labour Government were legislating to introduce auto-enrolment into workplace pensions, which is a good thing because we estimated that 7 million people were not saving enough for their retirement. To ensure an adequate retirement income, we built cross-party consensus to introduce auto-enrolment. That meant that people would opt out of pension savings, rather than opting in. Combining a minimum employer contribution and the creation of a pension scheme that could be used by any employer, the measure was expected to lead to a change in the level of participation in pension savings.

The Government are proceeding with the introduction of auto-enrolment, which we welcome, but they are limiting its scope. They are raising the salary level at which someone will automatically be enrolled from £5,000 to £7,475, which will result in 600,000 fewer people being auto-enrolled in a pension scheme, a disproportionate number of whom will be women. The Government are also introducing a three-month waiting period before auto-enrolment, which they predict will mean that 500,000 fewer people will be automatically enrolled. Most people have an average of 11 different employers over their working lives, so this provision could lead to a loss of almost three years’ pension for many people. I know that the Secretary of State has said that he will listen, and I ask the Government to reconsider these issues, which have been raised by Member after Member, certainly on this side of the House, today.

State Pension Age (Women)

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Weir, to speak under your chairmanship this morning. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on securing this debate and on her excellent introduction. I am pleased that so many Members are here to participate; this is an important subject, and many will be affected.

I start by saying how many of my constituents in Sunderland Central have contacted me about this issue. Over the past couple of months, I have been overwhelmed by the number of people contacting me who are worried and anxious, and oppose the Government’s plans to speed up the equalisation of the state pension age. Many have written giving their own stories of what they are about to lose.

Average life expectancy in this country is increasing. That is a good thing, but it is why reforms to the current pension system are necessary. No one disagrees with that. We live in an ageing society, and the pension age needs to rise to ensure that people’s retirements remain financially secure and enjoyable. However, I cannot support the changes that the Government propose, as speeding up the timetable for equalising the state pension age in that manner is unfair to my constituents.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the golden principle running through our legal system is that legislation should not be made that results in offenders not knowing what sentence they are going to get? In a similar way, in civil law those who enter into a contract, such as in employment, should know exactly what the terms and conditions are. Retrospectively to change those terms and conditions is manifestly legally and morally wrong.

[Julie Elliott]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. It is that feeling of injustice—almost that people have been conned; they thought that they were contributing to one thing, but were getting something else—that is so stark in these proposals.

I shall give a few examples to explain the problems that the proposed changes will bring to the lives of many women in my constituency—and, I am sure, across the country. The first is of a woman who has worked, planned and saved, but will still be caught out. She has done everything that people are being told to do. She has worked from the age of 16, with a couple of intermissions to have children, although in those days maternity provisions were not as good as they are now.

This woman has three small private pensions from her various places of work; in some ways, she is in a good position compared with many, although two of those pensions will be deferred until she is 60. A couple of years ago, her parents became ill. She did all the calculations; she could release the private pension from her current employment, and she had some savings, so she decided that she could manage with her deferred pensions being paid at 60 and her state pension not being paid until she was 63. She did all that, and left work a couple of years ago.

One could argue that my constituent has saved the state money by looking after her ailing parents. However, she now finds that her state pension will be delayed. She has done everything right—she has worked, saved and contributed—but is being penalised, and will somehow have to find the shortfall. She is incredibly worried about that. She has never been well paid, but has been cautious in her financial planning.

Another constituent who contacted me is set to lose more than £7,500 of the state pension, something that she has worked hard for over many years. She is now required to work a further 74 weeks. She understandably feels let down by the Government. In her letter, she said that she has worked extremely hard all her life, yet her retirement age seems consistently to move further away. Frankly, the changes to her pension have left her feeling robbed. She is not in good health, and wonders whether she will be fit enough to work those extra years. She may have to go on to benefit, something that she has never wanted.

