Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

We support many of the measures in the Bill, which will be important in the debates we will have on it, but my role today is to highlight the things that cause us concern.

This Bill probably spells the end of the Northern Ireland Assembly, because the current welfare reform measures have not been introduced, which has left a £600 million hole in the budget. I say to the Members from Scotland who are keen to have welfare reform devolved, that there is a cost in that because every measure that is not introduced means money is taken off the block grant. People should be aware of that. It is significant that Sinn Féin, who are not here, will probably claim that they will block these measures.

[Peter Grant]

Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that the very firm view in Scotland is that those additional costs are a price well worth paying if they give us the fair and just society each and every one of us was elected to deliver?

[Sammy Wilson]

My point was that there is a cost. How people decide to distribute it is another matter. The one thing I do know—

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sammy Wilson]

No, I will not give way.

The one thing I do know is that the people who will complain most about this measure in Northern Ireland—Sinn Féin—are not even here to defend the vulnerable, whom they will claim they wish to protect.

Government Members have talked about the measurement and recording of child poverty. I would have thought—indeed, the DWP review indicated—that the most important source of short-term child poverty, and of the length of time people are in such poverty, is the level of income. It stands to reason: you don’t have to be a genius to know that if you don’t have money, you’re poor. If you want to lift people out of poverty, what do you do? You ensure that they get more money. If we remove that as a measure, we ignore the most fundamental aspect of what causes poverty and what puts children in poverty. Yes, in the longer run, as the review says, educational qualifications, family stability and so on are important, but in the long run, as Keynes said, we are all dead. If we want to deal with the problem now, we cannot ignore the level of income.

Members from all parts of the House should be concerned about the way in which the Bill divides the cap into two. But that is not the end of the matter, because the Bill makes it clear that the Secretary of State can review the caps at any time. All he or she has to consider is “the national economic situation” and

“any other matters that the Secretary of State considers relevant”.

Then the Government can introduce changes by regulation.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his point about the difference in the cap on welfare and benefits between London and the rest of the country. That measure is very clearly the thin end of the wedge, and, if we are not careful, what will eventually happen with benefits and public sector pay will be the introduction of regionalisation.

[Sammy Wilson]

Indeed. The Policy Exchange think tank, which prepared the welfare manifesto for the Government, talked about the introduction of a two-tier cap, stating:

“The first stage in creating a regionalised system would be to create two levels of Benefit Cap, one for London and the South East where average incomes within the UK are highest, and one for the whole of the rest of the UK.”

The measure before us is the first step towards regionalisation, and we ought to be aware that in this Bill is contained the embryo of further cuts to the poorest regions of the United Kingdom, because that is where we are likely to find the pressure to try to reduce the welfare bill further.

On tax credits, I support the Government’s desire and objective to get people into work—to make work pay, to give people an incentive. That is why the proposals on apprenticeships, full employment reporting and so on are all good. But the change in universal credit, the freezing of benefits and the change in tax credits are, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) pointed out, an attack on aspiration. It is an attack on people who are in work.

[Heidi Allen]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sammy Wilson]

I am running out of time. I would be happy to give way if I could get an extra minute out of it.

As has been pointed out, many people will not even be subject to the safeguard of the higher national living wage. Many of those who are in work will still find that the reduction in their benefits and tax credits is not compensated for by the increase in the national living wage, so the Government will not achieve what they are seeking to achieve. We are talking about people who are already on low wages and who are not in the best employment.

My final point is on the changes in employment support allowance and the work-related activity group. There are many people who do require support, but if the Secretary of State is right, he is not going to create an incentive for those people to get back into work. In response to the shadow spokesman, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the Secretary of State said, “We’ll put those with Parkinson’s and MS into the support group.” The idea may be to get people into the work-related activity group and to give them the support they need to get into work, but, if the Secretary of State says, “No, we’re going to move them to the support group”, they will not get the support they need to get into work, and he is defeating his own objective.

