Benefits Uprating

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and welcome some of his announcements about the uprating of pensions. I am delighted that on the issue of increasing the state pension age further, the Government have learned from some of their mistakes on the previous round and will at least give adequate notice to those affected. That is a positive move. I welcome the U-turn on the mobility component of disability living allowance. The change should never have been proposed. We, along with disability campaigners, have argued hard for a U-turn and we are pleased that the Government have taken that action.

Last year, in the wake of the autumn statement, the Minister told my predecessor that his Government had embarked on decisive action to take Britain out of the danger zone. What a difference a year makes. The Government’s economic policy has failed and is failing, and working families are paying the price. It is when a Government’s back is against the wall that their true character is revealed, because that is when the difficult choices have to be made. The failure is writ large in the Government’s revised borrowing forecasts.

We know that the Chancellor told the House that he is going to borrow £150 billion more than he planned—£150 billion more. The Government are fond of the credit card analogy, and £150 billion is an astonishing extra debt to add to the nation’s credit card bill. It is the price of failure, and this failure is nowhere more apparent than in the extra £29 billion, largely the price of rising unemployment, which the Government project they will spend on benefits. What the Minister failed to say in his statement today is that to pay for the Government’s own failure, they propose to take twice as much money from children and families as they do from bankers.

Let us look at the impact on families and women. We are left with a benefits policy that hits the poorer hardest. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, which used to employ the Minister, has said that measures in the autumn statement would

“take away from lower-income families with children.”

Even the Secretary of State had to admit to the House last week that the bottom 30% do quite badly. The Government’s benefits policy will hit women harder than men. The House of Commons Library estimates that of the £2.37 billion raised from tax credits and public sector pay changes introduced in the autumn statement, 73%—£1.73 billion—will come from women and 27% will come from men. Taking together all the changes to direct tax, benefits, pay and pensions announced by the Chancellor since the general election, of the £18.9 billion the Government are raising each year, £13.2 billion comes from women. Women are being hit twice as hard as men.

In addition, the Government’s benefits policy will increase child poverty. In its distributional analysis of the autumn statement, the Treasury has admitted that as a result of Government decisions the number of children living in households with incomes below 60% of the median will increase by 100,000 in 2012-13, which means more children living in poverty. The IFS now estimates that the number of children living in poverty will rise by 600,000 over the next period. Surely the Government and the Minister cannot be proud of that.

Let me ask the Minister some straightforward questions. Minister, you signed up to the Child Poverty Act 2010. Do you believe that under the terms and definitions of that Act child poverty is set to rise under your Government? You will have studied the IFS—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I gently say to the shadow Minister that he knows that debate should be conducted through the Chair and that use of the word “you” is not encouraged in the Chamber. We would be grateful if he addressed the Minister through the Chair. We are grateful that he has some questions, but he must wrap them up pretty sharpish.

[Gregg McClymont]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Minister will have studied the IFS presentation. Will he confirm that its conclusion is that the people who will pay most will be those in the bottom 30%? Does he agree with the Secretary of State that work incentives will be diminished by the Government’s actions in the autumn statement and that the changes to tax credits and public sector pay announced in the autumn statement will hit women disproportionately?

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents may well have welcomed the increase, but they cannot because they are no longer receiving their benefit, particularly as a result of the extremely bizarre assessments of their disability by Atos—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for having to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I do not know what has come over the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). He is normally the very model of restraint, good manners and kindness to all things human and animal, and I am sure that he will recover his poise, but I want to hear the hon. Gentleman’s question; if he wants to start it again, he can.

[John McDonnell]

Many of my constituents would have welcomed the increase but they cannot because they are no longer receiving their benefit, particularly as a result of the Atos assessments of disability living allowance. In addition to that, having lost, or not gained, their benefit, they are waiting long periods for their appeals. Will the Minister look at the length of time that people are waiting for their appeals and the number of appeals that have been postponed as a result of lack of staff?

Living Standards

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to have been called to speak in this debate. I declare an interest as a proud trade unionist and a proud deferred member of the local government pension scheme.

