Pension Schemes Bill

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Manuela Perteghella]

I thank my hon. Friend for his important intervention. New clause 19 would not create a precedent for ministerial direction of investments more broadly, if that is an issue. In fact, it would be much narrower than the Government’s own proposed reserve power. Existing measures cannot substitute for action now. Large schemes remain invested in the most dangerous fossil fuels, and the Government have not yet even consulted on transition plan requirements for pension schemes, meaning that enforcement is unlikely before the end of this decade.

I urge the Minister to acknowledge that transition plans alone are too little, too late, and we must address pension fund climate risks this decade. New clause 19 would provide a route to do so responsibly and effectively. Taken together, these two new clauses—one addressing long-term systemic financial risk and the other addressing immediate human need—would make our pension system more responsible, more resilient and more compassionate. I hope the Minister will consider them both in that spirit.

Finally, I will speak in support of new clause 11, which would introduce an independent review into state deduction in defined benefit pension schemes. That is necessary because Midland bank’s—now HSBC—outdated clawback policy has misled 51,000 former employees and deprived them of the pensions they were promised. This policy, which was abandoned by most organisations in the 1980s, allows HSBC still to deduct the value of an employee’s state pension using a 77-year-old formula, with payslips disguising it as “state deduction”. It hits the lowest-paid staff hardest and disproportionately affects women. For the same reason of long-standing injustice, I also support all the new clauses and amendments in relation to the indexation of pre-1997 benefits. In conclusion, this Bill is a chance to make pensions fairer, greener and more ethical and to put some of this historic injustice right.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)]

I begin by congratulating the Minister on bringing the Bill forward to this stage. He has been one of the country’s practical idealists since I first began working with him in 2008, and he is demonstrating those credentials once again in stewarding this Bill through the House today with such expertise and intelligence. He, like me, has long been concerned not only by the endemically low investment rates in this country—now languishing at the lowest in the G7—but that we should build up a system of universal basic capital, so that the wealth we create in this country is more fairly shared.

I rise to speak to clause 17, which is in my name, and I give enormous thanks to the 33 Members from all parts of the House who have added their names to it. That depth of cross-party support tells us something important: that here in this House is broad and deep support for the principles enshrined in the new clause. There is a shared belief across this House that working people should be able to use their savings to build a richer and stronger country in which to retire.

My new clause calls for something very simple. It calls for something that has been missing for far too long. As we know, pension fund trustees have fiduciary duties to the people they represent and the people they serve, but those duties need clarity, and for too long that clarity has been missing. What we have instead is confusion, and from that confusion comes a caution, and from that caution comes a world in which pension scheme providers are simply not investing what they could and what they should in the productive assets of our country.

The flight of British savings from investment here has long bedevilled the country. It is a sight to behold. We are not short of savings, but we are desperately short of investment. We have somehow magicked a situation in which we have £3 trillion-worth of long-term savings, but we have the lowest investment rate in the G7. I think the Bill will help to turn that around. I think it will help to break that curse. There is much in it that is welcome: the consolidation of funds, the consolidation of pots, the simplification of structures, and a stronger framework for long-term investment. For all its virtues, however, as it is drafted today we are still left with the core problem, and unless we solve that core problem, the Bill’s noble ambitions will be defeated by its notable omissions. We risk creating bigger and better-managed funds that still fail to invest in our country, and still fail to invest in our country’s future.

The Bill will fail to channel the investment that we need in affordable homes, in net-zero investments, in cleaner power systems, in affordable transport systems, in the social care that we all need for the future, in regeneration, and in the national infrastructure of growth. It will fail because it fails, as currently drafted, to clarify exactly what it is that pension fund trustees can consider. We want those trustees to have the freedom to invest in good things here, not out of some patriotic flourish but because it is plainly in members’ best interests. When national investment grows, our national productivity rises, and when pension pots get bigger, they will get bigger faster if we have a country that is more productive and growing faster than it is today. When a country grows, the returns that shape retirement grow with it.

Many scheme providers today simply do not feel that they have the permission to make those investments. They are unsure of the law. They fear litigation. They worry about the possibility that looking at system-level risks, from low productivity or high housing costs or climate stress, might fall outside their legal remit. This is where the problem lies. It is a paradox that I think we can no longer ignore. We ask trustees to act in members’ best interests, yet the law today is so unclear that many of them feel unable to invest in the very things that could secure the long-term interests of their members: growth, productivity, and the living standards on which those members will one day rely. Today’s rules were built to ensure prudence, but what they are doing is creating paralysis. A framework that was meant to safeguard the future is, in practice, preventing pension savers from shaping that future. Scheme providers want to do more, members expect them to do more and our country needs them to do more, but all that can only happen if Parliament now provides the clarity that the courts have not provided.

This is not an academic matter. At a recent conference, fewer than one in five practitioners said that fiduciary duty was “completely clear”. I believe that 31 industry leaders have now written to the Minister for Pensions to request that legal clarification, including a dozen chief executives. Publicly, the chief executive of Nest, the provider of the UK’s largest defined-contribution scheme, has said much the same.

Fiduciary duty dates back to case law that is centuries old, back to a 19th-century brick factory in Pontefract and, before that, the inheritance of a market lease at some point in 1726. I am afraid that these cases simply cannot answer the questions that trustees must answer today, and they cannot help with the challenges that trustees face today: globalised portfolios, system-wide risks, intergenerational impacts, and the real-world living standards of their members. That is why the spirit of new clause 17 is so important, modest though it is. It does not alter the statutory purpose of pension schemes, and it does not ask a single saver to accept lower returns. What it does is cut through the confusion and allow the Government to produce regulations and guidance that spell out clearly and consistently what trustees must consider, and what they may consider, when making investment decisions.