There are contradictions in the Bill which need to be teased out. While there may be things in it that we can support, there are many aspects which I believe will be detrimental to our constituents, which will have a disproportionate impact on regions of the United Kingdom and which, therefore, should be voted against.

Universal Credit

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I can confirm that.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The confusion around the business case will give succour to those in Northern Ireland who have blocked welfare reform and cost the Northern Ireland economy millions of pounds. Will the Secretary of State give us some indication of whether discussions on the business case to date have shown any reasons why there might not be a further roll-out of universal credit as he has planned, so that we can argue back against those in Northern Ireland who say that we should wait to see the full picture in England and Wales before doing anything in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

There have not been any such discussions, and I hope that he will take that argument back to his counterparts in Northern Ireland and try again to persuade them that the full welfare reform package will benefit Northern Ireland dramatically, as will the universal credit part of that reform.

Jobs and Work

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

My Department is now very different. It now includes universities, science and many other things. In one period during the last Labour Government—the hon. Gentleman may remember it; I think that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) was the Minister who started the change—there were about 186 different systems of industrial support, the cumulative effect of which was largely negative because we had large-scale deindustrialisation. We are pursuing the strategy in a much more concerted way, in partnership with business and on a long-term basis. That is what we are achieving.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about how the policy is seeking to grow the economy in a balanced way, but does he accept that many regions of the UK are not growing at the same rate as the south-east of England, for example? Places such as Northern Ireland are suffering from that. Why in the Queen’s Speech is there no reference, for example, to the devolution of corporation tax to the Northern Ireland Executive, which would help them to grow the economy in Northern Ireland by more than is happening at present?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I start by welcoming the fact that for the 17th month in a row Northern Ireland unemployment figures have fallen. In my constituency, this time last year there were 513 more people out of work than there are today. That has to be acknowledged, although I must say that it is partly due to the hard work and pro-business policies pursued by my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly, with the Finance Minister and the Industry Minister from the Democratic Unionist party. During the last year, the Industry Minister has announced 10,800 new jobs in Northern Ireland, 40% of which have wages above the average for Northern Ireland.

I have no doubt that the context in which that has happened has been partly due to the increase and the improvement in the UK economy as a whole, and I acknowledge that that is the case. However, it is important to point out that many Government policies have acted as a counter to the work done by the Northern Ireland Executive. Whether those policies are the reductions in public expenditure—reductions of £4 billion in Northern Ireland, a region that is heavily dependent on public expenditure—or the inability to get to grips with the destructive attitudes and work of banks, especially Royal Bank of Scotland and its local bank, Ulster Bank, or indeed the removal of jobs from Northern Ireland in the centralisation programme affecting the Driver and Vehicle Agency and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, all have acted as a counter.

Nevertheless, there are important things that the Government can do. I am disappointed that although the Queen’s Speech refers to further fiscal and financial devolution for Scotland, there is an absence of any commitment to the devolution of corporation tax to Northern Ireland. Of course, such a commitment would have given the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister an additional lever when it comes to trying to attract jobs to Northern Ireland.

I have only a short time to speak, but one area where I support the Government is the new direction—at least, I hope it is a new direction—on energy policy. There is no doubt that the current policy of increasing reliance on renewables has pushed up energy costs; it has cost jobs, especially in energy-intensive industries; and it has caused fuel poverty among many of our constituents. Indeed, today the National Grid Company has indicated that it is now paying firms to switch off power at times when wind speeds are low, because the renewables industry cannot cope with the capacity issues in the system. I therefore believe that the switch to exploiting the fossil fuels that we have in the United Kingdom is an important one.

It has already been estimated that the exploitation of shale gas will create between 64,000 and 70,000 jobs, many of them high-paying. Queen’s University Belfast has done a lot of research which has indicated that getting shale gas out of the ground in Northern Ireland would not only have an impact on Northern Ireland’s fuel security, but provide an important impetus in driving new feedstock for downstream industries, which themselves would create further jobs. I therefore welcome that Government initiative.

