Youth Unemployment
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I am happy to relay to Ministers the noble Lord’s concerns about loans and the fact that 18 year-olds are asked to take them out. I will certainly pass his concerns on to the Department for Education as well. However, we have launched a wide-ranging youth employment programme. We have the National Careers Service and the new enterprise allowance. We are doubling the number of work coaches; please do not underestimate the work of these great people and the difference that they are making in getting young people into jobs, which is what we all want.
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning (Lab) [V]
In the 1980s, when I was growing up in the west of Scotland, there were very high levels of youth unemployment. In Glasgow, it stood at 80%. There were few opportunities and little hope. Now, we are walking into something similar. Will the Government agree to hold a job summit to meet trade unions, local authorities, metro mayors and representatives from Scotland and Wales and talk about all the different things that can be done to prevent such a catastrophe? It is the job of the UK Government to lead. Will they take the initiative here?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that constructive idea; I will certainly take it back to the department. However, we are holding what are almost local job summits around the country and people are working closely in geographical areas to achieve exactly what she challenges us to achieve.
Jobs and Work
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this debate.
This year’s Queen’s Speech is one that fails the people of North Ayrshire and Arran and fails the people of this country. The Secretary of State referred to the fact that there are only 11 Bills, but I do not take much comfort from that because I remember the last parliamentary Session. There were many pieces of legislation covering many matters, but there was little discussion or time given to enable this place to scrutinise effectively the range of measures that were forced through by the Government. When the Secretary of State referred to the small business Bill and the range of measures in it, my response was one of fear about what will exactly be in the Bill when we see it in its full glory.
The reality is that our country faces massive challenges. We face the massive challenge of responding to an economic crisis and to the austerity that is being imposed not only on the people of this country, but throughout Europe and the western world, yet there is little discussion of that in this place.
The Secretary of State spoke about statistics and referred—quite interestingly—to the 99%. He accepted that the vast majority of people in this country are paying the price of the economic crisis and he also conceded that the 1% are doing very nicely. Of course, that is not just the case in this country. As we look around, we see that it is the case throughout the western world, whether that is in Greece, Ireland, Portugal—it is true in any country that people choose to look at. The super-rich, those who are really in control of many of the decisions that affect most of our lives, are seeing their wealth and power increase, while most of us have been put in a position where our living standards have been squeezed by the economic crisis and the way politicians have responded to it.
I am pleased today to speak in favour of the amendment that has been tabled by the Opposition Front Bench team to bring forward measures to raise the minimum wage faster than average earnings. We know that the measures that this Government have introduced have led to a squeeze in the living standards of the vast majority of people in this country, and when proposals are put forward to try to address that situation—for example, the proposal of a price freeze for people’s energy bills, whether those are electricity or gas bills, which would obviously affect not only individuals but businesses—the Government react with horror. They also react with horror when it is suggested that we should do something to try to deal with the private rental market, even though in parts of the country rents are increasing at far higher rates than people’s incomes.
The reality is that since this Government took power, in all but two months real wages have failed to keep pace with inflation. Indeed, after the welcome real-terms increase in pay in March, there was another fall in April. As we know, the Living Wage Commission has highlighted that 21% of people in work in this country— 5.8 million people—receive less than the living wage. Therefore, the amendment that we are considering today clearly outlines the direction of travel we should be taking and we need to say that it is simply not acceptable that we continue to be a country where there is chronic low pay and where people are not paid a decent amount that they can afford to live on if they work full-time. That is not an acceptable way to organise ourselves in a civilised country.
The Government can put forward proposals that refer to welfare caps and fiscal responsibility, but until we put in place the measures that put the pounds into ordinary people’s pockets and give them the ability to make decisions for themselves and live in dignity, we will not address the real issues.
This Queen’s Speech fails the British people; I look forward to voting against it.
Bedroom Tax (Scotland)
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts(9 years, 12 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Whiteford
By no means. I commend the work that has happened in some local authority areas and with some housing associations, but that is perhaps a more feasible option for some than for others. The agreement that has been reached among the parties in Scotland, on a cross-party basis, is that the discretionary housing payment system offers the clearest legal route to do that in a way that can be regular and ongoing. It is a bit of a legal quagmire, as far as I understand it, and it is not as straightforward as it might first appear. It is also not always easy to disentangle what are bedroom tax arrears and what are arrears due to another financial hardship such as losing one’s job, other welfare reforms or other loss of income. It is not entirely straightforward. Nevertheless, it is a very serious issue and I absolutely share the hon. Lady’s concerns.
I am glad that we have a commitment to proceed under section 63 of the Scotland Act. I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who has succeeded where the DWP has failed over the past five months. I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity today to outline a speedy timetable for that process to be enacted. It means that local authorities can plan ahead on the basis that the shortfall will be met in full and that they will have funding to ensure that every single tenant subject to the under-occupancy penalty can receive a discretionary housing payment. Twelve of our local authorities already have a full funding allocation to mitigate the bedroom tax in their areas. The rest have extra funding up to the level of the cap and can now be assured that the rest is coming, just as soon as the relevant orders can be laid in Parliament.
The challenge for all of us is to make sure that tenants apply for their discretionary housing payment. I will certainly be going back to every constituent who has been in touch with me about the bedroom tax, including those who applied unsuccessfully for DHPs in the past, and urging them to reapply. I will also ask my local authority what it will be doing proactively to ensure that everyone who is entitled to discretionary housing payments gets them, now that the policy has been fully funded and there is no excuse for anyone who is subject to the bedroom tax to be left without the support that they need.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
The hon. Lady will be aware that different local authorities are taking very different approaches. For example, in Renfrewshire, which is adjacent to my constituency, staff are employed to go around proactively and get people to apply for discretionary payments. In my area of North Ayrshire, that does not happen. Does she think that the resources need to be put in to ensure that that happens, if we are going to follow the path that she is suggesting?