The third of my constituents to write to me says that she had planned to work until she was 60. She began saving, and started contributing towards her pension when she was 18—38 years ago. She has worked hard and contributed to society; she paid her taxes and her national insurance contributions. At the age of 56, she was looking forward to a relaxed and financially secure retirement. The Government’s plans mean that she will now have to work until she is 66, six years longer than she expected. Her health is failing due to the stress of her job, and she is not financially prepared for the change. She wonders how she is meant to prepare for it at such short notice, and why the Government have let her down in this way. I am sure that she also wonders why the Government are going back on their promise in the coalition agreement.

A common theme runs through the letters that I have received from constituents. They do not disagree about the state pension age rising; they recognise that increasing life expectancy makes that logical. However, they say that moving the goalposts at such short notice is creating serious financial harm and causing real worries. As a result, some are considering working beyond their state pension age. However, that should be a choice; it should not be forced on them. Retirement, and especially the age at which people decide to retire, should be about choice, but choice has been stripped from those affected by these changes.

In my constituency of Sunderland Central, 1,100 women aged between 56 and 57 are among the 33,000 women whose state pension will be delayed by two years. I wrote to the Minister, asking about his plans for the state pension age. In reply, he said:

“While overall there are some aspects of the change that will affect women more strongly than men, we consider the effect is not disproportionate”.

I disagree with him. No man will have to wait longer than a year, but 500,000 women will. If that is not disproportionate, what is?

When it comes to the state pension, women are already at a disadvantage. The median pension saving of a 56-year-old woman is almost six times lower than for a man of the same age. Women will have decided to have children and work part-time to raise families. That is a valid decision and one for which they should not be punished—indeed, they should be praised. However, under these proposals such women do not have enough time to adjust their financial plans for retirement. Many have already decreased their hours in preparation for retirement, and some will have done so because of ill health.

Retirement is an opportunity for those who have contributed all that they can to society to rest with peace of mind, knowing that their contributions will be recognised and that they will be adequately provided for. However, I worry about the long-term costs for these women. I suspect that there will significant hardship, with anxiety and stress about financial matters. I also worry about the ill health that results from working to an older age.

The Turner Commission recommended 15 years of preparation before such changes are implemented. I would be interested to know why the Minister disregarded that and opted for far fewer years. Current plans will result in very different outcomes for women of similar ages. I know that the line has to be drawn somewhere, but deciding a person’s pension eligibility by their birth date suggests that the entire reform is being introduced too swiftly. The Government should stick to the original timetable, with equalisation at 65 in 2020, and not increase the state pension age to 66 until after that.

Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead on securing such an important debate. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

We will hear from the Minister in a moment, but we heard the arguments being rehearsed when the Pensions Bill was debated in the House of Lords. We are told that we first need to reduce the budget deficit but, as other Members have said, these provisions will not change that deficit in this Parliament and if the Government’s plans to eliminate the structural deficit in this Parliament come true, I do not see why changes on this scale will be needed in the next Parliament.

The Government’s other claim is about longevity, but longevity is not especially increasing for women aged 57, so why are we particularly targeting women of that age? If the Government wanted to look more broadly at longevity and increases in the state pension age, they would, I think, get cross-party support for that. It is particularly unfair and disproportionate to harm a group of women who have five years to prepare for the changes and have so little chance of making up the difference in lost income, which is what the women who have been writing to all of us are saying.

My final quote from the Minister is:

“a pension promise made should be a pension promise kept.”

He and his colleagues should heed that, and we are not alone in our thinking. Age UK, the unions, Saga, The Guardian and the Daily Mail are all arguing for the Government to think again, and Age UK has organised a mass lobby of Parliament for a week today.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

The change to the pension provision was not in the coalition agreement and will do nothing to reduce the deficit by 2015. It will, however, as my hon. Friend has said, hit 5 million hard-working people, 500,000 of whom are women who will suffer particularly harshly. Does she agree that this is another example of hard-hearted Tory policies hitting the ordinary working person?

