Food Banks

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an absolute disgrace that we have to have food banks and the initiatives that he describes in the sixth richest country in the world?

[Stephen Twigg]

Absolutely. Those among my constituents who do not have to use the food banks look in disbelief when they learn about the scale of the increase in their use over recent years, so I absolutely concur with my hon. Friend. I appeal to the Government to publish the DEFRA report and to do what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said the Government should do, which is to have a proper inquiry into the causes of the growth of food banks, so that in future we see not further exponential growth, as we have seen over the last three and a half years, but a decline in the use of food banks, which surely we could all support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that when we bring all new claims into the 2012 child maintenance system, we will use information from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs relating not just to earned income, but to income from all sources. Provided that income is coming into the household and HMRC is aware of it, we shall be able to use that information in assessments.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Can the Minister tell us how many people have died as a result of illness or suicide between their being declared fit for work and the hearing of their appeals? If he does not know, does he not think that he has a duty to collect those figures?

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

I think that we should be very careful about scaremongering. There will be people to whom that applies, but such figures are not collected centrally. I know the hon. Lady very well, and I do not think that the House expects scaremongering of that kind from her.

Housing Benefit

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

In debating today’s motion, it is instructive to look back at the manifesto on which Labour Members stood at the last election. They talked about the need for “tough choices on welfare” and stated:

“No one fit for work should be abandoned to a life on benefit, so all those who can work will be required to do so.”

They also promised reforms to housing benefit so that the state does not subsidise people to live on rents that working families could not afford. As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), when they were in government they intended to introduce the very same measure. So what happened?

Labour has reverted to type, defending those who are getting more than their fair share out of the system, to the detriment of hundreds of thousands of others who are worse off through no fault of their own. They include the 6,687 households on my local authority of Dudley’s housing waiting list. That is why Labour has opposed every single measure this Government have taken to reform the welfare state.

The public know that the catalyst for the reforms we have introduced was the ballooning deficit left to us by the previous Government. The overriding mission behind the reforms had a much wider moral purpose: to make work pay, to end the something for nothing culture, to ensure a strong safety net for those who cannot work and, in the case of the reforms to housing benefit, to reduce overcrowding and homelessness.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is talking as though the only people in social housing are those on benefit or not working. It is an in-work benefit. More importantly, many people in this country who work for the minimum wage and work very hard will never be able to afford to purchase a property. That is why we have social housing and why we have homes for life for those people.

[Margot James]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention and I agree with much of the principle behind it. Of course, some people will never be able to afford to buy their own homes—although this Government are intent on helping as many people as possible to own their own homes—and that is the purpose of social housing and housing benefit. There is no argument with that principle, but we must be cognisant of the number of people who, at the moment, cannot even get council housing or privately rented social housing. That is one of the driving purposes behind the reform.

The subsidy has become something of a totemic issue for the Opposition. They want to position the end of the subsidy and the creation of a level playing field between all recipients of social housing support as a modern day poll tax. Whatever the merits or otherwise of different systems of raising taxes locally, there is no doubt that the poll tax lacked public support. That is the difference, and it is worth exploring why the policy we are debating today enjoys public support.

The MORI poll that my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) mentioned found that 78% of respondents supported the need to reduce under-occupation and overcrowding in social housing, whereas 54% of them agreed that people of working age who live in social housing should receive less housing benefit if they have more bedrooms than they need. Some 60% of those polled believed that those affected should seek work or work longer hours if they could.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

In my two minutes on this policy it is very hard to decide where to start because there is so much wrong with it. There is the terrible situation of separated parents sharing child care while children are expected to sleep on camp beds or sofas or to share with their parents. There are people who are not choosing between heating and eating because they are having to go cold and hungry, disabled people whose health is deteriorating because of stress and distress, and people who have committed or are contemplating suicide.

Government Members have made the frankly ridiculous and desperate claim that this is Labour policy, but the local housing allowance was not applied retrospectively. Indeed, in Bolton there are still 1,000 tenants on the old scheme because their circumstances have not changed—the trigger for local housing allowance to be applied. This Government decided to introduce carnage, with no account taken of the nature of housing stock in each area, no account taken of the needs of disabled people or separated families, and no trialling, unlike the four years of trialling done before the local housing allowance was introduced. Instead, they have created chaos and heartache.

Like everybody, I have surgeries full of desperate people. I would like to talk about their cases, but unfortunately time is so limited because so many people are so angered by this Government’s policy that I cannot. I will finish by asking a few questions. Who in this place thinks it appropriate for a 15-year-old to share a bedroom with a toddler? Who thinks it right that boys and girls approaching puberty should have to share a room? Who thinks it right that two adults should be forced to share a bedroom irrespective of their health needs? Who thinks it makes sense to force families to move from a three-bedroom house with an eight-year-old and a nine-year-old and then force them to move back to a three-bedroom house a year later? It is a disgraceful policy that shows that this Government do not have a clue about the lives of ordinary people. They are out of touch and heartless. It is a cruel, senseless and stupid policy, and it should be repealed now.