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Lady makes a really important point, because there are a range of practices across local authorities. However, this is very much their responsibility, and I hope that they will be putting in place a more proactive approach across the board. I know that some have already done that in dealing with other aspects of welfare reform, but I also know that the Scottish Government have made it very clear to every local authority that that money is to be used for the purpose for which it is intended—to mitigate the effects of the bedroom tax—and they need to ensure that everyone gets it. It is incumbent on us all to ensure that our constituents know that and to encourage them to get their forms in. After all, it is in the interest of local authorities to ensure that people do not fall into arrears, because that just creates further problems for them down the line. I am confident that most local authorities in Scotland will be keen to ensure that that policy is properly implemented.
The mitigation measures mean that no one should fall into arrears or face eviction because of the bedroom tax, but we cannot ignore the fact that it is still on the statute book. The Scottish Parliament does not have the power to abolish it. That means that tenants are still legally responsible for the shortfall in their rent caused by the cut to housing benefit. We should not lose sight of the fact that in order to mitigate the worst impacts of Westminster’s bedroom tax, money has had to be diverted from other devolved spending priorities.
The bedroom tax and the other changes to housing benefit are only one aspect of the UK Government’s assault on people in low-income households. By the end of this financial year, about £4.5 billion will have been taken out of the pockets of people on low and middle incomes in Scotland through welfare reforms and other changes to the tax and benefits system. The figure will rise to £6 billion by 2015-16. Apart from in the bedroom tax itself, that is most evident in the changes to tax credits, which have cost 110,000 households in Scotland an average of £700 each, and of course the uprating of working-age benefits at a level substantially below inflation, which has meant real-term cuts in the value of support. The freezing of child benefit means that, cumulatively, a family with two children will be more than £1,000 worse off by next year. In many cases, the people who have been hit by the bedroom tax are the same people being affected by those other changes. It is those people whom the mitigation measures will help, but we must recognise that we cannot fill a black hole of £6 billion without the powers and the budgets to do so.
The Scottish Government have invested £258 million to temper the worst aspects of welfare reform, but we need to be clear that it is a damage limitation exercise, not a solution. As well as the extra £50 million for the bedroom tax, the Scottish Government have put in place arrangements to ensure that 500,000 people in Scotland still get council tax benefit, and have introduced the Scottish welfare fund, which so far has helped 35,000 people.
However, the Scottish Government do not at the moment have the powers or the budget to plug a £6 billion cut in public spending. People would think, listening to the earlier comments today, that the bedroom tax was dreamt up in Scotland and was being imposed by the Scottish Government. The truth is that the bedroom tax is the brainchild of a callous Tory-Liberal coalition Government whom people in Scotland simply did not elect. Responsibility for the bedroom tax rests right here in Westminster. The fact is that housing benefit is a reserved issue and this House has the power to scrap the bedroom tax.
Katy Clark
Does the hon. Lady not believe that the Scottish Parliament should be looking to raise the amount of money that it receives through taxation? Can she explain why her party will not support measures such as raising the higher rate of income tax to ensure that we have more money to spend on welfare?
Dr Whiteford
I am very much looking forward to the referendum in September, when people in Scotland will have a say on whether they want control of their own affairs and responsibility for setting income tax levels. I led an Opposition day debate on this issue back in February last year, when I called on the Government to end the policy, but we have had a number of opportunities in the House since then to voice our opposition, which includes opposition on the Government’s own Back Benches. The best chance we had to get rid of the bedroom tax was in November last year, when the Government came tantalisingly close to being defeated in the Commons in a vote following a Labour Opposition day debate. A defeat in the Commons would have forced the Government to rethink their approach, because it would have shown that even their own Back Benchers in the coalition—
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. I congratulate the Scottish Affairs Committee on the work that it has done on this issue and, in particular, some of the recommendations in the report, which I believe will be significant in moving the debate on the issue further forward.
It must be said very clearly that the responsibility for this policy and the impact that it has had on so many millions of people throughout the United Kingdom lies with the coalition Government. In Scotland, the policy has caused misery for many thousands, indeed hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—of people. According to the UK Government’s own estimates in the Department for Work and Pensions impact assessment, 33% of people of working age who receive housing benefit are affected by the policy. In my constituency, as in most of Scotland, the policy has caused not only huge distress to individuals, but significant problems for those who provide social housing, whether they are local authorities or housing associations. Out of the almost 3,000 tenants affected by the bedroom tax in North Ayrshire, only 139 were able to downsize last year. Of course, that is because of the mismatch between the types of housing that social housing providers have and the Department’s determination of the size of housing that people need.
The proposals in the report are important because they recognise clearly where the problem is. It is quite easy to work out who is affected by the bedroom tax, because the social housing provider calculates who will be impacted by the discount, so I have to disagree with the spokesperson for the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), on this issue.
It is clear, however, that the funding has not been available from the Department for Work and Pensions to mitigate and deal with the problems that its policy has caused. Let me consider my own area, North Ayrshire. The Department provided £309,823 last year. The Scottish Government provided £460,000, and the local authority put in £4,676 to bring the discretionary housing payment funding up to the maximum that was required. Despite that, many of my constituents who have applied for a discretionary housing payment have not received one. On some occasions, they are refused the first time, but when they go back they may receive one. In other cases, they may be granted a discretionary housing payment on the first occasion, but when they go back to reapply, they are refused on that occasion. Quite often, they are refused because they are deemed to have coped adequately and budgeted well, so they have not been able to show the required level of hardship.
The report is absolutely correct to highlight the fact that many who have been impacted—many of whom are among the most needy—have not been helped under the regime that has existed until now. The impact is felt disproportionately by people with disabilities, their carers and those whose personal circumstances genuinely require them to have extra rooms in their properties for medical equipment, carers’ accommodation or other purposes.