[Rachel Reeves]

I agree, but I would also go a bit further: not only was the change not in the coalition agreement—reached just a year ago—but it contradicts it. The agreement states that the state pension age for women will not start to rise to 66 before 2020, but under these proposals that rise will start in 2018. For that simple reason, coalition MPs from both the Liberal Democrat and the Conservative parties are under no obligation to support the changes.

The lobby of Parliament organised by Age UK for a week today will give a voice to those who are adversely and unfairly affected, and I hope that the Minister will spare some time to meet some of the women who are hit by the changes and are coming down to Westminster to oppose them.

The Bill has had its First Reading in the Commons and we are awaiting its Second Reading. I once again urge the Minister to honour the coalition agreement to which he signed up, to admit that the impact of the proposals is unacceptable, and to revise the timetable so that no one has their pension delayed by more than a year and trust can be restored in the pension system, a system which the Minister, in his heart, believes is so important.

Welfare Reform Bill

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

In a second. I think that the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) was slightly before the hon. Lady.

The key thing that we are trying to do is to give local authorities an element of control over some of the process, including in particular what I call the crisis loans short-term element—the hiatus moment in the payments,—and some of the community care grants. The point is that, when the fund became only distantly linked to the Department, the telephone concept behind it allowed people to push up the number of claims, because they were not seen or understood, so their cases were not properly known and it was very difficult to decide whether they were true or false. Local areas will be far better able to recognise who such people are, what conditions they are in and what circumstances apply to them. Therefore, localising the process will be very important. Of course, huge swathes of it will remain centralised, but we feel that those two elements in particular will most respond to localisation.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I understand the Minister’s explanation of the social fund, but a linked point is that thousands of young children currently receive a free school meal, the only hot meal that most of them get, and that some people also receive free prescriptions. Can the Secretary of State assure us that those who receive free prescriptions and free school meals will continue to do so?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

That is exactly what we plan to do, but, because of the universal credit, we will have to be a little more specific, and we will be so in Committee. We are still looking at the best approach to take, but that is exactly what we plan to do. We do not want—the purpose is not—to disadvantage anybody who receives such support, but, because of the way the universal credit works, we will have to think through carefully how we achieve that. The principle behind the measure will remain that we want to support those who are in difficulty and receive support as it stands.

Youth Unemployment

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ruane]

The Minister does not know.

From my perspective as a constituency MP, and from that of young people affected in my constituency, the decision to end the future jobs fund is nothing short of political spite. The Work and Pensions Committee report said that the DWP

“should conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of the Future Jobs Fund and publish the results.”

This obviously should have been done before the closure of the FJF. That is common sense, but it was not done.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Housing Benefit

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I was about to deal with the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I will do so with the respect that it deserves—frankly, that is very briefly.

The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) rightly reminded us of the role of Lord Beveridge in dealing with these matters, followed, as he said, by Clement Attlee, who built the welfare state—and whose record on housing was outstanding—and who did so after the war, having dealt with one of the biggest deficits in history. So when it comes to deficits, do not blame it on my people—the people with whom I have grown up.

People have been complaining about the media. I am sick and tired of the media expression “workshy”. We have already been told by the TUC—I prefer its figures to the ones that we have heard from Conservative Members—that only one in eight people who make applications are unemployed. We are not talking about the workshy; we are talking about the work-starved.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Like you, I am sick and tired of the Tories blaming the need to make cuts on the ordinary working person, when we know that it was the bankers who caused the crisis. What do you think—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Members are using the word “you”, but I am not responsible. I call Tom Clarke.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate. I want to support my party’s motion on the housing benefit cuts. We have heard contributions from many Members. I concur with everything that Opposition Members said, and there have been notable exceptions among Government Members. I will not try to repeat everything that has been said, but I would like to flag up three issues that have arisen regarding the Government’s reasons for wishing to introduce these housing benefit cuts.