I warmly welcome the Minister’s commitment to introduce new legislation. I hope that if he gets his skates on, he can table an amendment in the other place once the Bill moves from our precious hands, but mere guidance is not enough, because sometimes it can be ignored. Guidance does not eliminate liability risk and does not give trustees a solid statutory floor, so I urge the Minister to ensure that the legislation he brings forward delivers guidance that is statutory in its bite. I urge him to go big, by pairing guidance with underpinning regulation that gives trustees legal clarity; to go broad, by ensuring that every single kind of scheme falls within the ambit of the legislation; and to be specific, by explaining precisely what those powers can be used for and the way in which they can be allowed to ensure productive investment. That clarity, if we get it right, could avoid the need to resort to the mandating powers that some Members of this House have objected to. It could unlock investment by giving schemes confidence to act, rather than making them fearful and hesitant.

We in this House have a profound duty to ensure that the maximum amount of pension savings in this country not only yield a return to give comfort to savers in their golden years, but do a double duty: they should help to provide the productive investment that we need to build a bigger and richer country. After all, a nation that invests is a nation that builds, and a nation that builds is a nation that will grow its pension pots to help ensure that pension savers enjoy their golden years in comfort.

The steps that we have heard from the Minister go some distance towards helping us deliver on the spirit of new clause 17. I am very grateful to him for his announcement today, which could unlock billions of pounds for affordable homes, clean energy and comfort in retirement for millions of the people we came to this House to serve.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

I thank the Minister for his opening remarks this afternoon. The Bill has provided an opportunity for the Labour UK Government to address long-standing pension injustices. Such injustices include the British Coal staff superannuation scheme scandal, whereby surplus sharing arrangements saw billions of pounds heading to the Treasury while former mineworkers’ pensions were eroded, and the lack of indexation for pre-1997 pension accruals under the financial assistance scheme and the Pension Protection Fund, which has caused hardship for pensioners. Addressing such scandals is exactly what my new clauses 2 and 6 set out to do.

New clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to set out a timetable for transferring the whole of the BCSSS investment reserve to members, and to commit to a review on how future surplus will be shared. The coal mining legacy of south Wales extends to my constituency of Caerfyrddin, with the Amman and Gwendraeth valleys bearing the scars of previous industry, so it is of no surprise that my constituents were among those whose funds had been withheld, causing immense hardship for pensioners who had paid into the system for decades. In fact, it affected over 180 residents in my constituency, 20 of whom came to a drop-in earlier this year to share their stories of how this long-running issue has affected their lives.

When the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) kindly moved new clause 2 on my behalf in Committee, the Minister’s answer gave some hope for long-awaited action. I therefore welcome the recent confirmation that the UK Government have finally listened and have implemented the transfer of the full £2.3 billion reserve to trustees. I pay tribute to my constituents for their hard work, and to former mineworkers everywhere for their long-fought campaign to make this day a reality. On behalf of 180 of my constituents, I thank the Minister. 

Former Allied Steel and Wire workers have also campaigned tirelessly to receive their rightful dues in retirement. When the company went bust in 2002, ASW employees lost not only their livelihoods, but the pensions they had worked hard for, and which they were relying on for security later in life. The financial assistance scheme and the Pension Protection Fund were introduced to provide some relief to pensioners in such a situation, but pension contributions made before April 1997 were not inflation-proofed, leaving pensioners without the secure retirement that they were promised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Many members would say that they wanted their investments to help to create a more equal country—a less unequal country—not least because we now know from the work of the OECD and the International Monetary Fund that more unequal countries grow more slowly.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Absolutely. Productivity and growth are real possibilities if there is better patient capital investment, not just in social housing and renewable energy projects, which I would dearly love to see and have spoken a lot about—in particular social housing—but in tech and appliances, so that companies can use capital investment that is invested for the long term. That could have a significant impact on productivity.

Turning back to the Minister’s announcement around fiduciary duties and that definition, although there will of course be political argument about what best interests mean and how we define best interests, trustees will at least have the benefit of the guidance and will not necessarily labour under the misapprehension that they have to get the best possible financial return.

I draw the Government’s attention to the Well-being of Future Generations Act 2015 in Wales, which I talk about a lot, and which is about making the best decisions for the future. It is not necessarily about chasing economic growth at any cost; it is not necessarily about building certain things. Instead, it is about ensuring that future generations are best provided for. Some of the lessons that could be learned from that could be put into the fiduciary duties consultation that is coming forward about what the term best interests actually means and how it could be defined.

We have largely covered the mandation powers and their direction in the discussion of fiduciary duties. I am pretty relaxed about there being some mandation and some requirement, not least because of the points the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North made about the growth in the economy that is likely to occur should capital be invested more in things that will increase productivity. There probably is a balance to be struck between benefiting pensioners of today and the future; if there is a lower return for pensioners 30 years in the future, we might again be causing a level of generational unfairness that we need to think about. How does that balance up? Does that new hospital or that new social housing provide enough of a benefit for those younger people, who will become pensioners in 30 or 40 years? Does that stack up? I do not think that will be an easy decision to make.

However, generally I think we can look at mandation; I do not take an ideological position against it like some with Conservative beliefs. I am, though, happy to support the Conservatives in their amendment that would require a report on what those mandation powers look like, because the more transparency from the Government—the more transparency from everybody in this place, frankly—the better. I therefore think a report on that would be absolutely grand.