The second measure I want to welcome is the introduction of harsher penalties for employers that breach minimum wage legislation. We need not only harsher penalties but greater enforcement, because there is nothing more destructive of local firms than those who break the rules being able to exploit that and push legitimate companies out of business. On a related point, I believe that the Modern Slavery Bill will also play an important part. I hope that the Government will include supply chains outside the United Kingdom so that firms within the United Kingdom are not undercut by the use of slave labour in atrocious conditions in other parts of the world. We should not leave it to individual firms to check their supply chains; there needs to be legislation forcing them to do that.

All those measures will, I believe, help to create additional jobs. I hope that in a year’s time in Northern Ireland we will see even fewer people on the dole and more people in productive work, and in work that pays.

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that of course the insurance industry is going to come in with a heavy hand, arguing that it will take this to court and make legal challenges and that will delay things? We had the same experience with pleural plaques legislation in Northern Ireland. The industry backed down when the legislation went through. Given that the insurance companies have reaped the benefit of these premiums over the years, is it not up to this House to make sure they pay out proper sums to the victims?

[Mr Brown]

The answer to that is that they did take the premiums and prior to 2007 there was an assumption that pleural plaques cases could go against the insurers. It was only the High Court 2007 judgment that put a stop to all that. The premiums did not have to be refunded; they were just kept. The figure I have for that is over £1.4 billion held by the insurers. If companies have taken premiums for something they are never going to have to pay out for, that seems to me to be a pretty good business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brown]

I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister on that point. My thoughts are with the young children in Leeds who found an abandoned pile of what turned out to be asbestos dust that had not yet been mixed with water and used for its purpose. The children, being children, formed it into “snowballs” and threw them at each other and breathed in the dust. Some 40 or 50 years later, their cases are now turning up as mesothelioma cases, but who is the insurer or the employer? It is difficult to say who is the responsible party. No one could possibly argue that those young children contributed to the ill health that they are suffering later in life. The Minister rightly says that we must deal effectively with such public liability cases, and I wholeheartedly support him in trying to find a way of addressing the matter.

There are two arguments against my proposal for 100% compensation. The first—and, incidentally, the weakest—is that it would incentivise the victim to see whether there was an insurer or employer against whom a case could be taken. It is argued that the prospect of getting 100% compensation, compared with 70% under the proposed scheme of last resort, would incentivise someone—whose life expectancy was now a matter of months rather than years—to go out and hunt for the insurer or employer, using whatever resources were available to them.

Let us pause and think about that. How on earth would an ordinary citizen go about tracking down those missing people? A good argument that was made in the other place was that the incentivisation should surely work the other way round. If there is to be incentivisation through paying less compensation, surely we should make the compensation not 100% but 110%, so that the administrators of the scheme, who had access to the former insurance companies’ records, would have to go hunting to determine whether it was possible to launch a case. They should be the ones to be incentivised. I am not arguing for more than 100% compensation, by the way, although I did table a proposal to that effect in Committee.

I believe that any incentivisation should work in that way, rather than suggesting that some poor old victim whose days are numbered should turn themselves into a modern-day Perry Mason and hunt down an employer that probably no longer exists—particularly in the case of a contractor—or an insurance company that has gone into receivership or will not acknowledge its liabilities. I think that the argument about incentivisation is pretty disgusting, and I do not support it.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept that the very people towards whom the incentive might be directed are least able to track down those organisations? The situation would be doubly unfair, because their health is not great and they do not have the resources to do the tracking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

Is it not even more disgusting that the money clawed back is then given in compensation to the insurance companies to reduce their costs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

Yes, the consultation document was issued in 2010, but the cut-off date in the Bill will be 25 July 2012. I cannot see any rationale for that. I cannot understand the reason for it. Eligibility should at least commence with the publication of the consultation document in February 2010, but, as I say, there are strong arguments for going back even further.