Pensions Bill

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Gregg McClymont]

I certainly think the Minister should undertake a review.

The perception I am talking about has developed, so let me quote something that the Minister might be aware of. I cited it a couple of years ago, but he has probably forgotten.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Before my hon. Friend moves on, I wonder whether he would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to my constituent Maureen Davenport. The Minister said that the maximum state pension under the new system will be “significantly lower” than under the current system. He also said:

“In some ways the new system will be less generous for those who retire after April 2016”.

That is somewhat different from the fanfare and the Government saying that these new pensions would be wonderful for everybody.

[Gregg McClymont]

I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful intervention. There has been an issue of this Government, certainly in the early stages, overselling some of the things they are doing.

The Government would be doing themselves a favour by undertaking this review, given the sense among significant groups of women that the Government do not care enough about their pension provision. In 2005, in the days when the Conservative party was still trying to say that it had changed, the Prime Minister said:

“If you put eight Conservative men round a table and ask them to discuss what should be done about pensions, you’d get some good answers…but what you are less likely to get is a powerful insight into the massive unfairness relating to women’s pensions.”

It is in that context—the sense that the Government have so far had their eye a little off the ball in respect of treating women fairly on pensions—that I intend to test the House’s opinion on our call for a review by the Government of these provisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling]

Is the Minister saying that those people who fall short of the 35-year rule will receive their £144 a week pension or that, for life, it will be less than that?

[Steve Webb]

To be clear, someone with 30 years and no SERPS under the current system gets 30/30ths of £110, a basic pension. Under our system, they get 30/35ths of £144, which is more. The fact they have not got 35 years does not matter. They get a bigger pension. It does depend on how much SERPS someone has, which is why I say that some will get more. But no one will get less because our starting point for the calculation is the better of the two numbers. The move to 35 years for people already in the system cannot give them less pension than they have already built up but does give them the opportunity to build up more.

The opportunity to talk about the Bill is enticing and I could go on at great length, but the key point is that notwithstanding the differences we have had about the detail, this is a Bill of which the House can be proud. It introduces—for the first time, essentially, in 50 years—a single, simple and decent state pension that provides a firm foundation for auto-enrolment. It rationalises the process of raising state pension ages. It reforms the bereavement support system. It gives us a private pension system that is fit for purpose for the world we are moving into and it is with considerable pride that I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling]

I am grateful for this opportunity to speak briefly in the debate. I want to speak up on behalf of Maureen Davenport and the many other women who have contacted me about what is happening to their pensions. Let me start by quoting Maureen Davenport, a retired head teacher. She says:

“I have worked all my life and paid taxes and other contributions, as required. I also have an occupational pension. I have just turned sixty years of age and I am fully aware of the Pensions Act 1995 which twice deferred the age at which I could access my state pension. What I am currently told is that I am now in the age bracket where I am not able to access the new flat rate higher pension as I was born between 5 April 1952 and July 1953. As is said by many in the media, I am one of many women facing a ‘State Pension Double Whammy’: deferred pension and a potential loss of nearly £40 per week for life. It would seem logical and fair to have grouped all women who have a deferred pension into the higher flat rate pension rather than penalise this age group. I feel very strongly that I have, once again, been penalised at a time when I cannot affect my retirement income and have very little voice and opportunity to affect change.”

Maureen is typical of the many women who have contacted me, and they are just a few of the 720,000 women who will be worse off as a result of the Government’s changes to the state pension.

[Steve Webb]

In the event that the record might suggest that the hon. Lady’s constituent will be worse off, I want to confirm that the only change we have made to her constituent’s pension is to introduce the triple lock, which will give her more generous indexation than she would have had. That is the only change that we have made to that lady’s pension.

[Julie Hilling]

My understanding is that that is not the only change: my constituent will not be able to access £144 a week because the second state pension has been done away with and she will not be entitled to that money. If I am wrong, perhaps the Minister will tell me that my constituent will receive the equivalent of £144 a week. No, she will not receive that, so she is being penalised by this action, because she will not be able to receive her second state pension. [Interruption.]

I will continue to make progress. Like me, these women are angry and upset because they have done the right things all their lives, yet will be disadvantaged in comparison with a man born on exactly the same day as they were.

This is not the only issue that hurts women. Raising the number of necessary years for national insurance contributions to 35 again disproportionately hits women. We know that women are the ones who normally take time off to look after children and, indeed, to look after ageing parents and ageing parents-in-law. This Government will undo the good work done by the last Labour Government to improve the lot of women’s pensions, with a further 100,000 fewer qualifying for a full pension. This is particularly unfair to those who are close to retirement age, who will not have the opportunity to make up the extra years—unless they work well into their 70s.