The way in which the matter has been dealt with in Scotland is incredibly unfortunate. The majority of parliamentarians in Scotland did not support the policy, and it is very unfortunate that the issue has become so politically contested. However, action to ensure that those affected by the bedroom tax receive the mitigation that they were promised, after the Scottish Parliament voted in favour of providing full mitigation in February, has been far from consistent. Some of the reasons that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan gave for that—I fully appreciate that she is merely putting forward a position that has been created by other people—were frankly inadequate. Mitigation can be provided in many ways other than through discretionary housing payments, and others have described how some organisations have written off arrears accrued as a result of the bedroom tax, or used other mechanisms to provide help to those who need it.
I want to say clearly that I agree with the approach outlined in the report. We must look at all who have been affected by the bedroom tax since its introduction in April 2013, and we must say clearly that we expect their representatives to take action to ensure that they are not worse off as a result. Members of Parliament have met many individuals who have suffered greatly as a result of the policy. The Scottish Labour party wants housing benefit to be fully devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I have absolutely no doubt that if it was, all parties would work together to ensure that this situation did not occur again. We need to take steps now to put in place the mitigation for which the Scottish Parliament voted in February this year. I therefore call on those in the Scottish Government and Westminster Ministers to do everything they can to ensure that that policy is implemented as soon as possible, so that everybody who has been affected by the bedroom tax in Scotland can get full mitigation.
Welfare Reform (Sick and Disabled People)
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), who always makes very informed contributions on this subject.
This is the third time this week we have debated issues to do with benefits. In all these debates, the position of people with disabilities should be one of the major considerations. Earlier in the week, we debated the change from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index in the uprating of benefits. That has a big impact on many people with disabilities, who, in effect, will be getting less than they would have if we had kept to the old system of uprating. Yesterday, as has been said, we discussed the bedroom tax, which is another policy of this Government that disproportionately impacts on people with disabilities.
Today, as a result of the campaigning work of many disabled people and many disabled people’s organisations, including Disabled People Against Cuts and the WOW petition campaign, we are debating a motion that has come about as a result of the work of people campaigning on these issues who are at the sharp end and have disabilities themselves. It is a huge step forward that we are able to get debates of this nature. In the previous Parliament, before the reforms that led to the introduction of the Backbench Business Committee, there would have been no way for people outside campaigning on issues that they know about to get their words discussed in this place. I therefore strongly welcome this debate.
I was elected in 2005. Since the general election in 2010, I have seen a massive increase in the number of people with disabilities and those who are sick contacting my office because of the Government’s various welfare changes. I would like to focus on two constituents who have been in touch with me and, I think, illustrate routine problems of the kind that people are facing. My constituent John Scott was diagnosed with cancer in the summer of 2013 and sent in his application for personal independence payment soon afterwards. I raised his case in Parliament on 13 January, when he was waiting for his initial medical assessment. At that point, he had had no payment, never mind a decision in his case. Since then, he has been in for an operation and had his bladder removed owing to the extent of his cancer, and cancerous cells were found in the muscle tissue in his prostate. He is still recovering, but to date has not received a medical assessment to see whether he qualifies for a personal independence payment. He has therefore not had a payment since July last year, although he has obviously been struggling with household bills and accruing arrears, and has had to carry on without any assistance.
Another constituent, Brian McAllister, last year had his benefits stopped and was found fit to work by Atos. He put in an appeal and was placed in the work-related activity category. He believes that he should be in the support group, as he has an inoperable back problem and has also been diagnosed with brain injury and has related mental health issues. He is separated from his partner, but they have a child and therefore found it mutually beneficial that he stay in the house to supervise the child while his former partner was at work. However, the Department for Work and Pensions thought that they were co-habiting and sanctioned his benefits. We found out last week, of course, that one in five people in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance who are having their benefits sanctioned are disabled. My constituency office is increasingly having to deal with people who face that problem.
As a result of the fact that the DWP thought it inappropriate that my constituent stay in the house, he moved from Largs to Dalry—there are a number of miles between them—which has put more strain on the family and, obviously, led to more child care problems. He submitted an appeal against the decision to place him in the work-related group and he has been waiting four months for a decision. His paperwork was lost—which is quite common, as I am sure many Members are aware—and the case has been passed around the country. It has been dealt with in different offices in England and Scotland and he still awaits a decision. These are very normal cases, which any constituency Member will have come across. There is a very high success rate when people appeal and that rate is far higher when they get representation.
The Government have let down some of the most vulnerable people through their changes to the welfare system since 2010. They are also letting some people down at the most vulnerable point in their lives. I therefore support the motion, which calls for a cumulative impact assessment, and all those who are campaigning against the attacks on the sick, the vulnerable and the disabled.
Housing Benefit
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sandra Osborne
I do indeed, and the policy is putting more pressure on the housing service, not taking it away. I also fear for those who have struggled to pay the bedroom tax, because I know fine well they cannot afford it. I worry about where they are getting the money from, and whether it is pushing them in other directions such as food banks or very high-interest loans. It is not possible for me to over emphasise the fear, concern and anger that the bedroom tax has caused, together with the Atos debacle and the fact that people are being suspended from benefits at the drop of a hat.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
My hon. Friend’s constituency is similar to mine. Is it her experience that the people who come to see her about the bedroom tax are disproportionately the disabled and carers, and does she agree that it is particularly distressing for those groups?
Sandra Osborne
That is one thing that causes a great deal of anger among those affected, and also among the general public in my constituency, who happen to be very caring people. When she sums up the debate, will the Minister confirm whether the Government intend to retain the Scottish welfare fund?
We are here to talk about the sheer ineffectiveness and shambolic implementation of the bedroom tax. What kind of policy requires mitigation for more than half the people affected? Some 70% of applications have been approved for discretionary payment, with more applications all the time in one of my areas. The revised budget will be fully spent by the end of the year—there is no big surplus, as was inferred earlier.