I will mention a couple of other things. New clause 3 about terminal illness is a really neat solution to a problem. My local authority has implemented a “Tell us once” policy, whereby if someone has had a bereavement in their family, for instance, they have only to tell their distressing story to the local authority once and everything will be changed—their council tax and benefits—and they will no longer get various charges. I therefore think the solution proposed in new clause 3 is neat.

The Minister might come up with some issues around potential data sharing between the PPF and the DWP. However, if he could come up with a solution so that people do not have to tell their distressing story numerous times—having to explain again to somebody else that they are terminally ill and having to provide a huge amount of paperwork to do that when they have already had to do that with the DWP—that would be hugely helpful.

My understanding from my conversation with the PPF on Friday is that it is pretty good at supporting members, and I felt that it would be willing to be flexible about this should it get direction from the Minister and should the data-sharing issues be sorted out, but I am just guessing—I am not putting words in the PPF’s mouth. I just feel that it is a very member-focused organisation and might be quite keen to support its members in that regard.

International Investment Summit

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

The shadow Secretary of State is demonstrating that from a sedentary position—it is the first time I have said that in a debate for some time.

When we took over from the last Government, we recognised that there were issues we needed to address to improve the UK’s competitiveness. That is why we have already announced a series of steps to improve our business environment, such as driving through planning reform to get Britain building, removing the ban on onshore wind farms and giving the green light to key solar and data centre projects. We are also undertaking a pensions investment review, which the Chancellor has asked me to lead, to harness the potential of our £2 trillion pension industry to unlock new capital for our innovative businesses, to drive growth and to improve outcomes for future pensioners.

We have launched Skills England to boost the nation’s skills and fill job vacancies by bringing together businesses, trade unions, mayors, universities, colleges and training providers. We are also resetting our relationship with our closest partners in the European Union.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the Government on an extraordinary achievement in securing £63 billion-worth of investment, which is a tremendous vote of confidence not only in this Government but in this country. My hon. Friend is right to say that a big part of this is the stability dividend, but she is also right to say that resetting our relationship with our closest neighbours in Europe must also be a big source of appeal. Did she hear that feedback at the investment summit?

[Emma Reynolds]

Indeed, I did. Business wants the Government to take a pragmatic approach, not an ideological approach, to our relationships with our main trading partners, and that is exactly what our new Government are doing.

I am pleased to report that we are not resting on our laurels; far from it. On Sunday, the Business Secretary announced the launch of an industrial strategy advisory council, which will be chaired by Clare Barclay, the CEO of Microsoft UK. The Business Secretary also announced our modern industrial strategy Green Paper, setting out eight growth-driving sectors: advanced manufacturing; clean energy industries; creative industries; defence; digital and technology; financial services; life sciences; and professional and business services. This is not about picking winners; it is about building on the UK’s unique strengths and untapped potential to enable our already world-leading services and manufacturing industries to adapt, grow and seize the opportunities to lead in new and emerging industries.

At the summit, the Prime Minister set out the Government’s commitment to a pro-growth approach to competition and regulation, to create a dynamic business environment that will strengthen our foundations and help deliver our growth mission and industrial strategy. As investors made clear, they have a choice of where to invest. We must not rest on our laurels; we must make sure that we forge ahead with these policies, because we need investors to make a positive choice to invest in our country. As one private sector speaker said at the summit, we do not want investors just to invest; we want them to place a big bet on investing in the UK.

The Chancellor also confirmed two new innovative measures to ensure that our public finance institutions can better catalyse billions of pounds in private investment. We turbocharged the UK Infrastructure Bank to become the national wealth fund, which will have £27.8 billion to catalyse investment that would not have otherwise taken place. We have also launched the British Business Bank’s new pathfinder British growth partnership, a vehicle to crowd pension fund investment and other institutional investment into venture capital funds and innovative businesses.

We have committed to bringing forward a tax road map, long demanded by businesses across the economy, at the Budget. This will give businesses the certainty and predictability to plan for the future. As the Chancellor has already made clear, we will cap the rate of corporation tax at 25% for the duration of this Parliament. Gone are the days when a Government—the previous Government —would announce a decrease in corporation tax, then announce an increase and then, months later, reverse the decision again at the next fiscal statement. We want to ensure that businesses have predictability. We have also said that we will maintain our capital allowances offer, with full expensing and a £1 million annual investment allowance.

We will also reform and turbocharge the Office for Investment, which will sit under our new joint Treasury-Department for Business and Trade Investment Minister, Poppy Gustafsson, the founder and former CEO of Darktrace. This is a clear demonstration of the Government’s commitment to better serving the needs of investors and breaking down the silos between Departments, which have too often prevented transformative Government policy.

We are determined to drive the transformational investments that the country so desperately needs to fulfil its economic potential. Such measures, introduced within just 100 days, show that this Government are not just about warm words; we mean business, in every sense of the phrase.

This week’s summit was a major vote of confidence in the UK’s economic future and in this Government’s commitment to realising it. The investments and partnerships forged at the summit will have lasting impacts, driving growth, innovation and sustainability for years to come. It was not just a one-off event; it was a first milestone in our ongoing work to build a deep and meaningful partnership with business, drive economic growth and create good jobs for working people up and down this country at all levels of society. As we move forward, let us work together across the House to ensure that the benefits of these investments are felt by all our citizens across every region of our great nation.

Before I finish, I want to say that the particular highlight of the summit for me was the evening reception at St Paul’s, at which His Majesty the King was present and at which many of us were delighted to hear Elton John, who had some very warm words to say about our new Government. He said something like, “We’ve been in the doldrums for the last few years, but now we have a new Government under the leadership of a new Prime Minister and things are looking up.”