I wrote to the Minister about Maureen and my other constituents. The letter I received back was illuminating and, frankly, complacent. Let me quote some of it:

“It is important to note that we are not proposing simply to increase the pension from £110 per week for today’s pensioners to around £144 week for new pensioners…Future pensioners will simply build up towards a flat rate pension of around £144—there will be no additional State Pension on top of this figure, so the maximum State Pension attainable under the new system will be significantly lower than under the current system. I should also add that in some ways the new system will be less generous for those who retire after April 2016.”

The letter went on to say:

“While women born shortly after your constituent may receive a single-tier pension, they will have to wait several months longer than your constituent before they can start to draw a pension. Furthermore, the average entitlement for women reaching State Pension age shortly after the new system’s introduction is projected to be £131 per week and not the illustrative single-tier full rate of £144 per week. In comparison, women reaching State Pension age shortly before the new system is introduced will receive an average of £125 per week under the current system, made up from a combination of basic and additional State Pension.”

It seems clear to me that women born in that age bracket will be disadvantaged, yet the Government announced their proposed changes with a grand fanfare about how much better off all pensioners would be under the new system. They have failed to tell people, particularly women, that some of them would be worse off. I just wonder why everything this Government do seems to make things worse for women, who are hit by so many things—hit twice as hard, for example, by the Budget and three times as hard by other Government actions.

[Martin Horwood]

Will the hon. Lady explain why the triple lock made things worse for women?

[Julie Hilling]

Of course the triple lock affects everybody; it does not just affect women. Some of the changes, however, affect women only. That is my point. It is not that this Government are doing nothing—I applaud the triple lock—but I deplore the fact that whenever the Budget and other measures are taken, it is often women who suffer. Women are worse affected, as they are on this pensions issue.

I finish by asking why the Government are trying to turn the clock back to times when things were worse for women than for men. This Government continue to act in that way, which greatly disappoints me.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)]

I will indeed do that. Although my hon. Friend talks about an average of 14% fewer people claiming in his constituency, across the country the average is 11%, and 400,000 fewer people are claiming since 2010, so it is success all round for this Government.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

T2. With well over 1 million unemployment benefit claimants being sanctioned since 2010, rumours abounding that targets are in place for sanctioning, and all of us facing many desperate people in our surgeries, will the Secretary of State tell us when we will see the results of his investigation into sanctioning?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

It is obvious and clear that Labour Members do not support sanctioning. The reality is that they spend their whole time saying that they are in favour of benefit changes and at every single turn they oppose them. People who deserve sanctions deserve sanctions, and we impose them on those who do not play a part in the system.

Remploy

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

We have to look at what disabled people want to do now, and they have said clearly that they want to be a part of mainstream society. They want to be in mainstream jobs and they are looking towards their goals and aspirations. We are helping them with that, be it as part of the alliance, as part of disabled people’s user-led organisations, as part of the role models programme or, as I said, as part of our new disability employment strategy.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady have any guarantees that the companies that will be taking over the Remploy businesses will continue to focus on employing disabled people in the future?

[Esther McVey]

Let us examine how the bids were looked at and what the key criteria were for being taken forward and selected as the preferred bidder. The No. 1 criterion, goal and aim was the employment of disabled people. After that came viability, sustainability and value for the taxpayer, so employing disabled people was first and foremost at the heart of these commercial processes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the case in more detail.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

A recent judgment said that homeless people using night shelters are not eligible for any housing benefit payments. Given that night shelters will not be able to continue without an income from their service users, what action is being taken to address this problem?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We are looking at this issue with my noble friend Lord Freud and my right hon. Friends. I will definitely write to the hon. Lady about the outcome.

Jobs and Business

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Friday 10th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I have said that the cuts in capital spending have been too deep. The Chancellor has acknowledged that and changes were made in the autumn statement and the Budget. The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that the decision to slash capital budgets by half was made by the outgoing Labour Government in 2010.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

How many of the jobs that have been created are so-called workfare jobs in which people are supposedly employed but there is no pay?

[Vince Cable]

There is no such activity in Britain. There were cases of people working without pay and my colleague, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, intervened to stop that practice operating on the back of the benefits system.

We acknowledge that there is one category of people among whom unemployment is worryingly high: young people. The Leader of the Opposition focused on that issue. About 1 million young people are unemployed. That figure is worrying, but we should recall that the level of young people’s unemployment, which is approaching 20%, is virtually the same as the level we inherited.

It is also worth recalling that a third of the figure is made up of full-time students. It has always struck me as a little odd that we regard full-time students as unemployed, but that is what the statistics show. If we strip that out, there is still a significant level of youth unemployment, which is worrying.