It comes down to whose side we are on. As politicians, we face tough choices every day of the week. Are we on the side of the victim who will sadly pass on within months, or are we on the side of the insurance companies, which, as the Minister said, had to be dragged to the table to pay any compensation at all? The insurance companies are getting £17 million from the Government just to start the scheme, and it has been agreed they will get a further £30 million from them through some sort of borrowing arrangement.

In conclusion, when someone with mesothelioma who is soon to pass on comes to one of our surgeries and we explain that the insurance companies have only to pay 75% compensation, I wonder what their reaction will be. It is not fair, it is not just, and it is not acceptable. Wherever there is 100% liability, there should be 100% payment.

[Sammy Wilson]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery). He has brought the human side of this debate into the Chamber, which is important, because while we can throw around the percentages that insurance companies will have to pay, cut-off dates and so on, we need to remember that we are dealing with people who have suffered greatly as a result of their employers’ negligence, not their own, and whose suffering will inevitably result in death.

At the outset, I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), who is fondly remembered in Northern Ireland, where he served as a Minister. Since he left office, he has always taken a great interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland. I also pay tribute to the Minister. Although I am critical of much of the Bill, I fully understand the pressures he came under when introducing it.

The insurance companies are not easy to deal with and when it comes to paying out, they are bullies. I had a similar experience in Northern Ireland when we were taking through legislation to overturn the House of Lords decision on pleural plaques. Officials advised that we should not do it as we would have a hard time. The insurance companies jumped up and down, threatening all kinds of legal action. They threatened to challenge the legislation in Northern Ireland; the argument was that we would be raising expectations and that the measure would be delayed for years. But at the end of the day, when it was seen that there was a determination to push it through—and it did go through—it was, ironically, the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland who challenged it in the courts, and lost. [Hon. Members: “Your friend?”] My friend, yes.

[Mike Penning]

I have had my own experiences with the Attorney-General when I was a Minister in Northern Ireland; I am sure other colleagues have as well. The difference between what is happening here today and what happened in Northern Ireland was that we have done a deal with the insurance companies before proposing the Bill rather than, as in the negotiations on pleural plaques, there not being a deal, so the legislation had to be forced through. That is the real difference; we have an agreement that will not affect businesses or premiums and will allow us to get the money through.

[Sammy Wilson]

I want to come on to that agreement. As the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said, at the end of the day this Parliament sets the rules by which insurance companies and everybody else must abide. I understand that the Minister has had the discussions with the insurance companies. I have to say that I think that the companies have come out with a very good deal. Do not forget; despite the fact that we are dealing with people who perhaps cannot trace where the insurance was with their companies, that does not mean that, in most cases, the insurance was not paid. The premiums went to the insurance companies. They benefited from the money and they have not paid it out when the claims were made. This is not a case of there never being any insurance paid, in many cases. In most cases, the insurance was paid and the insurance companies have escaped.

Secondly, as has been pointed out, as a result of House of Lords decisions and other decisions on claims that could have been paid for pleural plaques, for example, the insurance companies have got a windfall. We can debate the size of that windfall but figures up to £1.4 billion have been thrown around. On top of that, the Government will underwrite part of the cost; £17 million plus another £30 million loan to them. Then, the companies will only have to pay out 75%, and 50% of the people who should have been covered—because they did experience health problems as a result of exposure to asbestos—are not even covered. I reckon that that is a very good deal for the companies. If this House were to say, “We think that the deal struck is overly generous and we are going to make amendments to the Bill to compensate for the overly generous deal that was struck,” I doubt very much that the insurance companies would walk away or that they would challenge it, especially as the mood of the House is that many people who should have been included in this are not, and that there are levels of compensation that should have been paid that are not being paid. Those are the kinds of arguments that I have found persuasive when listening to the arguments for the amendments.

The Minister has sat face to face across the table with the insurance companies. It is his judgment that the insurance companies will not buy any strengthening of the Bill. Given the generosity of the deal and that insurance companies try to eyeball Ministers and see who blinks first, it is my judgment that if the Government stand firm, we can get a better deal for those who suffer enormously as a result of negligence.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

Surely the nature of the insurance business in this respect is that the risk is spread over a whole range of different liabilities. The very fact that the insurance companies have done that means that they should pay up when they ought to. They are not doing so; they are trying to wriggle out of it.