The pension dispute is just the tip of the iceberg of the devastating effect of the Government’s policies on the living standards of ordinary people. My surgery is full and my postbag is full of letters from people who are struggling because of Government policies, which make the poor pay for the devastation that irresponsible bankers wrought on the world.

People are losing their homes and jobs. They are terrified that they will lose their disability living allowance. They are struggling to pay their household bills and are very frightened. Things will only get worse for those ordinary people. Let me tell hon. Members what my constituents are telling me. Paul works in customer accounts for a local council. He tells me that he strongly objects to the pension proposals affecting him. He says that he has already lost £3,000 owing to the new pay and grading structure and will now have to pay 3% more for his pension and work longer. Like many thousands of others, he believes that he may well have to leave the pension scheme altogether.

Jeanette is another constituent who is deeply annoyed by the cuts to the local government pensions. She says:

“I really need to express my disgust at the treatment of Local Government employees, as the majority of us do work very hard and make a great contribution to local services and meeting national targets and budgets. I feel we are pawns in the political game and are easy targets, with propaganda being used to fuel the media misconception that we are lazy, workshy overpaid employees who have a cushy working life in comparison to the private sector.”

She went on to say that she felt that she was having her pension stolen from her.

It is no wonder that those constituents are so angry. Their pension scheme is a funded scheme: both employee and employer pay actual money into an actual fund. It takes in £4 billion a year more than it pays out and was changed just a few years ago to make it sustainable. Now the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government wants to rob the fund of £900 million—not to make it sustainable or to improve it, but to satisfy his need to make cuts, rather like the worst employers of the past who raided pension funds.

This illustrates the complexity of public sector pensions. There are six schemes, not one—all with different rules, accrual rates, retirement ages and benefits. Contribution rates range from 0% for the armed forces to 11% for the police. To speak of them as though they were one unaffordable public sector pension is misleading. The Government say that their proposals are an improvement, but they are not telling the whole truth. The average public sector worker will still end up with a pension of less than £6,000, will have to work a number of years longer, will have to pay 3% more and have their pension uprated by the consumer prices index rather than the retail prices index.

It is no wonder that public sector workers are angry, but they are also scared. Paula, a teacher of deaf children for 30 years, told me of her fears that her pension will lose its value because of its being uprated by the CPI. She said:

“I have little or no family, I live alone and if I were to fall into debt the fear of that keeps me awake at night. My lifestyle is already very frugal, I have no choice about that because of the price of gas, electricity and fuel. My pension puts limits on my lifestyle now. I dread to think of what will become of me in a few years’ time when my financial position has not kept pace with prices and that wakes me up at night constantly.”

Of course, there is much worse to come for the low paid: cuts to housing benefit and in-work benefit for a great many low paid workers—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Front-Bench winding-up speeches will begin at 6.40 pm. I call Pat Glass.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hon. Members]

Give way!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House must come to order. It seems clear on observation that the Minister is not giving way.

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker.

The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) spoke about how low interest rates benefit growth, which is crucial to the economy. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) raised the crucial issue of us having to pay our own way.

In opposition, one must do two things: yes, one must oppose the things that one is against, but one must also propose the things that one is in favour of. The Labour party failed to tell us where the £46 billion of spending cuts identified by the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions would come from. We heard speech after speech from Labour Members who were opposed to every single cut, but I heard no Labour Member say what they would cut. We heard that there should not be cuts for people out of work, or for people in work, that there should not be cuts to the public sector, or to the private sector. Where does all the money come from? Answer came there none.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Indeed, I think the answer very clearly is yes.

[Mr Speaker]

We are most grateful to the Minister, who has brought some additional happiness into the life of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone).

[Mr Bone]

And Mrs Bone.

[Mr Speaker]

And Mrs Bone as well, as he rightly says.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is unknown for Mr Bone to be unheard. Let us hear him say it again.

[Mr Bone]

Does the Secretary of State agree that new policy announcements from his Department should be made to Parliament first?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The answer to that question is yes.