It is useful, as I did on the wider figures, to contrast youth unemployment in this country with that in comparable countries. In France, youth unemployment is 24%, in Sweden, which perhaps should be a role model, it is 24%, in Italy it is 35% and in Spain it is 45%. The Economist, as some Members will know, has been running a series on the global problem of youth unemployment. We share that problem, but in many ways we are outperforming comparable economies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

A few weeks ago I sat in the Chamber listening to the Budget debate. My overwhelming memory is of the Chancellor sitting on the Front Bench looking like a little boy lost, with no idea what to do about a flatlining economy, the loss of our triple A status or the level of borrowing, and no idea how to balance the books. So he delivered a Budget that did none of that, sitting on his hands, hoping that things would just happen.

After that disappointment, one might think that I would learn, but sadly not. I listened to the Queen deliver the Gracious Speech, hoping that she would tell us about the action Her Government would take to improve life for my constituents. It seemed to start pretty well:

“My Government’s legislative programme will continue to focus on building a stronger economy”.

I frowned a little at the word “continue”, because after three years they seem to have failed to build anything, but still I sat in hope. She continued:

“It will also work to promote a fairer society that rewards people who work hard.”

Well, we all agree with that. She went on:

“My Government is committed to building an economy where people who work hard are properly rewarded. It will therefore continue to reform the benefits system, helping people move from welfare to work.”

I frowned a little at that, too. As I see it, their reforms of the benefits system are not helping people to move from welfare to work; they are making them move to food banks and to skip meals so that family members can eat. If they are even more unfortunate, they might be one of the families who have been made homeless.

Even so, I waited to hear what the Government would actually do to build our economy. I waited and waited—I did not have to wait long, because in less than 10 minutes the speech was over—but there were no answers and no relief for my constituents. There was a little tinkering, but it was yet another wasted opportunity from this failing Government. They are out of touch and out of ideas.

How much evidence do the Government need that their policies are failing? The International Monetary Fund says that growth in the UK is slower than in 23 of the 33 advanced economies it monitors. Olivier Blanchard, its chief economist, warned the Chancellor that he is “playing with fire” by refusing to change course. However, there was nothing in the speech to address the IMF’s call to boost growth and rethink the speed of the deficit reduction. Starting to build HS2 in a few years, welcome though that is in Bolton West, will do nothing to build the economy now.

On the same day that the Queen delivered that terribly thin speech, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that 1 million more children will descend into poverty as a direct result of benefit policies. Simply saying that people should work hard and blaming the poor for the situation they find themselves in is an insult. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that 6.1 million people living in poverty are in working households, 6.4 million people lack the paid work they want and 1.4 million part-time workers want full-time work, the highest figure in 20 years.

The Government like to boast that they have created over 1 million new jobs, but they do not tell us how many of those jobs are a direct transfer from the public sector or how many are unpaid. Unbelievably, workfare jobs, where people work for their dole, are counted as jobs created. Despite the Secretary of State’s denial, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility unpaid work experience and work placements make up 14% of those so-called new jobs. The Government do not tell us how many of those jobs are on are zero-hour contracts or how many are part time, and they do not tell us how many of them no longer exist because the business has failed or downsized.

The Government like to peddle the myth that the 2.5 million people who are out of work and the 1 million young people who do not have jobs are skivers and shirkers. The reality is that millions of people are desperate for work and there is a substantial churn of people in poverty or out of work. Although 18% of people are on a low income at any one time, one in three of us experience at least one period on a low income in a four-year period, and 11% of people are on a low income for more than half of those four years. More people are out of work under this Government than were when they took office, and the flagship Work programme gets only two in every 100 people into work—fewer than if the Government had done nothing at all.

Tax credits have been cut so hard that a previous Work and Pensions Minister revealed that some families with children could be £728 a year better off if they were out of work. The Department for Work and Pensions impact assessment reveals that universal credit will fail to make work pay for 2.1 million workers and that real wages are down by £1,700 since the election. The welfare bill has continued to go up since the financial crash and is increasing in real terms by 2% each year. Borrowing is going up and unemployment is set to rise even higher.

Of course, the Government like to blame Labour for everything. According to them, the Labour Government caused the global economic crash—a crash that started in America and spread to the rest of the world. They like to say that we did not fix the roof while the sun was shining, but they forget that the Labour Government paid off the second world war debt, built hundreds of new schools and hospitals, and invested more in the railways than the so-called record spending that this Government currently claim. At the time of the general election we had growth of 0.7%, unemployment was falling, and the deficit was coming down.

The Government need to start to take responsibility for a double-dip recession, for soaring borrowing, and for failing to meet every one of their predictions on growth, borrowing and deficit reduction, yet they carry on with their failed policies. Have they never heard the old adage, “You can’t cut your way out of a recession”? They need to take action to grow the economy. Building homes would be a good place to start, as would ensuring that businesses get the finance they need with a British investment bank.