As the Chancellor made clear in her closing speech at the summit, since taking power this Government have put unlocking private investment at the heart of everything we do. Our investment summit demonstrated our commitment to growth and that the UK is once again open for business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

May I welcome the Minister back to this place and to her new position? I assure her that I am very happy to work with her to further the best interests of the United Kingdom.

I very much welcome what happened on Monday. Having 300 investors come to this country is very welcome; this country is clearly open for business. We are keen to help the Government to succeed, because it is in everybody’s interests. I speak not only as a constituency MP, but as a former businessperson.

I was also pleased to hear the Prime Minister talk about cutting red tape and regulation. We would all welcome that, although I have some questions. We know that there is a bottleneck in our economy, particularly in planning and infrastructure, so we will welcome any changes that the Government can successfully make to accelerate the projects that have been held up by problems.

We also welcome the work—for which I understand the Minister is responsible in her other role as Minister for pensions—on the Mansion House compact and the Mansion House reforms, which could liberate £75 billion of capital into our productive economy. That is much needed: only 3% or 4% is invested today in equities, compared with 50% a couple of decades ago, so it is very important that we continue the reforms started by the last Government.

We were pleased to see all the positivity on Monday, despite the gloom and doom that we have heard from Government Members in recent weeks. It is good to hear investors saying that now is the right time to invest in the UK. We can see why. [Laughter.] No, it is not necessarily because there is a Labour Government. It is because inflation is running at below 2%, whereas it was running at 11% only two years ago. In this country we have only 4% unemployment, our economy is growing as fast as any other in the G7 and our deficit stands at 4.4%. That is what we handed over to the Minister’s Government. The deficit was higher than we would have liked, but in 2010, by comparison, it stood at more than 10%.

We constantly hear from Labour Members the refrain that they inherited the worst economic situation in history, but that is simply not the case. I am happy to take an intervention from the Minister, or any other Government Member, on that point. If they can name a single metric that is worse today than in 2010, I will be happy to hear it.

[Liam Byrne]

rose—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The Chair of the Business and Trade Committee is going to give us one.

[Liam Byrne]

The hon. Gentleman gives way with characteristic generosity. The truth is that the International Monetary Fund forecast growth for this year at about 0.5%, that families were about £1,200 worse off on average at the last election than in 2019, and that since 2010 the national debt has more than doubled, to £2.3 trillion. I suggest that those three metrics represent not a good inheritance, but a bad one.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There is no doubt that we have been through a difficult time, given the effect of covid and the cost of living crisis on a services economy, but the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that back in 2010 the deficit was more than 10%, whereas today it is only 4%. In real terms, adjusted for inflation, that is a difference of about £160 billion, the equivalent of the health budget. The inheritance left for the present Government is much better than the one we received in 2010.

Local Housing Allowance and Homelessness

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Eddie Hughes]

It would not have been the Mayor’s first priority if it were not a substantial problem, as the hon. Gentleman rightly sets out. We all recognise that it is a substantial problem in the west midlands, but the Mayor is certainly putting all he can into tackling it. He is one man with limited powers, but often a Mayor’s power is a subtle one—the power to convene. One of the great things that he did was get a lot of housing associations across the region to work together to decide where they would be best placed to develop land, build new houses and so on, and engage them with the idea of tackling homelessness.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

rose—

[Eddie Hughes]

I give way, but I am running out of time.

[Liam Byrne]

I am grateful; I will be very brief. When the Mayor came to office, Her Majesty’s Government promised £211 million to build new homes. Parliamentary questions show that £209 million has not been paid out. Why has the Mayor not secured that cash in hand?

[Eddie Hughes]

I am disappointed to say that I cannot speak on behalf of the Mayor, but I will keep my eye on my phone today, just in case I become the Housing Minister—in which case I will be in a position to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question.

[Liam Byrne]

Good answer.

[Eddie Hughes]

I completely accept the right hon. Gentleman’s case about the money that has been promised. He and I spoke at a recent event in Parliament with Midland Heart, and I completely back his case for ensuring that we secure that funding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Bailey.

A stone’s throw from St Philip’s Cathedral, on the steps of the House of Fraser, in the heart of Birmingham’s business district, there is a shrine. It is marked with flowers, photos and expressions of feelings. Here, in the wealthiest quarter of the second city of the fifth richest country on Earth is the latest memorial to a man who died homeless on the streets. “You are unforgettable, Miguel”, reads one dedication. That is right. It is right that we remember this man in our city. It is right that we hear and remember his name in the House of Commons. And it is right that we remember the names of the 90 people, along with him, who have died homeless in our city since 2013, many on the streets of the second city in this country.

Those people are the citizens who we collectively have failed, so I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma). I personally believe that we should be debating every day the deadly doctrine behind this death toll, because be under no illusion: this is now a moral emergency and it requires from the new Prime Minister today an emergency response.

In Birmingham, rough sleeping has now risen by almost 1,000% since 2010, yet that is just the visible crisis that we can see. The invisible crisis is just as bad. In total, 20,000 people—the size of a small town—along with 5,000 children are now lodged in temporary accommodation. They are cursed to move every couple of weeks, when it is time to rebook. Be under no illusion: these are futures that are now being sacrificed, as every single one of us who has had to support children taking their GCSEs from a Travelodge will now know.

[Andrew Selous]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful and moving speech. Of the 90 people who died, is he aware how many had drug issues at the same time? I absolutely accept that decent housing helps people to get over drug problems, but does he know the proportion that were involved with drugs?