[Mr Speaker]

I am glad that I asked for the question to be put again—and I am glad I heard the answer. Very satisfying.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

I was particularly disappointed to hear the reply that the Minister with responsibility for disabled people gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire). The Minister seemed to imply that the only way one could trust a disabled person to tell the truth was in a face-to-face interview. The Government seem hellbent on making every disabled person go through multiple face-to-face interviews to get any kind of benefit. She was disparaging about filling in a form and getting supporting medical evidence. Dame Carol Black has said in her most recent reports that there should be fewer face-to-face interviews for employment and support allowance. What is the Minister’s response to that?

Jarrow Crusade (75th Anniversary)

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris]

The message from Government Members is that this economic crisis is built on debt, but the point of view of some of us is that the debt crisis results from a financial crash that was not made here in Britain. However, whether the economic crisis is because of famine, war, debt, corruption or ineptitude, surely we require some kind of growth strategy. Your argument that we cannot possibly get out of the debt crisis by incurring more debt simply does not hold water. Whatever the cause, we must get growths and jobs, especially in my area.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I would just point out that I am not offering any argument at all.

[Chris Grayling]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has to understand that it is unsustainable for a country to borrow £1 in every £4 that it spends, which was the situation when the previous Government left office. If you did that with your household income, Mr Speaker, you would rapidly discover that you were in severe financial difficulties. Britain is no different. We must get our financial position under control, or we will see unemployment rise higher than it would otherwise.

Alongside the need to pursue a strategy of getting the finances in order and of targeting support at enterprise through enterprise zones, tax reductions and the changes that we have set out today, we must provide much better support for the long-term unemployed to get them back into the workplace. The introduction of the Work programme, which across this country today provides specialised back-to-work support for the long-term unemployed—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) calls out, “No jobs.” The truth is that each week, even in difficult economic times, Jobcentre Plus is taking in around 90,000 vacancies. They are estimated typically to be only around half the total number of vacancies in the economy. Therefore, over the next 12 months, in Britain as a whole, the best part of 10 million people will move into new jobs. My goal, and the goal of the Work programme, is to ensure that as many of those jobs as possible go to the long-term unemployed. I do not want those people left on the sidelines, and I do not want them struggling for years on benefits, unable to get back into work.

The hon. Member for Jarrow mentioned the work capability assessment, which was introduced by the Labour Government. We have improved that with a view to ensuring that it is a more reflective process, and that we take into account the very real needs of the most severely disabled. Crucially, our improvements are also about helping people with disabilities to get back into the workplace. That is an essential part of turning their lives around and an essential part of a smart social policy for this country, which is essential.

My message to the hon. Gentleman is this: we understand the challenge that unemployment represents. His town has made a great contribution to raising the importance of unemployment for Governments of all persuasions over the past 75 years. He should take credit for the work that his town did then and has done since. We will do everything we can to ensure that, in 2011, we have a smart strategy to deal with unemployment, to help people not just in Jarrow, but right across the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Given the Secretary of State’s complaints about the free movement of European labour and his leadership of the Maastricht rebels in the ’90s, may I ask why he will not be demonstrating some conviction and consistency this evening? Why is he putting his position and his party before his principles, and his career before his country, in the debate on Europe this evening?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Gentleman, and that is, indeed, a topical question, but it suffers from the notable disadvantage of bearing absolutely no relation whatsoever to the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I will give a seminar to the hon. Gentleman later, further and better to explain the point, but there is no requirement on the Secretary of State to respond to that question.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

Given the relatively small employment market in Northern Ireland, does the Secretary of State believe, based on his discussions with Northern Ireland Ministers, that enough jobs can be created for those leaving employment for the Work programme financial model to be effective in Northern Ireland?

--- Later in debate ---

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

Does the Minister consider £22.60 enough to live on as a personal allowance to provide clothing, toiletries, travel and socialising? If not, why does the Minister expect my disabled constituents from the Percy Hedley Foundation who took part in the Hardest Hit campaign to—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Thank you for the question, but we must move on.

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady may be referring to disability living allowance. That is available for part of the costs that disabled people incur. There are many other ways that the Government support disabled people.