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

I do not know whether the hon. Lady is aware that when she stood for election in 2010 her party set out spending plans for this Parliament that involved substantial spending cuts.

[Julie Hilling]

Absolutely; I am well aware of that. In fact, we said that we would halve the deficit over this four-year period. The Government said that they were going to cut it completely in one term, but they are not even three quarters of the way there yet. They told my local council that it would have to find £20 million-worth of cuts over the course of the Parliament. It has already had to find £100 million-worth of cuts. That is the difference between a planned deficit reduction and planned action for growth and a Government who sit there saying, “If we cut, something miraculous will happen to grow our economy.”

[Lyn Brown]

Is my hon. Friend as confused as I am that the Government cannot see that their policies over the past three years have caused the economy to flatline? Why does she think they will take no responsibility?

[Julie Hilling]

That is the million dollar question. I have no idea why the Government will not take responsibility. They like to trot out the same old line that it is all the Labour party’s fault, but they must start to take responsibility.

We can all see the cost of the Government’s policies for the poorest in our communities, who are being hit not only in their pockets but by cuts in the services they depend on. We can see the consequences of cuts to in-work benefits, no pay rises, and rising inflation for those who used to feel comfortably off. We all know that there are only two ways to balance a budget: cut expenditure or increase income.

The Government’s cuts are harming not only individuals and their communities but the economy. A recent Financial Times study showed that cuts in social security payments would take £19 billion out of the economy. However, it is not just about social security spending. The low-paid spend more of their income, so less money in the community means more jobs lost, which means more people on benefits, and more jobs lost again—a downward spiral. The only way to reverse that spiral is to grow the economy by investing in properly paid jobs so that people are not dependent on social security but are instead paying into the coffers.

The Government do not have any real answers to the problems that we face. Unemployment in my constituency is up. One in 10 people in Greater Manchester skips meals so that family members can eat. Nationally, homelessness and rough sleeping are up by a third, and Shelter says that every 15 minutes another family is made homeless. The economy may be flatlining, but people’s incomes and spending are not. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that in 2015 people will be worse off than they were in 2010. Wages are £1,700 lower than in May 2010.

Behind those figures are real people having a desperately hard time—people who are losing their homes, having to choose between heating and eating, and relying on food banks to feed themselves and their children. The people of Bolton West are struggling, and many are more than struggling—they are finding it hard to survive day to day. The Government blame them and are hell-bent on making the situation worse. They say that they have to cut the welfare budget but neglect to say that the majority of that budget is made up of pensions and in-work benefits. That does not fit the picture they are trying to portray of the skivers who are ruining the economy. They forget to say that jobseeker’s allowance accounts for less than 5% of the budget and that cutting benefit not only forces people to food banks but harms the economy. They forget to tell us that the private rented sector is far more costly than social housing. They will do nothing to introduce fair rents and nothing to curb the cost of private rented accommodation; they simply cap benefits in the hope that that might just bring down the rents. They introduce a bedroom tax that drives people to desperation.

The Government refuse to acknowledge that the work capability assessments that are conducted on ill and disabled people are fundamentally flawed. Even people who are too ill to leave their homes are being found fit for work. People who have lost their jobs through illness or disability are being told that they should get a job, but jobcentres will not sign them on for jobseeker’s allowance because they are too ill to work. Even though our staff are dealing with suicidal constituents on a daily basis, the Government accuse us of blowing the situation out of proportion.

[Mrs Hodgson]

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic, powerful and moving speech. Is she aware of other cases like my constituent Michael Moore, who was classed as fit for work and died less than 18 months later, or was that an isolated case?

[Julie Hilling]

If only that tragic case was an isolated one. There are many more people who have committed suicide after being told that they are fit for work or who have died between being told that they are fit for work and their appeal. That is a tragedy. The system is cruel and heartless, but the Government will not listen or say that they have to do something about it.

The Government blame migrants for unemployment but do nothing to enforce the national minimum wage, tackle the agencies that recruit only from abroad, or deal with the abuse of inflated accommodation charges for vastly overcrowded houses being taken out of people’s wages.

The Government have proposed a deregulation Bill. I shudder every time I hear those words. Of course we should get rid of unnecessary burdens on business, make compliance with legislation as simple as possible and listen to the concerns and proposals of businesses, but every time this Government have proposed changes, they have eroded the hard-fought-for rights of workers.

[Ms Abbott]

What does my hon. Friend say to those who propose effectively to deregulate child care and to reduce the ratio of carers to toddlers? Could it be that those people have never actually looked after four toddlers on their own?

[Julie Hilling]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. That fits with the Government’s pattern of not looking at the reality and not talking to people who work at the coal face or the chalkboard—the people who actually do the job and know what is needed.