[Sammy Wilson]

I wanted to come on to that point, so I will jump to it now. The risk is, of course, fairly minimal in any case. First, it has already been covered and, secondly, I heard the Minister say that this cannot be passed on through additional premiums on employers’ liability insurance. No Minister can guarantee that when insurance premiums go up, some of the marginal increase is not to enable the additional costs to be recouped by the insurance industry. I do not know what kind of scrutiny of employers’ liability insurance premiums the Minister intends to introduce to ensure that the costs are not passed on, but in any case, as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) has pointed out, the insurance companies will already have made provision for this Bill.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend is making a compelling case. He is absolutely right about how the insurance companies will operate in this field. They not only insure the initial risk, but sell it on. We can be assured that they are definitely covered, and I believe that the Minister should take cognisance of that in making his decision.

[Sammy Wilson]

I thank my hon. Friend.

Let me deal with the two amendments that deal with whether the compensation level is acceptable. For 28 years, I represented east Belfast—the inner part within the shadow of the shipyard—on Belfast city council, and I saw and represented, at disability living allowance tribunals and so forth, many people who had suffered as a result of exposure to asbestos in the shipyard. I have seen the suffering that they went through. I have gone into their houses and seen people who could hardly walk across a 12-foot wide living room, who could not climb the stairs and who knew that they were in for a horrible and painful death. Those are the sort of people we are talking about, and that is the outcome of the exposure to which they have been subjected. That is what we are dealing with.

I must say that I find it grossly offensive that people who qualify for 75% compensation under this scheme will have 100% of their benefits taken from them, yet that will be paid back to the insurance companies to try to “relieve the burden” on companies that already have the money to cover the costs. We should bear that in mind when we look at amendments 1 and 4, which provide for increasing the level of compensation.

[Jim Shannon]

We are very much focusing on what happened to the individuals who had the disease, but perhaps we have not focused enough on the ripple effect on the families that comes out of that. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just individuals, but families and wider family circles that are involved, and that because of that, the squeeze should be put on the insurance companies to ensure that they pay more? Should not the Minister do that as well?

[Sammy Wilson]

We should, of course, bear in mind what it is like for any wife, husband or child who sees their father, mother or son going through the sort of agonies they have to endure when they die from this disease.

Let me deal with the issue of the cut-off date. I understand that cut-off dates are difficult: how should we choose them? No matter what is chosen, some people are going to feel aggrieved or short-changed. The proposer of the amendment spoke about a range of cut-off dates, going right back to before the war when people first knew that exposure to asbestos led to a terrible disease and death. However, there must be some logic to the cut-off dates that we set, and, in seeking that logic, we should be asking how we can apply it to encompass as many people as possible.

Although I am not particularly happy with it, there is logic in the argument for a cut-off date of 2010, when expectations were first raised and the insurance industry was first notified, and when preparations for the payment of compensation could begin. The Minister said that setting a date of 2010 would add £80 million to the cost of the Bill, but I should like him to explain how he arrived at that figure. Given the 75%, the cost of payments will be £343 million over the next 10 years. It has been accepted—and I saw the Minister nod on a number of occasions when this was mentioned—that the bulk of cases will arise in future years. How can we have a figure of £343 million for the next 10 years, during which we expect the bulk of cases to arise, and a figure of £80 million for the two years preceding 2012? Those figures simply do not add up. I should be happy to hear the Minister’s explanation now, or, if he prefers, when he sums up the debate, but I suspect that the figure has been over-inflated and gold-plated in an attempt to establish arguments for not setting a date of 2010, presumably because the insurance companies will ensure that that does not happen.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Like the hon. Gentleman, I could not see where the figure had come from. If the Minister has that information, should he not give it to us now in order to illuminate the debate?