[Liam Byrne]

We do not know, because obviously there is not a safeguarding adult review for everyone who dies. There should be a safeguarding adult review for everyone who dies, because my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall made a sensible but crucial point: that local housing allowance is absolutely part of this crisis. He is absolutely right. The average LHA in Birmingham, which is £132 a week, covers only two thirds of the cost of a median home in our city. However, it would be delusional to pretend, as our current Mayor has tried to do, that local housing allowance is somehow the nub of the changes we need to make.

The truth is that to fund tax cuts for the lucky, this Government have reduced social insurance for the unlucky to a clutch of shreds and patches. This Government have now cut back so hard that social insurance in this country is now in systems failure. I know the Minister will say that it was a hard choice, but the truth is that it was the wrong choice. The tax cuts that have been handed out to British corporates now total £110 billion. Overwhelmingly, that money has either gone back to shareholders or is lodged in those corporates’ bank accounts. It was the wrong choice, because rather than strengthen the hand that helps, this Government chose to feather the nests of those who already had plenty.

I will illustrate the systems failure that we now face. From all my interviews with homeless citizens in Birmingham through the long nights, what has become clear is that three systems are needed: a benefits system, a health system and a housing system. All three are now in crisis. Mental health caseloads in our region are now rising four times faster than funding. Addiction services in our region have been cut back by between 12% and 20%. The University of Birmingham has concluded that the health services provided to homeless people are now so bad that those people are actually being denied access to basic health services. Housing benefit hands cash to the landlords of houses in multiple occupation in a way that is completely unregulated, with no obligation on them to provide much-needed counselling or support. There is no regulation of private landlords worthy of its name, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) said, the conditions that we now contend with are absolutely disgraceful.

We are building affordable homes in our region so slowly that it will take us until the 2050s to clear the council waiting lists across the region, which now number well over 50,000. Just to add insult to injury, although the Government promised £211 million to build new homes, according to parliamentary questions they have handed out only £2 million. That means that £209 million is left in the Treasury when we have people dying on the streets of our city.

[Matt Western]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful and important speech. Does he agree that there are two issues: that the Government are hiding behind statistics about housebuilding that are inflated through permitted development rights and in other ways, and that we are seeing an increase in HMOs? The provision is completely inappropriate for the housing and social needs in our communities.

[Liam Byrne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are hiding behind definitions of “affordable housing” that are frankly meaningless in the real world. What we need to be doing is building houses for social rent—what used to be called council houses. Let us again build council houses that communities can be proud of.

This systems failure is now killing people, as should be obvious to all of us in this House. I pay tribute to the incredible coalition of kindness in my city that is trying to turn the tide, particularly Councillor Sharon Thompson, who knows a thing or two about homelessness, Jean Templeton, who is chairing the Mayor’s taskforce, and the 14 or 15 different outreach groups that make sure that the homeless people in our city are not actually starving on the streets. However, what those people need is a Government who are on their side, and are prepared to make sure that the Mayor does not spend £1 million on secret consultants, but puts that money into ensuring that there are more emergency shelter places than there are rough sleepers.

We need a hard duty on all public services to act together and collaborate to prevent homelessness from happening in the first place. We need a region-wide private landlord licensing scheme. We need to expand accommodation in refuges. We need a universal offer on all public services for vulnerable people. We need to double the pace of council house building. We need to end the Vagrancy Act 1824 and reintroduce housing benefit for the under-25s. We need to end the lunacy of the “no recourse to public funds” rule, and we need an urgent review of the exempt accommodation rules.

George Dawson, the founder of the civic gospel in our city—the precursor of municipal socialism—once asked his congregation,

“Are you prepared to vindicate the enormous wealth of some men, side by side with the extreme poverty?”

I am not prepared to live in a city where we have cranes in the sky, but homeless people dying in the doorways. We need an emergency response to this moral emergency, and I hope the Minister will drive it through with today’s new Prime Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne]

It was not so long ago that, at about 2 am or 3 am, I met a man who goes by the name of “Ginge”. He sleeps in the Barclays bank lobby at Colmore Row, and has schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Is he supposed to find the money to cover the entire rent of a home that he could move into?

[Will Quince]

The right hon. Gentleman refers to rough sleeping. Often people lump homelessness and rough sleeping together, but there is a huge difference between them. The Government are taking considerable action on rough sleeping. I will happily meet him, or arrange for the Housing and Homelessness Minister to do so, in order to discuss it in more detail. I know that he cares hugely about this issue, and contributes to debates on it. I share his passion. The Government are taking significant action, but he is right that we must look at LHA rates. I hope I made it clear at the outset that I am doing that with the Secretary of State, and ahead of the next fiscal event we are looking very closely at what more we can do.

Between 2000 and 2010, housing benefit expenditure rose by more than half in real terms, reaching £25 billion in today’s prices. Left unreformed, by 2014-15 housing benefit would have reached £29 billion. That was clearly not sustainable. The measure to freeze local housing allowance rates for four years from April 2016 built on reforms introduced in the previous Parliament, which saved £6 billion in total by 2015-16. Savings from freezing LHA are estimated to be around £655 million for Great Britain over the four-year period of the measure. Our reforms are part of our wider goal to move people from welfare and into work.

We recognise that some places have seen higher increases in rents than others, and have made provision to help people further in those areas, as the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) mentioned. We have used a proportion of the savings from the freeze to reduce the gap between frozen LHA rates and the 30th percentile reference rent in the areas of greatest rental growth. Initially, 30% of the savings from the freeze were used for targeted affordability funding, but we invested an additional £125 million in that funding for the final two years of the freeze. That was based on 50% of the savings rather than 30%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Will Quince]

Not necessarily. They have been available since 2011, and more than £1 billion has been made available to local authorities. Quite intentionally, we allow local authorities discretion on how it is used, and they use that money and use it well. There is an underspend in a number of local authorities, but it is a tool used by many local authorities to prevent homelessness. Where individuals or families are at risk of homelessness, local authorities will use DHPs to protect tenancies.

The hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) has raised the point about broad rental market areas a few times; I note his concerns about the broad rental market area boundaries in Stroud and the wider area. As with all policies, we keep that under review, and I am looking at this very closely. I hope the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that any reform of the policy would be a significant and complex undertaking, given that there are 192 broad market rental areas across England, Scotland and Wales. We should be aware that any changes to the BMRAs and their boundaries are likely to create both winners and losers, so I have to give very careful consideration to the potential impact.

The hon. Gentleman also raised a point about “No DSS”—landlords not renting to those in receipt of benefits. The Prime Minister and No. 10 have taken that issue very seriously. I attended a recent roundtable with a number of stakeholders and we are working very closely with the Residential Landlords Association. Part of the issue is mortgage lenders and insurers. More and more mortgage lenders are now reducing or removing their restrictions on renting to those in the receipt of benefits—Metro Bank is the most recent addition to that list. There are a few still to go, and we still have to tackle the insurance market, as some insurance policies still do not allow people who buy to let to rent to those in receipt of benefits. We are looking at that area closely and are working with key stakeholders, because we very much want to fix this—to break the myth and challenge the ignorant belief that those in receipt of benefits are riskier tenants than those who are not, because it is absolutely untrue.

The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall also raised temporary accommodation. With other Government Departments, we are working to assess what more can be done to address the number of people in temporary accommodation. Time spent in temporary accommodation means that people are getting help and ensures that no family is without a roof over their heads. The Government have targeted funding streams focused on reducing the number of households in temporary accommodation as part of our £1.2 billion spending plan.

[Liam Byrne]

While the Minister is being constructive and generous, and before he finishes, could he undertake to try to secure an explanation as to why the £211 million promised to the West Midlands Combined Authority when it was set up has not yet been paid over? Could he do that before the reshuffle?

[Will Quince]

The right hon. Gentleman tempts me down a road that is wholly outside my remit. That is a question for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and my counterpart or the Housing Minister in that Department. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he has tools in his arsenal—he can write to that Minister or secure an Adjournment debate, or he could catch the Minister around the Estate later on to ask that question. If I see him, I will raise it, but I think the right hon. Gentleman might be able to find his own salvation by raising it personally with the relevant Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue; we have addressed concerns about the five-week wait by putting in additional measures. One measure now in place relates to the receipt of legacy housing benefit over two weeks. All universal credit applicants can get an advance, and we now find that 60% of applicants take up that opportunity. That obviates the need for concerns about the early amount of cash that people get.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I spent most of Saturday collecting a third of a tonne of food for our local food banks as part of our Winter of Compassion campaign. It is already clear that we will have to run such food-bank collections all year round. When will the Secretary of State join us in Birmingham to help collect the food needed to end the hunger that her policies are causing?

[Amber Rudd]

I totally reject the right hon. Gentleman’s assumption and comments. The issue with food banks is partly that the early roll-out of universal credit had some difficulties. We now know that 85% of applications for universal credit are paid on time and, as I said in answer to an earlier question, 60% of people get advances. I hope that that combination will enable people to access the cash that they need straight away.

Department for Education

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

A few hours ago, our city bid goodbye to Kane Walker. He was a young man who died on our streets in the cold of January. A man gone; a man who should still be with us; a man who, together, we have failed to save. And yet Kane Walker was not the only homeless man to have died in Birmingham. More than 70 homeless people have died on the streets of our city over the past four years. That is why I say to the Minister that the core of the debate today is not numbers or statistics but the moral emergency of homelessness that is now out of control because the safety net has been shredded around people who are only a couple of twists of fate away from the pavement.

When the National Insurance Act 1946 was passing through Parliament, creating the Minister’s Department, Clem Attlee himself moved the Second Reading. He was absolutely determined to see a social security system in this country that would deliver freedom from fear of want. He wanted to slay the five giants of injustice that Beveridge identified back in 1944. However, look at the evil giant of unemployment today. In Birmingham, youth unemployment has shot up by 23% over the past year, with 15,000 more young people now out of work. When Beveridge launched his report, he talked about the giant of disease. Today, disability is knocking more people into poverty than ever before, and yet 33,000 people in our region have been stripped of their right to PIP over the past few years, plunging them into a poverty from which it is difficult to recover.

When Beveridge talked about his five giants, he talked about freedom from want, and yet nearly 60,000 people in our region last year had to rely on food banks—a third of them children—which is a rise of nearly a third over the past few years. The giants of injustice that Beveridge identified now hunt and haunt us on the streets because of the collapsing safety net, and it is the crisis of universal credit that is at the core of the problem. I was amazed to discover in an answer to a written question yesterday that the Mayor of the West Midlands has not written to the Government once in the past year to express concerns about universal credit.

In my last minute I will rattle through the many different problems that Birmingham MPs have identified. There is wholesale confusion about eligibility for housing benefit and universal credit. Huge variations exist in the deductions made for advance payments. The self-employed experience long waits for correct payments. Sanctions are issued against those who are too ill to attend interviews. Those who challenge the inappropriate use of sanctions face huge benefit delays of up to five months. Constituents are forced to travel across the city to access IT to fill out online forms. Constituents with mental health problems are denied the right to face-to-face support. There are process delays and confusion about getting link codes to connect to childcare components, and the same applies to entitlements. There is total confusion about those moving from non-UC areas into UC areas. More confusion exists around eligibility for free prescriptions. Finally, there is complete confusion for our EU neighbours who have to pass the habitual residence test once again. In one of the richest countries on earth and in a city like mine, how can it be that homelessness has spiralled by 1,000% in five years? The system is in crisis, and this Government need to put compassion back into the system where it belongs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Tomlinson]

The hon. Lady made a powerful point about Antony, and the relevant Minister will contact her to discuss it further.