Pensions Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the Order of 20 June 2011 (Pensions Bill [Lords] (Programme)) be varied as follows:

1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.

2. Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.

3. The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

[Mr Speaker]

Does Mr Timms or Mr McClymont wish to speak? There is no obligation on any right hon. or hon. Member to speak.

Pensions Bill [Lords]

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 6, leave out ‘December 1953’ and insert ‘April 1955’.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, page 1, line 8, leave out subsection (4).

Amendment 4, page 2, leave out lines 12 to 18 and insert—

[Gregg McClymont]

In my first foray from the Dispatch Box, I would like to say that I look forward to having a continuing dialogue with the Minister on this subject. He has a formidable reputation in this field. He told me at our first meeting that one of my former students is now his researcher; that, I think, makes him doubly formidable. I would also like to pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). She, along with thousands of women, has led the campaign to highlight the burden being placed on up to 500,000 women by the acceleration of the timetable for the equalisation of the state pension age. I think we can all agree that she has done a very important job of work.

We welcome the Government’s concessions as laid down in the amendments, but we do not think they go far enough. The Government are no longer condemning 245,000 women to an extra waiting period of between 19 and 24 months, and that is welcome; but it is too little, too late. The cardinal fact about the Bill remains that 500,000 women will still have to wait up to 18 months longer, and 330,000 will have to wait exactly 18 months longer, before reaching their state pension age. The Government have chosen to break the all-party Turner consensus that women’s state pension age should not reach 65 before 2020, and they have also broken the coalition agreement, which promised that women’s state pension age would not reach 65 before that year.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That question was extremely tangentially related to dealings with the Child Support Agency—but I am sure that the Minister’s ingenuity means that she will adroitly cope.

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the potential importance of Sure Start in child support. Indeed, we are talking to our colleagues in the Department for Education about possible opportunities for Sure Start to work with the Child Support Agency. We already have a trial—set up under the previous Administration—looking into that issue, and Ministers in that Department have ensured that sufficient funding is in place to keep the Sure Start network working.

Youth Unemployment (Walsall)

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)

[Mr Speaker]

Before I ask the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) to rise from his seat, I appeal to Members leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, in order to afford the same courtesy to the hon. Gentleman that they would wish to be extended to them in the same circumstances.

Welfare Reform Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. To remain in order on Third Reading, is it not necessary to talk only about the content of the Bill, not things external to it?

[Mr Speaker]

That is correct. On Third Reading, all speakers must focus on what is in the Bill, not what is excluded from or outside it.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I agree, Mr Speaker, which is why I have done nothing but refer to the reasons for the Bill, the rationale behind it and what is in it, hence the cancer point that we have talked about.

Let me proceed to the issue of the benefit cap, which I do not think the Opposition ever wanted to get to. Our reforms are fundamentally about fairness: fairness to recipients, but also—and too often forgotten—fairness to the hard-pressed taxpayers who have to pay for those on benefits. Across a range of areas, we have made changes designed to ensure that people on benefits cannot live a lifestyle that is unattainable to those who are in work. Let us take the benefit cap—an issue on which the Opposition have got themselves in a bit of a mess. Just two days ago, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), who is now in his place, told the House:

“The cap on overall benefits…is an important part of the legislation”.—[Official Report, 13 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 491.]

However, it is now clear that his own party is completely divided on the matter. Even late last night, the Opposition tabled an amendment that they knew they would not be allowed to vote on—a starred amendment—just so that they could posture and appease their Back Benchers, who are on the wrong side of the debate entirely. [Interruption.] No, no, the Opposition know very well that they had days to table that amendment, but they did not bother—I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman will say that he did know that there was a time limit on tabling amendments. The reality is that the Opposition are opposed to the cap. They should be honest and say that they do not want it. Indeed, even their amendment would have knocked out the entire effect of the cap.