Heather Wheeler
I am very glad the hon. Gentleman knows the number for both; I am sure he is going to tell everybody. However, the most important thing today is that there is an anachronism. Opposition Members are living in the old days. When will Opposition Members wake up to see that there is massive overcrowding and that we need a massive new building programme? As ever, they are living in the old days and are doing nothing about looking after the most vulnerable people. The Opposition are living in fantasy land and that will not look after the most vulnerable people. They do not deal with the real problems in society: overcrowding; people who have been waiting and waiting to get decent housing; and people who have been on housing benefit for goodness knows how long because they have been brought up to stay in that sort of society. That is not good enough. That is not the society we want to have in the future. I see those on the Opposition Front Bench hanging their heads in shame. I hope the cameras can get that, because that is the truth of where we are.
Katy Clark
Does the hon. Lady agree that the real problem is that we do not have enough social housing?
Heather Wheeler
In the last two and a half years what conversations has the hon. Lady had with her council? My district council is now building council houses. My Conservative council is building one, two, three and four-bedroom council properties. What have Labour Members been doing?
Pensions and Benefits Uprating
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to say a few words. I will be speaking against the orders, but I am not suggesting that we should vote against them because of course, if we were to do so, the pitiful increases that some people will receive as a result of them would not be paid. I shall be arguing that the orders should be different.
The changes that the Government have introduced, some of which are in these orders, have huge significance for millions of the poorest in our country. Both motions are of vital importance, as restricting the uprating of benefits to these pitiful amounts, which in many cases represent a real-term cut, is one of the ways in which the coalition Government have attempted to balance the books on the back of the poor. The focus today is on the change from RPI to CPI and, as the Minister has said, other legislative methods have been used in relation to some of the other changes which yet again the Government are proceeding with this year.
Under the last Labour Government, most benefits were uprated every April in line with the RPI measure of inflation and based on the RPI of the previous September. Shortly after taking office, the coalition announced that it would be changing to CPI, which of course does not take into account housing costs and is almost always a lower measure than RPI. That is why I oppose it. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) has already commented that another method of uprating should be found because neither CPI nor RPI is a good way of capturing the real cost of living for some of the groups affected by the orders. However, we do know that RPI is a more generous system than CPI and the Government should return to that way of looking at things unless a better way can be found.
Steve Webb
I am listening with care to the hon. Lady. Just to set the record straight, one of her objections to the use of CPI is that it does not include housing costs. In fact, it does. It includes rents. Were we also to include owner-occupiers’ housing costs—the CPIH measure—we would have a lower measure than the one we are using.
Katy Clark
Obviously the Minister is aware that the range of factors taken into account has been smaller every year since the change was brought in. I oppose the orders not necessarily because they do or do not include housing costs—I understand the point he makes; he has made it before and we have debated it previously—but because the method does not reflect the real cost of living that people who rely on these benefits experience.
Every year since 2010 RPI has been higher than CPI and the gap between those figures has made a real difference to pensions and benefits. The danger with the change is the cumulative impact over many years. In 2010 the RPI figure was 4.6%. That went up to 5.6% in 2011, down to 2.6% in 2012, and was 3.2% last year. But the equivalent CPI figures were 3.1%, 5.2%, 2.2% and 2.7%. Every year there has been a gap, which has meant that some of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society have ended up with less money in their pocket.
The Prime Minister has made much of his decision to introduce a triple lock guarantee for the basic state pension. He has already pledged to retain it throughout the next Parliament should he have any success at the next general election. The guarantee ensures that the basic state pension will always rise in line with whatever is the greatest as between inflation, wages or 2.5%. The uncomfortable truth, however, as the Minister must accept, is that the triple lock was introduced alongside the change from RPI to CPI, so the basic state pension increases in 2012 and 2013 were lower than they would have been if the previous system had been used. By 2015, the basic state pension will therefore be £1.11 a week lower than it would have been if it had risen in line with RPI, so pensioners will be £106.60 worse off as a result.
That is how just one group is affected. If we look at other groups, such as carers, the situation is even worse. Next year, carer’s allowance will be £1.69 per week lower than it would have been under RPI, with carers £255.84 worse off by April 2015 as a result. Those receiving both the higher rate mobility and care components of disability living allowance will be £571.48 worse off by the same date.
Mr Reid
Does the hon. Lady accept that, with the triple lock, pensioners will benefit from an economic recovery by their pension going up in line with earnings, whereas when the economy was doing well in the early years of the Labour Government, pensioners did not share in the increased benefits, because their pension only went up in line with inflation and not in line with earnings?
Katy Clark
As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I am focusing on the change from RPI to CPI. He will be aware that in the last Parliament I strongly advocated a return to the link with earnings. However the reality, as he well knows, was that even though Labour did not reinstate that link, the increases every year were far higher than they would have been if that reinstatement had taken place. Therefore, I frankly did not understand why my Front Bench at the time would not make that change.
I support the return to the link with earnings, but as I have said, the point I am making is about the change from RPI to CPI, which I understand is a long-term policy of this Government. Some of the poorest people in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and mine will experience a cumulative long-term reduction in their incomes as a result of that change.
From April 2013, the coalition slashed the annual uplifts to a range of benefits to 1%; I appreciate that that issue is being dealt with in other legislation. Some of the disability benefits, such as carer’s allowance and disability living allowance, are exempt from that 1% cap, but employment and support allowance, which is the primary income replacement benefit for disabled people, is not. The Government have exempted from the cap the higher rate care component paid to the most severely disabled people, supposedly shielding the vulnerable from it. Unfortunately, however, this is a sleight of hand. ESA is paid in two parts—a basic rate, plus an additional component—and although the additional component of £35.75 is exempt from the 1% cap, the basic rate of £72.40 is not. Therefore, over-25s in receipt of the care component of ESA will receive £5.11 a week less than they would have received if it had increased in line with RPI. These cuts matter, because they are having a real impact on some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society.
Between 1997 and 2010, the Labour Government reduced the percentage of people living in absolute poverty from 28% of the population to 15%. During that time, 2.3 million children and 2 million pensioners were lifted out of poverty. Research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that investment in the social security system was the primary factor behind that reduction in poverty. By slashing social security benefits with these orders and the other legislation that we have considered previously, the Government risk putting some of the most vulnerable people in society back below the poverty line, and that is on top of the large number of people whose incomes have already been cut as a direct result of this Government’s policy. These orders are completely inadequate and the Government should come forward with something that protects the most vulnerable in our society.