[Sammy Wilson]

I will happily give way to the Minister if he can provide an explanation. However, I should point out to him that even if we did incur an additional £80 million—and I suspect that it will be nowhere near £80 million, because £80 million does not seem logical—according to the Minister’s own figures, that would add 0.53% to the premiums that the companies would have to provide, while also encompassing, as we have heard, 700 people who are currently not covered by the scheme.

I realise that much of what I have said has been negative. I understand the pressures that the Minister is under, and I believe that the attitude that he has taken today shows that he genuinely wants to help those who suffer from this disease and will die as a result of it. However, I also believe that more can be done. I believe that logic is on the side of those who have tabled the amendments, and I trust that the House will support them when they are put to a vote.

[John Woodcock]

I shall speak only briefly.

I support all Members on both sides of the House who are pushing for more in this deal. As I said in an intervention earlier, Barrow contains the largest number of mesothelioma victims in the country. In most of those cases, the employer can be traced, because it was the Vickers shipyard. However, the families of the victims—wives who have seen their husbands die, children who have seen their fathers, and in some instances their mothers, experience that horrible, horrible death—are standing in solidarity with other families throughout the country, just as they have throughout the struggle for appropriate compensation that has continued for far too long.

Let us be clear about the fact that there can be no total fairness in this regard. If there were total fairness, people who went to work to do an honest job, to earn a living, to build ships and to work in industry would not have caught this disease and died in terrible ways, or caught a disease which is a ticking time bomb and which hangs over their lives now. Do we want to see premiums go up for current payers of insurance cover? No of course we do not, but it is absolutely clear that the victims who have waited so long for compensation should not be the ones who continue to bear the financial cost and penalty of this.

Romanians and Bulgarians (Benefits)

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is invidious that areas that I have always believed were outwith the Commission’s normal competences are being sucked in by using other things—this is to do with the free movement. More could have been done and the issue should have been raised at a much higher level. It is quite good that other nations—mostly northern European nations, but also Spain—are now deeply concerned about the ratchet process. We are meeting them and there are the beginnings of a real resistance to it.

On what will happen in any negotiation, I am clearly not in a position to commit my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on whatever may happen in future.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the fact that the Government are now tackling the legacy they were left, as far as benefits for foreigners are concerned, but does the Minister not see the contradiction in the Government’s stance at present? We are talking tough at home while—according to Romanian Ministers—giving assurances that those who come from Romania will be given full access to benefits, on the same basis as UK citizens. Does he not see that as an incentive for Romanians to come here and dip into the financial honeypot that they see?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

That is exactly what I am trying to deal with, but not just for Romanians. This goes across the board for what anybody in the European economic area can do when they come here. The problem has been in existence for some time, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead said. I now have to sweep up after the lord mayor’s show and deal with what has been left behind, after the last Government did nothing at all about the problem. I will do it; I am absolutely determined to.

Welfare Reform Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

The Minister has told us that someone who receives an inheritance should lose all their support from the state. Those could be similar circumstances to those that the hon. Lady has just mentioned.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the answer that the Minister has just given is quite astounding? He seemed to suggest that, in order to qualify for independent benefit, a disabled young person would have to leave the family home, where they have the support and facilities that they need, despite all the additional costs that that would entail. That would end up being even more costly.

[Stephen Timms]

To be fair to the Ministers, I think that there is some confusion on the Front Bench over the position on this. The Minister was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South, who chairs the Select Committee, to give the House a straightforward assurance. He failed to do so—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Anne Begg]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is not a lifestyle choice to be diagnosed with a progressive, debilitating condition. It is hard. It is difficult. Individuals in that position face enough prejudice in society already, probably from the employers who told them that they could no longer do their jobs. That is why they need to apply for and claim benefit: because they have already faced that prejudice, which the Government may be making even worse. It is hard for those people, and we are making it harder.