The key for us is partnership working. On domestic abuse, we are rightly working with Women’s Aid and Refuge to help with training and guidance, and to strengthen our ability to identify, refer and support. We are working with organisations such as Barnardo’s and the Children’s Society to strengthen opportunities for care leavers. Ex-offenders are working closely with the Ministry of Justice to make sure that their universal credit claim is in place before they leave prison so that no people are falling between the gaps. On homelessness and rough sleeping, we are working with a number of organisations. Only today, Crisis said that over the past two years the Government have been showing drive and energy.

[Liam Byrne]

rose—

[Justin Tomlinson]

I am sorry but I do not have time to give way. The duty to refer change that was brought in in October will be addressing the points that the right hon. Gentleman made.

This party is committed to supporting the most vulnerable. Household incomes have never been higher. Income inequality has fallen. Risks of low income and material deprivation for children and pensioners have never been lower. The incomes of the poorest fifth are up by £400 in real terms, with 300,000 fewer children in absolute poverty. We are now spending £50 billion a year in supporting those with disabilities and long-term health conditions—£4 billion higher than in 2010. We, as a Government, are determined to help the most vulnerable. This is what drives me and many Members across the House who are here today. This Government are determined to get it right for the people who need the most support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I would ask the hon. Lady to come back to me, if she will, and to have a conversation about this. It is absolutely true that when universal credit initially started, the payments were not getting out in time and advance payments were not available. That is now being changed, and claimants are universally noticing a distinct difference.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

If the Secretary of State wants some empirical evidence, let me give her some: 55,410 people are on universal credit in Birmingham and food bank demand has increased by two thirds. Birmingham MPs, drawing upon our surgery experiences, have highlighted 13 different problems with the process. The Birmingham Mail has highlighted benefit delays of months on end. Unemployment in the inner city is not going down; it is actually going up. Rather than consider any further roll-out of managed migration, let us stop and fix the problems first before more families are plunged into poverty, homelessness and hunger.

[Amber Rudd]

I was in Birmingham last Friday, when I went to the Yardley jobcentre and saw for myself the remarkable work being done and some projects that are reaching people who had never been reached before. Under the legacy benefits, the second named person in a household who was not earning was basically ignored for years and was not invited to participate. We now have a system whereby the people who were ignored for years under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government’s system are being obliged to engage. I am facing the facts, so perhaps he should face them as well. He can have his own views, but he cannot have his own facts.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I visited his constituency over the summer to see what terrific work his work coaches were doing. We will be implementing more work in outreach and developing our flexible fund to help more people.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

Birmingham’s food banks have had their busiest year ever—70% of their demand is due to universal credit. Can I give the Secretary of State a choice? Either pause this crazy roll-out or come to Birmingham and help us to raise the tonne and a half of food we need each month to replenish the empty food bank stock.

[Alok Sharma]

We have had this discussion in a number of questions now. Can I be absolutely clear? The right hon. Gentleman should look at the report produced by the all-party parliamentary group on hunger, which said that the reasons for food bank usage are complex and myriad, and cannot be put down to any single reason.

The Secretary of State’s Handling of Universal Credit

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

I will give way, but I think we just need a moment to reflect. This is about getting people into work, and that is precisely what we are doing.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will remember that back in 2013 I warned that this was not a benefit that was ready for wide-scale roll-out. In my Birmingham constituency, we have the DWP telling my constituents that they cannot apply for housing credit through universal credit. They get sent to Birmingham City Council, which then sends them back to the DWP. There is still a level of chaos on the frontline that meant that one of my constituents told me that not only could they not afford to eat, she could not afford to put socks on her children’s feet.

[Ms McVey]

And this from the man who said there was no money left. But to be fair, he actually has some honour, because that was correct.

Before we go any further—

Welfare

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb]

Through her work in this place my hon. Friend is a powerful voice on behalf of many vulnerable groups. Epilepsy is an issue close to her heart and those of other hon. Members, and I look forward to discussing with them how we can better address that issue and support people with epilepsy.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

Last year, the Government tried to cut tax credits and that plan failed. This year, they tried to cut disability benefits and that plan failed. The House wants to know who is next. Let us be clear: has the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the right hon. Gentleman that his budget is now set to rise by £4.2 billion? It is a simple question—yes or no?

[Stephen Crabb]

Spending on welfare is rising, so, yes, the budget is increasing. I repeat that the Government have not got plans for further welfare savings beyond those that Parliament has already voted for, and we will focus on implementing them.

Universal Credit

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): Will the Secretary of State confirm that the facts in the National Audit Office report about universal credit, set out this morning, are true?

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

I start by reminding the House of the importance of universal credit. Universal credit is a major and challenging reform to transform—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We would never accuse the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) of being less than cheeky—or, for that matter, of ever attempting to spin anything—but I stand by your judgment, Mr Speaker: a cheeky spinner he is.

Universal credit, I remind everybody, is an important and challenging programme to provide major benefits for claimants and the country as a whole, with a clear financial set of incentives that will get an estimated 300,000 additional people into work and make 3 million claimants better off. However, all major programmes involve difficult issues and difficult decisions, week in, week out. In 2011, I added to the programme and the original schedule—as the right hon. Gentleman knows, because we saw each other and I told him about this—the need for a pathfinder, which I said would start rolling out in April.