Steve Webb
Clearly a whole raft of decisions are made about increases. The right hon. Member for East Ham mentioned rail fares, for example, and the train operators’ revenues and some of their costs are determined by RPI. The task that the Department for Work and Pensions has once a year is to look at what has happened to the general price level, and I have not heard a single argument in this debate that CPI is not the best single measure to use for that purpose.
Katy Clark
Surely the Minister accepts that benefit increases are at least in part about social justice. Since 2010 we have seen this Government take a range of steps that have increased inequality in this country. Surely he must accept that choosing CPI simply because it seems to be a smaller amount will push the poorest people even further below the poverty line.
Steve Webb
I fundamentally do not accept that. The hon. Lady says that we chose CPI simply because it is lower. As of the year to last September, we had only two possible measures to choose from—CPI and RPI—because the other variants of CPI and RPI were not established at that point. RPI has been discontinued as an official statistic, so how could we use it as the measure for the general increase in the price level? CPI is the target of the Bank of England and an internationally standard and accepted measure. If she thinks from a social justice point of view that benefits should be higher, which is an entirely legitimate thing to think, she should do that by setting them at whatever level she thinks is right, not by trying to pretend that inflation is something other than what the statisticians tell us it is. Those are two separate questions.
Katy Clark
Does the Minister not accept the point that has been made in a number of debates in recent years, which is that the inflation that the poorest experience, and indeed that pensioners experience, is far higher than CPI?
Welfare Reforms and Poverty
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). I congratulate all those who signed the motion and did the work to secure this debate, because I think that a commission of inquiry should be established to investigate the impact of the Government’s welfare reforms on the incidence of poverty. I say that because of my experience as a constituency MP, and my knowledge, from this place and other places, of what is happening nationally.
The reality is that all of us are inundated in our constituency surgery by constituents who are experiencing the impact of the Government’s welfare reforms. Mr Scott, a constituent, came to see me last week; he was diagnosed with bowel cancer last summer, and had applied for the personal independence payment. He has worked all his life; it was the first time that he had had contact with the welfare benefit system. He is still awaiting receipt of any money. Many other constituents who come to see me, including carers and those who are disabled, are suffering as a result of the bedroom tax.
There has been a massive increase in poverty in this country since 2010. Some of that is associated with welfare reforms; some is related to other aspects of Government policy, and what is going on in the country with low pay, wage freezes, wage cuts, and less secure forms of employment, and all the other issues that we spend time talking about in this place.
We particularly need to focus clearly on welfare reforms, both for those in work and those who are not working. Since 1997-98, there has been a decrease in poverty for most of the time. Some 28% of the population lived in absolute poverty in 1997, but by 2010, that had dropped to 15%—still a scandalously high figure that is unacceptable in any civilised country, but the reality was that 2.3 million children and 2 million pensioners were lifted out of poverty in that time. The country can be proud of that, even though, as I say, a huge amount more needed to be done. Since 2010, absolute poverty has increased by 1.4 million people, including 300,000 children and 200,000 pensioners. There can be absolutely no doubt that much of that increase in poverty has been a direct result of the coalition Government’s policies.
I will talk about some of those policies. We have had these debates already in this place, and we have divided on many of these issues. One of the impacts that will have the biggest cumulative effect over time is the uprating of benefits in line with the consumer prices index instead of the retail prices index. Of course, we already see the impact of that change. In 2010, when the Government changed the indexation, the difference between RPI and CPI was the difference between 4.6% and 3.1%. In every year since, RPI has been higher than CPI. Of course, the impact on our pensions and benefits affects disproportionately those on the lowest incomes.
Let us look at those in receipt of carer’s allowance. In April 2010 they received £53.90 a week. If that had increased under the old system, using RPI, they would now be receiving £61.08 a week, rather than £59.75. They are therefore £167.96 worse off each year as a result of the switch from RPI to CPI.
We see a similar situation with disability living allowance. Someone in receipt of the higher care component is now £221 worse off as a result of the switch. People with more serious disabilities who are on the higher rate mobility component are now £155.48 worse off a year. Those who receive both the higher rate mobility component and the higher care component are now £376.48 worse off a year. Those might sound like relatively small amounts to some people, but the reality is that those benefits are received by some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the country, who were already struggling and finding it difficult to cope.
People in receipt of employment and support allowance—another form of benefit that many constituents come to see us about—are now £342.68 worse off a year as a result of the shift from RPI to CPI. It is not just that shift, but the impact of other policies, such as the 1% cap on benefits, that is having an effect. Ministers have claimed that those in the ESA support groups are exempt from that, but of course that benefit is both a basic payment and an additional payment. Although one is exempt from the 1% cap, the other is not. The reality is that for almost every benefit we look at, we are seeing our constituents receive less money every week, every month and every year.
Chris Williamson
Does my hon. Friend agree that cutting benefits for the poorest people in our communities has a knock-on impact on economic growth, because they inevitably spend the money in their pockets in the communities in which they live?
Katy Clark
I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that that is the case in his constituency, as it is in mine. In areas that are disproportionately reliant on the public sector and the welfare state, cutting benefits is taking millions of pounds out of the economy every year, which is simply putting us in a worse situation.
We have also seen a massive increase in the impact of benefit sanctions, as I am sure many Members are only too aware from their constituencies. It is often the same people receiving those benefit sanctions again and again, and each time it is for a longer period. Many of those people have nowhere to go, because they can go to a food bank only three times.
The other major concern is the bedroom tax, which constituents come to see me about all the time. In North Ayrshire we have seen a 756% increase in discretionary housing payment applications. Only 66% are accepted, which means that a third of those people do not get the payment. Indeed, when people go back to apply the next time, because it is a time-limited payment, they are often refused. That is having an impact on council rent arrears. Rent arrears in North Ayrshire, for example, have increased from 3.6% of annual rent to 5.5%.