[Sammy Wilson]

To a certain extent I agree with what the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said about lifestyle choices, but surely, in this instance, people who have decided to save, make provision and do the right thing are being penalised for making a lifestyle choice. It is the kind of lifestyle choice of which I imagine the hon. Gentleman would approve, but the measures that we are discussing will punish people for making what he and many other Members would presumably describe as a good lifestyle choice.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Indeed. As I said earlier, the people who will be punished most are those who have done the right thing. They are the ones who have been in work, the ones who have saved, and the ones who have partners who have been in work and remain in work. It would be much easier for their partners to drop out of work as well, because they and their partners would then, as a household, qualify for the benefit. That would probably be the wrong thing to do from the point of view of the family, but given such a benefits system—I was going to say “a benefits system that would make them better off”, but it might not do that—it will become a logical choice for a working partner in those circumstances to give up work. Although it would probably be wrong, it would be logical.

Living Standards

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Byrne]

That underlines an extremely important point, and I hope that in the Secretary of State’s response he will say a little more about how he reconciles the “Budget” that we heard yesterday with his own honourable intention to ensure that work pays. Right now, in my constituency, I have working parents, especially women, coming to me and saying that they are now giving up work—because the Government are cutting benefits, meaning that it is no longer economic to work. Surely that cannot be right.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the shadow Minister not find it strange that the Government argue that if we were to borrow to stimulate the economy the money markets would go mad and put up interest rates, yet the markets seem to have no problem in lending us money to pay for unemployment?

[Mr Byrne]

And this is a Government, of course, who have brought forward plans to borrow another £158 billion —a bill that, ultimately, will be paid by the rest of us. It is a bill for economic failure.

Pensions Bill [Lords]

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Malcolm Wicks]

That is an extraordinary variation, and one of the implications is that in order to make good policy and ensure good practice in pensions and other areas, we in this Parliament—including those on the Government Benches—need to have some understanding of how people work, and not just think of our own circumstances.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point given the current economic circumstances, but we do not know what the employment circumstances will be in 2016 or 2020. Does he agree that the more essential point is that because people see investing in their pensions as a long-term decision, it is the short-term way in which these changes are being introduced that is creating all the unfairness? People had certain expectations and had made contributions, but the benefit from those contributions is now being denied them.

[Malcolm Wicks]

Yes, hence my introduction, when I argued that pensions policy in this country has always been at its best when it goes with the grain of how people live and makes long-term decisions that individuals can plan around. It is the acceleration of the process that we are now discussing. It is extraordinary that, having taken so much money out of the pensions system, the Conservatives—and, I suppose I have to say, the Liberals—now want credit for putting some of it back. That is a bit of Tory arithmetic that I am not terribly impressed by.

--- Later in debate ---

I also welcome other aspects of today’s announcements, particularly the move to simplify the single-tier pension system, which will significantly benefit women who have had to take time out of the labour market because of their caring responsibilities, as many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), have pointed out. I should be grateful if the Pensions Minister could also say something about that.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman has rightly said that the Government have listened to the case that has been made, that they have made additional money available and that they will give people some notice of the changes in the pension age. Does he accept, however, that for many people who are carers, for example, or who are in part-time work or in and out of work for other reasons, the time horizon that is now being made available to them will not give them much chance to plan for their retirement?

[Richard Graham]

In a perfect world, everyone would have liked the changes to have gone further, but I believe that capping the additional waiting period at 18 months represents a significant step forward in providing time for preparation. We are not, alas, living in a perfect world—

Housing Benefit

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I want to make some constructive comments, and I hope that the Minister will take on board some of the issues I raise. I will ask some questions from a Northern Ireland perspective, because the housing benefit changes will affect us as well—we cannot divorce ourselves or walk away from them.

I should set the scene, because Northern Ireland has some very particular circumstances: the Department for Social Development has responsibility for social security benefits, and the Department for Employment and Learning has responsibility for training and employment programmes, in contrast with the rest of the United Kingdom and the Department for Work and Pensions. DEL has significant differences with its steps to work programme, as against the job guarantee fund here. There are issues to be clarified, therefore, and I want to ensure that the changes in benefits will not impact adversely on the people of Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland has had the local housing allowance since 2008, but it has not been formally assessed. I had hoped that it would be, because it would have given us an idea of how successful it has been. I am concerned, however, that the proposed changes to the allowance lack a firm evidential base. Will the Minister comment on that? I think that the proposals will adversely affect recipients in Northern Ireland.