The proposal to exempt self-employed people from health and safety law may sound reasonable, but it will not be if it means that corners are cut, lives are lost and the cost to the taxpayer for hospital treatment and disability benefit increases. Perhaps I will be pleasantly shocked and the proposals will be fair to both employer and employee—we live in hope.

There are many things that the Government could have done to bring growth to the economy, to give 2.5 million people the dignity of work and to give a decent standard of living to those who are too ill or disabled to work. It is a pity that they have wasted yet another opportunity.

Before I sit down, I must bring up one more issue. The Government have failed to take the opportunity to introduce holistic legislation to tackle dangerous dogs. Although the proposal to extend the legislation to cover dog attacks on private property is welcome, the lack of proposals to promote responsible ownership and prevent dog attacks is more than disappointing.

Each year, there are 210,000 dog attacks and more than 6,000 people are admitted to hospital, often suffering life-changing injuries. On average, 12 postal workers are attacked each day. The NHS spends £3 million on treating the victims of dog attacks and local authorities spend £57 million on kennelling costs. There have been nine deaths since 2006, the last of which was that of my constituent, 14-year-old Jade Lomas-Anderson.

The last Government started a consultation on dangerous dogs that closed in June 2010. There was a consensus among organisations including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, the RSPCA, the Royal College of Nursing, the British Veterinary Association and the Communication Workers Union that dog control notices should be introduced. Those would give the responsible officer the ability to instruct an owner to keep their dog muzzled, on a lead or away from children; to order the owner and dog to undertake training; and potentially to reduce the number of dogs in a particular household. That would be good for the community and for the welfare of the animals. There was also a call to extend the legislation to cover attacks on other animals and to restrict the number of puppies that are bred by unlicensed breeders.

The Government said no to all of that. They are missing an opportunity to introduce holistic legislation that would protect not only the community, but dogs themselves. None of this will help Jade, but one thing is certain: inaction will mean that there will be more attacks and that more families will suffer the terrible tragedy of the death or injury of a loved one. I ask the Government to reconsider their position. I will certainly be campaigning for vast improvements to their very limited proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

What can I say to my hon. Friend but, “Well said”? I wish the Minister would take these issues more seriously. Instead of tackling the substantive problem of child poverty, his colleagues in the Treasury have decided to redefine it. As with many things the Government are doing, they find it is easier to meddle with the figures and interfere with the statistics—rewrite them, even. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is not in his place. He has just had his wrists slapped once again by the Office for National Statistics for meddling with the statistics.

The Government should rebuild trust with the British people by coming clean on these issues. They should not try to rewrite the figures, but actually do something about child poverty, an issue that is of great concern to families and to all people. Doing so would address the point, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), that the Conservative party is not just in the business of pretending to change on these substantial issues. We live in hope, although there is not much of that left.

The Government’s approach to child poverty and the response of the Minister highlight how out of touch they are. If he and his colleagues cannot understand the seriousness of falling living standards and rising levels of child poverty—to name but two issues—and what they mean for ordinary people’s lives, I cannot understand how we are to trust them to get us out of the economic mess that they have put us in over the past three years. It is their mess: they need to clean it up and they have categorically failed to do so.

[Julie Hilling]

Does my hon. Friend agree that many Government Members do not have an understanding of what the cuts to living standards mean? It is not that people cannot just go to the pub one night a week. The cuts mean that people cannot feed their children, that there is no food in the cupboard and that they go to bed hungry. Does she agree that it does not feel like Government Members understand that that is what it is like?

[Rushanara Ali]

With a Cabinet full of millionaires, I think the empathy will be limited, but I hope that those Cabinet millionaires speak to Government Members who come from the kind of background that means they might have some understanding. If they even talked to some of their own colleagues—such as the former shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who, I understand, grew up on a council estate, and raised the issue of the Government and the Prime Minister being out of touch—they might learn a thing or two about how people have to live their lives. If they paid attention to ordinary, poorer constituents, they might learn a thing or two about what it is like to live below the poverty line or to struggle on a modest income. The changes the Government have made in people’s incomes—a reduction of £1,700 a year—have had a devastating effect on families and children. [Interruption.] The Minister is heckling, but I cannot hear what he is saying. He is welcome to make an intervention. Does he wish to make an intervention? No. He does not have much to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

Perhaps the Secretary of State could start by demonstrating now and explaining why only 2% of participants have got jobs in my constituency. What is the reason for such a ridiculously small number, when there are so many people chasing apprenticeships and job opportunities? How can that be acceptable? Why is he so complacent? I thought he was interested in getting people off welfare and into work. It seems that he is interested only in attacking people, rather than helping them to get back into work. That is deeply disappointing. I had more hope that he would do something constructive to get people into work, given his track record in opposition and his efforts to get to know communities in our country and understand where the barriers were, but perhaps I should not have given him the benefit of the doubt.