Those are just a few examples from my constituency, but we all have many others. This is having a massive impact on our country. We are seeing a massive shift in wealth. We need someone to look at that seriously, which is why I think that the motion before us—
Housing Benefit
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
In my constituency, some people who originally were successful in getting the hardship fund are being told when they reapply that they cannot have it because they are not showing sufficient hardship or because they have not shown that they are doing enough to rebudget. Is the hon. Gentleman familiar with that experience? This week a constituent told me that they now have to choose between heating and eating because they are not getting the fund payment.
Hywel Williams
The hon. Lady makes a telling point and the group in Gwynedd is certainly concerned about that. It goes to the very heart of the cash-limited nature of the fund, which is something that I objected to when the social fund was introduced: it pitted one payment against another, bringing an element of competition to something that should be there to fulfil people’s basic needs, and that is one reason why I object to this policy. I hope there will be no evictions and that the Minister will clear up uncertainty about the fund’s future.
I would also like to hear those on the Labour Front Bench pledge to adopt a “no evictions” policy—the subject of my amendment—where they have the power to do so. Labour’s policy of abolishing the bedroom tax will not come into force until at least 2015, should it win the general election. However, Labour is in power in 77 councils, and the Welsh Labour Government have power to adopt a “no evictions” policy with immediate effect.
If Labour is serious about scrapping the bedroom tax, it should also be serious about preventing the worst effect it can have on tenants. For me, that is particularly true for the Welsh Government, where the Welsh First Minister has the power to stop evictions. For example, Labour in Rhondda Cynon Taf voted with Plaid Cymru for such a policy. The Scottish National party in Scotland has pre-eviction procedures, and I understand that Labour colleagues in the Scottish Parliament are proposing a Bill to bring in a “no evictions” policy—I think they are; possibly they are not. Perhaps they are not sure themselves.
In the Welsh Assembly, Jeff Cuthbert AM said:
“We cannot undo the bedroom tax. We can seek to reduce its impact and we are trying”—
all very laudable. Lesley Griffiths AM said that
“there would be a very high cost, not just a financial cost, but also in terms of the quality of life of people in relation to eviction and then rehousing.”
Plaid Cymru’s Jocelyn Davies asked Carwyn Jones, the First Minister:
“Will you tell us which social landlords in Wales are also going to adopt this no-eviction policy?”,
and he replied:
“That is a matter for local authorities to decide. I can well understand the thinking behind the no-eviction policy, but it is for each local authority to decide how it wishes to approach this inequitable situation.”
With all due respect to the First Minister of Wales, he is wrong. It is in his power to decide. It is time for those in power in Wales, long on rhetoric and slow to act, to give a lead. If he will not give a lead in Wales, might he not be led by Labour here in Westminster?
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), who has given a reasoned and reasonable speech, and my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), who provided a different perspective. I start from the principle that it is morally indefensible that 1 million families are waiting for a council property and that 250,000 families live in overcrowded accommodation while at the same time 1 million empty bedrooms are allowed in the social rented sector. Anyone who tries to defend that is extremely foolish.
There is a fundamental philosophical difference between the Opposition and the Government. People in social rented accommodation cannot expect to live in the same home for life without any change to their circumstances being recognised. People in social rented accommodation should stay there for a period and then move on and up when they can. My mother and father started in council accommodation and were the first in our family to buy their own home. Then, during the Thatcher revolution, the rest of my family were able to acquire their own homes, and we became a proper property-owning democracy.
Katy Clark
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept, however, that that was not the initial purpose of social housing? The initial reason for social housing and building council houses was not to deal with social need, as he and other Government Members have said, but to improve the standard of housing in this country? Is that not what council and social housing is about?
Bob Blackman
During the second world war and the 1950s, there was clearly a need, which was why the Conservative Government in the 1950s built record numbers of council properties—to enable people to live in decent accommodation. I agree about that. Clearly, however, social housing should be based on need, not expectation for life, and as people start new careers and move on, they should vacate social housing for the benefit of others in greater need.
George Hollingbery
I will, but by doing so I shall take time away from Opposition speakers.
Katy Clark
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that that there is a complete mismatch between the types of homes that are available and what the Government want people to do? In North Ayrshire, for example, 2,260 council tenants are affected by the policy, but only 59 tenants in under-occupied properties have been able to move since April.
George Hollingbery
The point is well made. I entirely accept that there is indeed a mismatch in many parts of the country. However, it is not impossible for people to move between local authority areas. That happens in the private sector, and there is no good reason why it cannot happen in the public sector. Certainly, it is more difficult, but there is no reason why it should not happen.
I recently visited a young family in Wickham, which is in my constituency. The couple had one child and another on the way. There was one bedroom upstairs, with a small bathroom, a kitchen-sitting room-dining area downstairs, and that was it. The child was living in a cot in the sitting room. Just yards away were two and three-bedroom homes under-occupied by lifetime tenants.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I was getting flashbacks to 1970s socialism during that contribution—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) is very proud of that; that is good to hear.
It is said that a lie can be halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on, and such is the case with Labour’s bedroom tax. I am pleased that the name of the debate has changed, and I welcome the chance to clarify the details of the policy. I am sorry that the debate has been somewhat binary. Some good points have been made by Members on both sides and some pertinent questions have been asked. The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) posed a very important one: how does somebody who is told to go out and work in order to pay for that second room manage to do that? I hope the Minister will elaborate on this, but the universal tax credit system will come in to address that.
The debate has illustrated the cultural divide that exists between this Government and Labour. On one side there is an attitude of responsibility and holding welfare reform to account, and on the other there is a continuing concept of offering welfare as a lifestyle choice. That is no longer possible. After 13 years of Labour the cost of housing benefit doubled to £21 billion. That is unacceptable. The cost to taxpayers was £900 per household. The system was getting out of control. There was no house building programme, leading to overcrowded accommodation, and there was no management of the housing stock, which left some families receiving housing benefit of more than £100,000.