I added that provision because I was concerned that we needed to ensure that we tested the IT throughout. By the way, I have done that for every programme—from disability living allowance to the personal independence payment, and everything else. We need to make sure that we are right, and I was concerned that the existing programme was not quite right.

In the summer of 2012—or rather, before that, in early 2012—I instigated an independent review because I was concerned that the leadership of the programme was not focusing in the way that it needed to on delivering the programme as it had been originally set out. The internal report showed me quite categorically that my concerns were right: the leadership was struggling, a culture of good news was prevailing and intervention was required. That was very much backed up by the National Audit Office.

As a result, I changed the leadership team in October 2012 and brought in the brilliant Philip Langsdale, who had successfully delivered Heathrow terminal 2. He was one of the great IT brains in the UK. He made it very clear that the programme was deliverable, and that it needed to be reset so that it could be delivered on time and on budget. When he sadly died, I went to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General and asked for David Pitchford—in the short term, while we looked for a replacement—who headed the Major Projects Authority in January. My right hon. Friend agreed to that, and the Cabinet Office helped us to put together the reset programme that had been started by Philip Langsdale.

I accepted the findings of the report absolutely in review, and have made certain that in the last few months we have been working to deliver the programme. It has been handed over to Howard Shiplee, who has now taken over. He wrote recently in The Daily Telegraph that he believed the programme was deliverable on time and on budget. The important thing about Howard Shiplee is that he is the man who delivered the Olympic park under budget and early. His clear indication is that he believes that we might do similar things here. He has made that very clear.

I should also like to remind the House that universal credit is not just succeeding but progressing. It is progressing because we have already started to roll out the pathfinders. I was in front of the Select Committee in July, when I explained that those pathfinders were already teaching us some important lessons. We are expanding those into six new jobcentres and dealing with them. Also, from October, around 100 jobcentres a month will begin using the claimant commitment with new jobseekers. That commitment will act as a contract between the jobseeker and the state. We are already seeing that this is driving people into work. Universal credit is not just about IT. It is massively about cultural change to get people back to work and to ensure that those who do go to work, particularly the poorest, benefit the most.

The NAO concludes on the programme:

“It is entirely feasible that it goes on to achieve considerable benefits to society”.

Every recommendation that the NAO has made in the report has already been made. The key lesson that I take is simply this. The previous Government crashed one IT programme after another, and no Minister ever intervened to change them early so that they delivered on time. We are not doing that. I have taken action on this particular programme. This programme will deliver on time and will deliver within budget.

[Mr Byrne]

Our bible, “Erskine May”, states clearly on page 201 that Ministers must give accurate and truthful information to the House,

“correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity”.

On 5 March this year, the Secretary of State told my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) that

“the implementation of universal credit…is proceeding exactly in accordance with plans.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2013; Vol. 559, c. 827.]

We now learn from the National Audit Office that the month before that statement was made, the Department began a 13-week reset programme. Four weeks earlier, the Department reduced case-load forecasts for next April by 80%. Five months before, the Department had largely stopped developing systems for national roll-out. It is inconceivable that the Secretary of State did not know about that, because the reset programme was organised by the man he personally brought into the Department. Furthermore, in a letter to me last month, the Secretary of State told me:

“I closely monitor the progress of this ground-breaking programme”.

The NAO must agree its facts with the Department. Paragraph 13 of the NAO’s report states:

“The Department is now reconsidering the timing of full rollout”,

and that plans have changed three times in four months. This morning, the National Audit Office told me that the NAO and the permanent secretary have agreed that statement, yet it flatly contradicts what the Secretary of State has said to this House. To hit his deadline at the end of 2017, he must now move more than 200,000 people a month on to the new system—the population of a city the size of Derby.

The Public Accounts Committee will no doubt consider next week the changed timetable, the IT shambles and the write-offs, the lack of counter-fraud measures, the shambolic financial control and the ineffective oversight. What I want to say to the Secretary of State, however, is this: he has let this House form a picture of universal credit, which the nation’s auditors say is wrong. The most charitable explanation is that he has lost control of the programme and lost control of the Department. He must now correct the record. He must now apologise to the House and convene cross-party talks to get this project back on track. The quiet man must not become the cover-up man.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I must say that that was suitably pathetic, coming from the right hon. Gentleman. He knows very well—he has been in to see me on a number of occasions; I would like to say what he said, but it was unmemorable in every single case—that the reality is that this programme, as I said at the beginning, will be delivered in time and in budget. There is no major change to that. What I have done, and I did early on, is something that the right hon. Gentleman never did and Labour has never done. When I got concerned about the delivery schedule, I made changes and intervened, bringing in the right people to do that. I stand by that, and I will not take lessons from the right hon. Gentleman and his party. Let me just remind them of what happened when they were in office.

The benefit processing replacement programme was scrapped at a cost of £140 million, and no one apologised. The Child Support Agency wasted £500 million before the programme was scrapped—no Minister intervened; no Minister changed it. The Labour Government wasted £3 billion on benefit overpayments. The tax credit system was delivered at one go on one day and it collapsed, costing billions, with £30 billion lost in fraud. The programme that delivered the health service IT changes cost £13 billion when it was cancelled with no apologies.

The lesson that I have learned and that we Government Members learn, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, is that we check these programmes while they are progressing and if changes need to be made, we make them. In making those changes, I stand by the fact that the purpose is to deliver this programme—on time and on budget, which is something that the Opposition never did in the whole of their time in government.