Let me turn to conditionality, another issue in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Baker]

I am most grateful to the Secretary of State. Will he join me in reminding the House that, by dint of great effort, in 2011-12—[Interruption]—I assure the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) that this comes from the HMRC website, not the Whips—the pay-as-you-earn tax threshold will be just £7,475 a year? Will he also remind the House that the people paying tax—that is, paying tax to pay the benefits that others are in receipt of—are actually poorly paid and that a year’s pay on the national minimum wage is just £12,300? Will he join me in recognising that it is an issue of social justice that we should introduce the benefits cap?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just remind Members that interventions should be brief? I know that the Secretary of State and others will be conscious that other people want to speak in the debate.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I agree with my hon. Friend. That point is also powerfully made by the fact that nearly half of all those who are working and paying taxes fall below the level of the cap. It is important to achieve a balance of fairness. I recognise that there are issues, and we have looked at ways in which the process of change in housing benefit can be done more carefully, for example. This is not about punishing people; it is about establishing a principle that fairness runs through the whole of the benefit system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Byrne]

I am afraid that I will not—[Interruption.] No, because the Secretary of State talked for well over the time we agreed through the usual channels this afternoon and he is now wasting—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Rob Wilson, you have just toddled into the Chamber, do not shout across the Chamber in that way. [Interruption.] No, no; do not argue the point. [Interruption.] Order. I am telling the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I do not need any expression; I am telling him what the situation is.

[Mr Byrne]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I say to Liberal Democrat Members tonight that today is the deadline for advice on motions to their conference and one has found its way to me this afternoon. They should listen to what their grass roots are saying—that they should support the amendments that we tabled on Report. The Liberal Democrats should not be fooled by the idea that to succeed in politics one has to rise above one’s principles, and they should not betray the principles of Lloyd George, Beveridge and Keynes for the political convenience of the hour. They should show us, show people and show their grass roots that like us they have heard the voices of the vulnerable, who are calling on them to act—and to act tonight.

As if the cuts for cancer patients in clause 51 were not bad enough, they are rendered worse by the determination of this Government to leave people on disability benefits as prisoners in their own homes. On Saturday morning, my constituent Stephen McClaren came to see me. He has cerebral palsy, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, learning disabilities and he gets these mobility payments in order to help him to see his mum, go to the gym and live the quiet miracle of a normal life. These plans have filled him with fear. He and 80,000 disabled people are now worried sick about what the Government have in store for them.

The charities say that the changes are “fundamentally unfair”, so what is going on? The Prime Minister has said that the DLA mobility component will not be cut for those in residential care homes—that is what he told the House on 23 March—but the Budget book says that cuts to the DLA mobility component will total £475 million from people in residential care by 2015. Who is telling the truth? We now know that there is a review, but today is the Third Reading of the Bill. The Government want to change the law, but what is their policy? It is a secret. The Minister for spin, the hon. Member for Basingstoke has said, with her new expensive eloquence, that the Government

“have no plans to publish the findings of this work”.—[Official Report, 9 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 1003W.]

Tonight, we are supposed to give the Government powers to abolish the benefit when their evidence for reform is to be kept secret. What a shambles.

The Bill violates every basic test of compassion and, just as bad, it also fails the test of fostering ambition to work. I know that the Secretary of State is trying as hard as possible to introduce reforms that will help to make sure that work pays, but he cannot honourably say that and give that guarantee for anyone with children because he cannot make up his mind how much parents are going to get for child care under universal credit. We are being told that that credit will be abolished tonight with no sense of what is going to come in its place.

In February, the Secretary of State was unable to say what the Government’s plans are. He told the House, not once but twice—most recently on 24 March, I think—that he would tell us, here in the House before the Bill got through the Committee stage, that he would publish his child care policy. Leaked documents from the DWP say that the cuts could disadvantage 250,000 people, cutting support almost by half, yet tonight we are at Third Reading and the Secretary of State still has not told us what his plans are for child care.

There are new penalties in the Bill for savers. There are new penalties for the self-employed. The Bill was supposed to be a milestone in the evolution of the Government and the compassionate Conservatism they espoused, but tonight they have been found out. We have a law to hurt cancer patients and a Bill to trap the disabled, confusion for parents and penalties for savers. Whether people are ill, disabled or working hard to do the right thing, the Government are determined to attack the benefits they paid to receive. We should stand up—