[Julie Hilling]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State’s comment absolutely reinforces what seems to be his view that people are choosing to live a life on benefit rather than the fact that 2.5 million people are unemployed, the vast majority of whom would love to be in work? The benefit cap does not drive people into work; what gets people into work is the creation of jobs for which they can apply and then go and do.

[Rushanara Ali]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The crux of the matter is that the economy is flatlining and there is no prospect of people having a chance to get a foot on the employment ladder. Such opportunities as are available are too few. We need an economy that can grow and a Government who can act as quickly as possible to boost demand and reverse the trend we have seen. We need more genuine training and employment opportunities, particularly for young people.

I raised with the Business Secretary the issue of graduate unemployment, as this is another pool of talent that is being wasted in our country. I was the first in my family to go to university and many in my constituency are in the same position. They have worked hard, played by the rules and just want to make a contribution.

Under-occupancy Penalty (Nottingham)

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I continue to respond to the points raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham South.

Why is it acceptable to restrict private sector tenants on a low income, but okay to allow social tenants to have a spare room?

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

I hope that the House will forgive me, but I want to respond to the points raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham South and have limited time to do so.

There is an issue of fairness as between private sector tenants on a low income and social tenants on a low income, but there is also a second issue of fairness. Our estimates for Nottingham are ballpark figures—the hon. Lady is right to say that we do not have exact figures for her constituency, but we do have regional figures and we can estimate overcrowding—but we estimate that of the order of 2,000 or so households there are overcrowded.

Housing Benefit (Under-occupancy Penalty)

Julie Hilling Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jessica Morden]

It did not work like that. We are debating a policy that will come in in April. As Members have explained, it will be applied retrospectively to people who have been living in their houses for decades. Government Members have forfeited the right to make such interventions because they have given tax cuts to millionaires.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

To respond to the intervention by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley), when the local housing allowance was introduced, it did not affect people who were in tenancies at the time, but was applied when people moved house. It therefore did not have the punitive effect of the bedroom tax.

[Jessica Morden]

My hon. Friend is right. This is a retrospective hit on people who have lived in their houses for decades.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

This issue is creating a lot of passion, which I can understand. People’s homes are very important to them, and none of us wants to feel that the possession of our home is threatened or is subject to high-handed control from above. The morality of the argument, however, is not all on one side as the Opposition seem to suggest it is. Indeed, I would find their moral outrage more convincing if their Front-Bench team firmly pledged to repeal this measure if they were ever returned to office. I would also find it more convincing if when they were in office they had not taken the steps they did on private sector rented accommodation, probably as a prelude to going further.

On the basis of what the more moderate Opposition Members have said, they accept that there is a problem of under-occupation where free or subsidised accommodation is made available through the public sector. The morality on the Government side of the case is to say that we have obligations to all those people who want that subsidised or free accommodation but who cannot get it on the size and scale they need. There are two different groups here, and we need to look after the interests of both groups as best we can.

Of course there are visionaries on the Opposition side who say that the answer is easy: we just need to build hundreds of thousands of more homes at public expense so that everybody can have the accommodation they want. The issue then becomes why that did not happen when we had a Labour Government who knew how to do those things. The truth is that for anyone who sits on the Government Benches, such housing will always be a scarcer resource than people would like. If we offer something free or subsidised, there will be more demand than provision, even when we are trying to be very generous, so we must have rationing and allocation. All Governments, in good times and bad times, have had to allocate and ration public housing.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that there was a period—certainly in Wigan—when we could not let council houses and they were knocked down, because people were buying houses? Our biggest problem now is that people who want to buy houses cannot get mortgages. They do not go into social housing because it is subsidised; they go there because they have nowhere else to live.

[Mr Redwood]

It is a bit of both. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady if she is urging the Government to do even more than they are currently doing to make more mortgages available so that more people can afford to buy homes. Members on both sides of the House would welcome that. I happen to know that Ministers are desperate to ensure that more mortgages are available than were available during the last few Labour years, and are working away with the banks to try to make it happen. That is very much part of the solution to the housing problem. [Laughter.] It is all very well for Labour Members to go into fits of hysterics, but they really should try to take a serious interest in the problem. Believe it or not, quite a lot of us Conservatives want better housing solutions for many of our constituents, and for people in other parts of the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

When I listen to the Government, I wonder what world they live in. It certainly is not the world of the 2,400 tenants of Bolton at Home or the 4,500 tenants of Wigan and Leigh Housing who are facing unaffordable bills because the Government have decided that the poor should pay the price for the wrongs of the rich.

The Government have a fundamental ignorance about social housing and a thoroughly disgraceful attitude towards people who, through choice or circumstance, are living in council or housing association properties. They seem to think that it is a negative choice and that everyone, whatever their circumstances, should aspire to own a home. It is as if they have learned nothing from the sub-prime catastrophe.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Julie Hilling]

I will not because other Members want to speak.

