Universal Credit

Debate between Esther McVey and Stephen Lloyd

Monday 5th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

That is a crucial question. If people do not vote for these changes, it will mean the most vulnerable not being helped, it will mean 1 million disabled people not getting £100 a month, it will mean disabled people not getting severe disability premium, and it will mean 700,000 people not getting their full benefit and being supported as well, in addition to the other measures I mentioned. I thank my hon. Friend for asking that question.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I commend the Secretary of State for making her statement to the House. I also note with approval the list of organisations that the Secretary of State said had come out and supported the Government putting back in the £1.7 billion for UC from the £3 billion cut in 2015. I note that I and my party were not in that list, but I am sure the Secretary of State will remember that since the election I have been saying again and again that to make work pay we have to bring back the full £3 billion. Will the Secretary of State commit to the further £1.3 billion that will really make work pay?

[Ms McVey]

We are making work pay. That is why more people are going into work. We are also changing the system significantly so that people are not trapped on benefits. We are making the system as fair as we can for those on benefits and those paying for it, and we are also protecting the most vulnerable; that is what we are doing.

Universal Credit

Debate between Esther McVey and Stephen Lloyd

Thursday 5th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

That is always a challenge, Mr Speaker, but I will try.

Regrettably, I believe that the Secretary of State gave only a partial apology, because she did not take account of the fact that her own Department confirmed to the NAO on 6 June that its report was based on the most accurate and up-to-date information, yet the other day she indicated that the NAO report could be out of date. I think that that is unacceptable.

[Ms McVey]

Again, if I may correct the hon. Gentleman, we had agreed that that information was coming forward. What we have said is that the changes this Government have made were done in January, February and April, and therefore those changes could not be taken fully into account—those impacts are still being felt—because the period of checking was from last year to April of this year.

Universal Credit and Welfare Changes

Debate between Esther McVey and Stephen Lloyd

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

We are making it a much simpler system, by taking six benefits and turning them into one. Instead of the hon. Lady’s constituents having to get housing benefit from the local council, get tax credits from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and also go to the DWP, they can get it all under one roof, because it is streamlined. If she would care to go into a jobcentre with her constituents, they could see how it now works.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to ask a question, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I was unavoidably detained and missed the early part of the statement.

Listening to the Secretary of State’s answers, it appears that she agrees with anything positive the NAO report says, but the whole stream of things that the NAO says are a real problem with universal credit are completely dismissed out of hand. That is unwise. I powerfully and fiercely supported the £3 billion per annum that was put into universal credit under the coalition, despite putting caveats on the record about some issues with universal credit. Does she agree that, if that £3 billion per annum were still within universal credit, work really would pay, and it would be a substantially successful benefit?

[Ms McVey]

We have said that the NAO report sadly was out of date and therefore has not taken into account all the changes that have been made. That is unfortunate, because it means that the report is not a true reflection of what is happening. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman was not here for the statement, but if he reads it in Hansard tomorrow, he will have his answers on how well the system is working.

Personal Independence Payments

Debate between Esther McVey and Stephen Lloyd

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

My hon. Friend raises the good point of how we can make the assessments better: how can we make sure they are consistent and the best we can possibly do? We are constantly reassessing them and trying to make the service even better, whether through videos to help people, improved guidance for GPs and healthcare professionals, improved communications, or special software so that people with disabilities can read about the service. Those are the sort of constant improvements we are carrying out, and we will continue to do that so as to make sure we have the best system possible.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Mr Justice Mostyn in his ruling on Motability, which the Government also accepted, said of the 2017 regulations:

“The wish to save nearly £1 billion at the expense of those with mental health impairments is not a reasonable foundation for passing this measure.”

The Secretary of State has made a welcome second U-turn, so do the Government recognise that not cutting corporation tax might have been a fairer and more honourable way of balancing the books?

[Ms McVey]

We have not saved any money; let me make that point clear now. We spend more money on PIP, and will continue to do so to 2022—more money every year from 2010 than we ever spent on DLA. If I can dispel the myth that anybody is saving any money through moving from DLA to PIP, that will be the best thing I can do today. This Conservative Government will be spending more on disabled people through PIP from 2010 through to 2022.

Personal Independence Payment

Debate between Esther McVey and Stephen Lloyd

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

I am glad that “gobsmacked” has become part of the language of the House. My hon. Friend is gobsmacked, but I was obviously greatly dismayed by the comments from the Opposition and by the personal attacks that I have suffered. However, I know that people make personal attacks only when they do not have workable policies to put forward, so that shows that the Opposition have no workable policies. We do not need to link politics with violence.

In answer to my hon. Friend’s question, the increase has been £4.2 billion.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this urgent question, and I also thank the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) for requesting it. The Government have decided not to appeal only now, after putting many claimants with mental health problems through a year of hell. Does the Secretary of State really believe that that was a kind or fair way of treating people with mental health issues?

[Ms McVey]

This is a key issue for the Government. The Prime Minister has made supporting people with mental health issues a key pledge, and we have put in an extra £11 billion. Coming to the House with this decision is a step in the right direction towards helping people as best we can.

Private Sector Pensions

Debate between Esther McVey and Stephen Lloyd

Monday 22nd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

My hon. Friend raises a key point. There does need to be transparency. A pension is something that people invest in all their lives and hope to recoup when they retire, so transparency is key. Our White Paper will seek to determine best practice and, in parallel, to set out stronger corporate governance within pensions organisations.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I should like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting an urgent question on this important issue. I should also like to welcome the Secretary of State back to the Front Bench. Is she aware that, under the current rules, pension obligations are unsecured, meaning that insolvent companies fund their pension schemes only when they have compensated their other, supposedly more important, secured creditors? If so, has her Department considered carrying out a review of those rules so that employees with private pensions can be given a justifiably higher priority in future?

[Ms McVey]

That is key—where do they fit in the line of creditors? Are people being given the correct protection for their pensions? That is why the Pension Protection Fund was brought in. Again, this is something that needs to be brought forward under the governance rules for pensions.