Katy Clark
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the reason that housing benefit has gone up is the rising cost of rent in the private sector? Does he not accept that this Government’s policy of trying to force house prices up is putting rents up, which will make the housing benefit problem even worse?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Lady makes an important point. I cannot accept that a doubling of housing benefit to £21 billion is accounted for by the private sector alone. There are other aspects, such as the type of housing we are building. We were building the wrong type of houses—60% of new houses built needed to be for single occupancy, but only 30% were. That is Labour’s legacy. It raises the fundamental question of today’s debate: in these financially tough times, should those on housing benefit be allowed to stay in accommodation with more bedrooms than they really need? This Government say no and Labour says yes, even though it said no in 2008 when we had exactly the same debate on private sector housing, proving that a little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I am not sure how many lodgers the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) keeps, but he certainly seems to be in favour of the principle. The lodgers in his house no doubt put him in a better financial position.
I do not plan to detain the House for long. When the bedroom tax is viewed in an island context, it can be seen for what it really is: an attack on the living standards of the poorest. On an island, the poorest can be almost anyone’s neighbours, friends or relatives. In the social rented sector in my constituency, fuel poverty is between 33% and 61%, depending on how it is measured and counted.
On the island perspective, I am grateful to John Maciver of the social housing landlords’ Hebridean Housing Partnership for supplying me with figures. In Na h-Eileanan an Iar, 188 people are affected by the bedroom tax and there are more than 2,000 properties. On one island, the Hebridean Housing Partnership took over the housing stock from the council a number of years ago, and of the 105 properties, 50% are occupied by single people, but only 20% of the stock is designed for single occupancy, so some people will always be penalised by the bedroom tax. There is no solution on the island to this policy from Westminster and this Government.
Katy Clark
Does the hon. Gentleman support Scottish Labour’s proposed Bill in the Scottish Parliament that says that there should be no evictions and that the Scottish Government should provide full funding to Scottish councils for the costs of the bedroom tax?
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Lady should know that the underlying problem is that Scotland has a Government whom it does not elect. If the hon. Lady joined me, we would not be in this situation in the first place.
Pensions Bill
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Webb
Apparently he is searching for silver bullets. In any case, we are already seeing consolidation. To give the House a sense of scale, let us consider small and medium occupational defined-contribution schemes for between 12 and 1,000 members. The number of such schemes fell by more than a third in three years—a dramatic fall—from 3,300 to 2,110. The number of micro-schemes, with between two and 11 members, fell by a fifth over the same period, from some 45,000 to 36,000. In a sense, the Opposition amendments seek to force the pace on scale, but it is already happening quite quickly. That is a welcome development, and once we implement our measures on scheme quality—which, subject to consultation, may include tough action on charges—there will be a seismic effect on the pensions industry.
If a scheme cannot be used for auto-enrolment unless it delivers seriously low charges, many small, sub-scale schemes will fall by the wayside. The trends are already in that direction, and the measures we shall implement will substantively accelerate that. Rather than presume that scale is the right answer, we have to regulate the quality. If a small scheme can demonstrate that it is, for example, tailored to the characteristics of its membership and is delivering for them, great.
We do not want to kill good-quality small pension schemes, which is what the Opposition’s slightly bureaucratic amendment could do. Instead, we will say, “This is what we think good looks like. If you, as a big or small scheme, can deliver that, we will not tell you what to do. We will set parameters for what good looks like and you have to deliver.” Consolidation is already happening, and the quality requirements we are putting in place will deliver the outcomes that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East wants.
Moving on—I apologise for the jargon—to decumulation, or “turning pension pots into retirement income,” as I think I am required to call it, new clause 11 suggests that it should be a requirement on schemes to feed in an annuity broker at the end. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East touches on an important issue, albeit again in an overly rigid way. Getting pension pots into a good profile of retirement income is crucial, which is why we at the Department for Work and Pensions are working with our colleagues at the Treasury on annuities and decumulation. Decumulation is about more than annuities. That is not a snappy soundbite, but in other words, turning a pension pot into a retirement income has to be about the whole process of retirement, not just a single event on a single day that fixes one’s retirement income for perhaps 30 years.
The danger with the rigidity of new clause 11 is that it presumes a backward-looking annuity model. Annuities in their current form were designed for a world where people lived for 10 years with pensions and then died. We now have a world where people might annuitise in their early 60s, or want to stop contributing to their pension pot in their early 60s, and live into their 90s. There are serious questions about the suitability of annuities for everybody. For example, people with big pension pots might want to look at a mixture of draw-down. They might want to look at alternatives, deferral or a range of options. It would be a backward step to hardwire into primary legislation that the only good thing that can be done with a pension is to annuitise through this particular model. We should give people new options at decumulation, not hardwire them into the annuity model. Of course, even an annuity broker may not necessarily guarantee that someone will get, for example, an impaired life annuity or enhanced annuity for disability or low life expectancy.
There is a lot that needs looking at in this section of the market. The initiatives that the industry has already taken—for example, the ABI code that came into practice earlier this year—are welcome, but we need to go further. We need a creative approach to turning pension pots into pension income, not a single product hardwired into a primary legislation model. I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from and I believe that the annuity market is in need of further reform, but hardwiring into primary legislation does not seem to us to be the way to go.
The House will be pleased to know that there are two final sections left, both of which are brief. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who does not appear to be in his place, tabled new clause 7, on rail pensions. The new clause relates to whether the Government should underwrite the shortfalls in the pension funds of employees who worked for the nationalised rail industry, which was then privatised, and where some companies, such as Jarvis Facilities, Relayfast and Fastline, went to the wall. We sympathise with any worker whose firm goes to the wall, but I say to the hon. Gentleman in absentia that the notion of protected persons in this case was simply that the terms of the pension scheme of the private employer would be as good as in the public sector. It was never a guarantee against the insolvency of the sponsoring employer. All private sector employees are covered by the Pension Protection Fund, provided that their firm pays the PPF levy. That is how these workers will get all or most, depending on their circumstances, of the pensions they were expecting. It would be wrong to give special treatment to that group when many other people work for firms that went to the wall and will not get that treatment.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that to enable privatisations to go ahead—we are not just talking about the railways; the electricity sector and the miners were affected in similar ways—promises were made that people’s pensions would not suffer any detriment as a result of privatisation? Our experience is that privatised companies go bust more often than others. Surely we are reneging on those promises.