Social houses are homes: homes that are usually occupied by people who cannot afford to buy a house because they do not earn enough or because they cannot work; homes that people live in for many years; homes that tenants lavish care and attention on; homes that they hope to live in until they choose to downsize to a flat or until they die; homes that their children may move back into when they finish university or when relationships break down; homes that families come to visit and where grandchildren come to stay; homes that are part of a community that benefits from stability and from established residents who make a contribution.

The Government do not seem to think about homes and communities, but merely about spare bedrooms. When they talk about overcrowding, they do not look at where the so-called spare bedrooms are and where the overcrowding is. Unfortunately, the two do not match. They also do not consider who will lose out. What they are doing is like shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. They are simply moving the problem, not solving it.

Bolton and Wigan do not have spare one and two-bedroom properties, so tenants will have to starve or freeze to pay the additional rent, move to the private rented sector or be evicted for arrears. The Minister suggests that people should work more hours. If only it were that simple in Tory-Lib Dem Britain to get a job. Even if people can get a job, the Minister ignores the fact that every time people earn more money, they lose benefits. How will that help to cover the gap?

The Minister also says that the measures will drive down housing benefit costs. Wigan and Leigh Housing has done its own modelling. If about a quarter of its tenants moved into the private rented sector, there would be an additional cost to the Department for Work and Pensions of more than half a million pounds. It also estimates that the cost to Wigan and Leigh Housing would be more than £10 million, which would come from a different public purse. That includes £1.4 million for the adaptation of new homes for the disabled and £300,000 for rent collection. This measure will, of course, affect other tenants as well as the ability of housing associations to repair and maintain housing stock, and it will prevent them building new homes. One housing provider has said that it will lose one new build a week because of the cumulative affect of welfare reform.

Government Members like to throw out the accusation that the previous Labour Government introduced the same policy for the private rented sector with the local housing allowance, but they should stop listening to their own spin. The LHA was tested for four years before it was introduced and did not apply to existing tenants but just to new claimants or people moving house. It did not specify how many bedrooms people should have, but allocated a sum of money based on the median rent for properties of the relevant size. Therefore, if a family found a house with more space for a lower rent, they could move in. The size of the housing benefit bill is due to the cost of private rents, not social housing. However, the Government will not do anything about fair rent and instead just reduce the chances of ordinary people to find houses. I also wonder when Government Members last visited a council house and looked at the size of the so-called third bedroom. Often, it is a room that barely fits a bed and would be unbearable for two teenagers with no space to do homework or hang up clothes. It is certainly not the sort of space that a lodger would want to rent.

My hon. Friends have mentioned the difficulties of expecting children with vastly different ages to share a bedroom, and the difficulties experienced by families with a disabled member. Let me lay out the nature of the Government’s policy. A family with two children under 10 in a three-bedroom house will now need to move to a two-bedroom house. When a child turns 10, they will need to go to a three-bedroom house but if one child moves out, they will have to go to a two-bedroom house. If both children move out, they will have to move to a one-bedroom home, but what about if one child wants to come home? What about the cost of this measure? Will children have to move school? What happens to the community? This policy is nonsense.

Others have spoken in detail about the situation of separated couples, but I have one question: will mothers allow their children to stop with their father overnight if the father is in a bedsit and the child has to share a bed with dad or sleep on the couch? The Government just have not thought this through.

I have already spoken in this House about Isabel and her son Carl who has Down’s syndrome, so I will finish by talking briefly about two people who came to see me last week as a result of my asking the Prime Minister whether he had ever met anyone who was losing their home because of the bedroom tax. The Prime Minister replied that he often met service people in his constituency, although he did not tell us whether they were losing their homes. Stephen and Bill came to see me because they are ex-servicemen.

Stephen and his wife told me that for them this policy feels like persecution. Stephen served for 17 years in the Air Force and then continued to work. He became ill and lost his house; he has had two back operations and has irritable bowel syndrome. His wife is suffering from depression. Stephen has been in his council house for 22 years and told me that he feels that he has made a huge contribution to this country and cannot understand why in his hour of need the country is turning its back on him.

I cannot talk about all of the situation of the other person, Bill, who came to see me, but he lives in an adapted house with a carport, ramp, walk-in shower and stair-lift. Bill is disabled, has anxiety and depression, and IBS. He lives close to his family and gets support from them—and he gives them support; his son is serving in Afghanistan. He is anxious about the bedroom tax and is trying to be proactive, but because of his needs, accommodation is limited. Bill says that the only thing he has to live for in his life is his fishing and he is worried to death that he will not have room for his fishing gear in any other accommodation. He is considering suicide.

This is not scaremongering; it is the reality of people’s lives.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—