I am gravely concerned about the Budget plans to reduce the initial award of the benefit by 10% in April 2013 to those claimants who have been receiving jobseeker’s allowance for longer than 12 months. I make that comment because the unemployment rate in Northern Ireland between April and June was 6.6%. Worse still, the working-age employment rate remained well below the UK average, and was the lowest of all the 12 UK regions. The changes put forward tonight will adversely affect the people of Northern Ireland because of our position in relation to benefits.

I have concerns about the introduction of a measure that utilises sanctions that are neither helpful nor beneficial. The proposal appears to be based on the assumption that a reduction in housing benefit will motivate working-age claimants to find work, but it is clear that even if every working-age claimant was so motivated, there would still be significant numbers of long-term unemployed people in Northern Ireland beyond 2013. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. We have to find a balance. How do we distinguish between those who are genuinely seeking employment and those who perhaps are not?

I mentioned earlier that the focus of housing benefit has to be on providing low-income families with access to good-quality housing. The housing benefit cap rates may have a knock-on effect on the social housing sector, as private rented accommodation becomes harder to access for those on low incomes and the demand for social housing increases. A great many people are in a Catch-22 situation: they do not have enough money to rent a house privately, yet there is not enough social housing for them.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, but does he accept that in the absence of cap rates—or, sometimes, where the rates are fairly generous—private sector rents become inflated? Landlords simply look at what the rate is, and if it goes up they put their rents up. It is almost like a perpetual cycle: the rates go up, so rents go up, and then the rates are pushed up again, and the only people who gain are the landlords.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his information, which is helpful in focusing attention on what we are trying to aim for.

Members have mentioned fuel poverty. One of the spin-offs of losing housing benefit will be fuel poverty. In my former position, I sat as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. One of the inquiries that we undertook was on child poverty. Fuel poverty and housing benefit both came up in that inquiry into child poverty, but all those things were part of the jigsaw of how people survive. Take away one part of it and we have a problem. I have some concern about that.

One Member mentioned the discretionary housing payment, and I would certainly be keen to find out from the Minister what he intends to do if the pool of funding that is set aside runs out. He said that it was impossible to separate housing benefit from housing and social development policy in general, and there are some examples of that in Northern Ireland where housing has been designed to bring mixed communities together, such as in Loughbrickland in County Down and Ballynafeigh in south Belfast, which are also examples of how we have moved forward. I would like to express some concern over the removal of housing benefit from people where it will drive them towards poorer areas. For some people who are already in poorer areas, they will not move beyond them, and I have concerns about that.

I am conscious of the time, but another concern of mine relates to applications by carers for disabled people—I do not think that the issue has been mentioned fully yet, although some Members may have partially touched on it. A carer for a disabled person might want to apply, but the only person who can do so is the claimant’s spouse or partner. Would it not be more beneficial to ensure that the rest of the family members, who are perhaps those who are more affected, may also apply? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to that. I also believe that some consideration needs to be given to single parents who have shared custody of children. I am not sure whether that issue has been addressed, so I would ask the Minister to look at that, too. Where custody is established, benefit entitlements should be granted to the parent to support the family unit. I do not believe that the proposals do that. Again, I ask the Minister to consider that point.

Other Members have touched on the issue of large families. It would not apply so much in the area that I represent, but I believe that it none the less applies right across the United Kingdom. Has particular consideration been given to ethnic families in other parts of the United Kingdom, where larger, multi-generational households are perhaps more common? I ask the Minister to consider that as well. There should be more innovative and positive incentives, which are far more preferable in making housing benefit entitlement reflect family size in the social rented sector from 2013. The Government position is bereft of detail, and I ask the Minister to consider my points.