First, there is the fallacy that the cuts need to be made because of the deficit. Yes, everybody agrees that cuts need to be made in different areas of Government activity and public services to balance the books. However, it is always said that because a Labour Government were in power, we somehow caused the deficit and the financial crisis, when everyone knows that that is not true. Up until 2008, the Government parties supported the public expenditure projects that we brought about in the past 13 years, such as the beautiful hospitals, the schools, and all the building work that had been carried out to improve the country’s infrastructure. Most of the money was spent on that. We created jobs and regenerated the economy. In 1997, when we came into government, we inherited a complete mess, with unemployment and interest rates at record levels, so let us not have any lectures from the Conservatives about financial mismanagement.

Secondly, it has been said that Labour was in power for 13 years and did not do enough about housing. I accept that my party could have done a bit more on building new houses. However, we tried to help vulnerable people by bringing 1.5 million social homes up to a decent standard. Those were homes that were substandard when the Conservatives were in power. We fitted 700,000 new kitchens, 525,000 new bathrooms and more than 1 million new central heating systems. Yes, it cost billions, and I remember the then Opposition begrudging it, but it made life better for the people who had lived in substandard houses. At the same time, it regenerated the economy and provided jobs. We will not take any lectures from Conservative Members who tell us that we did not do enough.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend think it is a disgrace that the Conservative mayor of North Tyneside, when she was leader of the council, wrote to the then Housing Minister to oppose £104 million being given to North Tyneside for homes for older people? When she came to power, she also resisted money for building 800 council houses in the area. How can we trust the Tories on council housing?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention.

Even in the face of recession, my party supported home owners to stay in their homes. Because of our actions, the current repossession rate is half that of the last recession of the early 1990s, preventing about 300,000 families from losing their homes. In 2004, local authorities met Labour’s target that no family should be in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for more than six weeks. When we prepared to tackle the issue in 2002, up to 4,000 families were housed in such accommodation. Conservative Members say, “Well, you didn’t do enough”, but we did a great deal for people who were in substandard housing. About 55,000 affordable houses were also built.

I turn to the cuts themselves. The Government say that they have to be made to reduce costs, but contrary to the Secretary of State’s assertion that Labour Members are scaremongering and coming up with facts and figures that are not borne out, it is Shelter that has stated that £120 million more will have to be spent on families who are made homeless as a result of the cuts. It is not Labour party members or MPs who have said that.

The cuts will cause big cities such as London to become like Paris. I know that the Secretary of State said that that was another piece of scaremongering, but it is not. There will be dispersal—we all now accept that word, as we know that people do not want to use the word “cleansing”. It will inevitably follow the cuts that if someone lives in what is considered to be an expensive part of town, where rents and rates are higher, after the cuts they will have to move out of their accommodation. That will effect social engineering, because only well-off people will be able to live in good areas of big cities. It will basically get rid of poorer people to the outer margins of the big cities and towns, into the poorer areas.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Lady seems to be suggesting that she is against any cap on housing benefit. I am with her on that one, but can she persuade her Front Benchers to come with us? I still do not know what the Labour party policy is on a housing benefit cap. Does she have any clearer understanding of that?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am talking only about how the change will affect my constituents.

Of course, the increase in rents and rates is not the result of people choosing to live in expensive areas. We have to remember that many people have been living in their areas for the past 20, 30 or 40 years. It is not their fault that over the years house prices and rents have gone up. That does not mean that they should be sent 60 or 100 miles away where they have no family, relatives or friends and be completely disconnected from their community.

Shelter has stated that the Government have not examined the impact of the proposals on many claimant households that will be shifted from around or just below the 60% median income line into severe poverty. The proposals will push an additional 84,000 households below £100 a week per couple, and those households include 54,000 children.

Cutting the local housing allowance to the 30th percentile means that 700,000 of the poorest people, who are both in work and out of work, will be at least £9 a week worse off.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

rose—

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I promise to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene in a moment.

On average, the impact of the local housing allowance on my constituency of Bolton South East will be £52 per month for a two-bedroom flat, with an average loss of £39 on properties that have more than two bedrooms. That may not seem like a vast amount of money to some hon. Members here—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order.