Steve Webb
Just to be clear, new clause 7 makes a specific suggestion regarding a private sector employer going to the wall. The promise was never, “You’ll get absolutely everything, even if your firm goes bankrupt”; it was that the terms of the pension would be as good as in the public sector. Clearly, in this case people are working for a private sector firm and could, if they wish, transfer their pension rights to somewhere else. They chose to keep them with the sponsoring employer.
Bear in mind that the money to pay for any shortfall in those pensions will come from the general taxpayer. Somebody is paying for that shortfall and many general taxpayers have no pension provision at all. If a private company knows that the pension fund is completely insured by the Government, that may influence its behaviour in a way we would not want. If feels unfair to say, “If your private employer used to be nationalised not only do you still have access to a very good pension scheme, but it is absolutely protected, whereas if you worked for any other private firm you are not protected.” I can understand why the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, given his trade union links, supports the railway workers—that is fair enough—but it seems like special pleading for that industry and I think there are many others who might make the same argument.
Steve Webb
Although the ABI code, for example, no longer requires the providers to send the application form with the wake-up letter, I gather the early evidence is that it has not substantially changed the proportion of people who shop around and then move to a new provider. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a big agenda on decumulation—I apologise again for the word. It is not just about annuities. The new clause is too narrow and too prescriptive, but I assure my hon. Friend that we do not regard decumulation as a job done—on the contrary.
Katy Clark
I have been contacted by a number of constituents who are in difficulties because of the current regime. The Minister clearly accepts that there is a need for change. When will he come forward with proposals? He has been in post for a number of years and is clearly on top of his brief. We need the Government to act. When will they do so?
Steve Webb
My particular responsibility is automatic enrolment. We are about to put 10 million people into mainly defined-contribution pensions, the vast majority of whom, all things being equal, will then buy an annuity at the end. For understandable reasons, our focus in the past few years has been to get the infrastructure in place to get those 10 million people into pension saving and building up pension pots. Then, when they have a pension pot, we will ensure that they receive good value at the other end. There will be a set of people who will be auto-enrolled today and will retire tomorrow, but they are a minority. We need to get to grips with this issue. Annuity policy is led by our colleagues in the Treasury, which is why we are working closely with them. We hope to make further announcements soon.
Government amendment 31 relates to the Pension Protection Fund compensation cap. In Committee, we amended the Bill so that workers entering the PPF would have a more generous cap if they had been long-serving employees. The amendment applies the same provisions to people who are already in the PPF. We will not go back years and increase pensions retrospectively, but once the Bill and secondary legislation are passed we will increase their pensions going forward in line with the provisions we have already made for new employees going into the PPF.
Gregg McClymont
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not sure whether I had misheard or whether the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) was trying to intervene.
I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), one of the group of 40, as a doughty campaigner on behalf of those who wish to see radical reform of the pensions market. I do not know whether he had left his place when I quoted from the “40 Policy Ideas from the 40” and the description of the private pensions market as “failed”. I noted that the language used by those 40 MPs was stronger than anything I had used about the private pension market, and suggested that it is a little odd that Conservative MPs take a tougher line on the industry than the Liberal Democrat Minister. Perhaps it is not odd, however, because those who believe in free markets will want the pensions market to work effectively. [Interruption.] I did not catch what was said by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), but I invite him to intervene if he wishes to do so.
Mr Speaker—[Laughter]—I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are not the only one who can make a verbal slip!
I was struck by what the Minister said about decumulation. It proved my point about his ability to talk but not necessarily to take any action, or enough action. New clause 11 calls for an independent brokerage service to guide those who annuitise on retirement through the process. Its aim is to deal with the lack of competition which, according to the NAPF and others, causes people to receive an average of 20% less in their annuities than they would have received had they shopped around. That returns me to a point with which I have been trying to persuade the Minister to engage. Buying an annuity involves a huge decision which a person will make only once in a lifetime, and which will affect the rest of that person’s life. However, the process is complicated, and because they find it hard to understand what they are being told, most people currently default to the annuities that they are being offered by their existing pension providers.
Katy Clark
I am glad that my hon. Friend is speaking up for savers. He is raising issues that have already been raised with me by a number of my constituents. When I told the Minister that we were waiting to hear proposals from the Government, he said that we would hear something very soon. Has my hon. Friend been given any indication of when that might happen?
Katy Clark
Like the hon. Gentleman, I have nuclear power stations in my constituency—Hunterston A, which is being decommissioned, and Hunterston B. Has he, like me, been contacted by numerous employees who are incredibly concerned about the protections that will be taken away from them by this Bill?
Richard Graham
That is an interesting point. The answer is yes, but they are not in the hundreds. They come in two types. One type number those who are either still working there and are concerned about possible changes to the defined benefit scheme and exactly the issue I have just gone through with the Minister. I hope that that will be reassuring to the hon. Lady’s constituents as well as to mine.
The second type of person who has been in touch relates to the third constituency query I was going to raise: those members who are covered by the Electricity (Protected Persons) (England and Wales) Pension Regulations 1990. I see the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) nodding and suspect that she has been contacted by people in a similar situation. The issue is that their pensions might be affected by changes to their pension schemes to reflect these higher national insurance costs. I understand that the Government have still not responded to their own consultation on whether to exempt protected persons from these changes. The Minister might care to comment on that later. It might be something that the Treasury is involved in, alongside the Department for Work and Pensions, but I think that it would be right to express concern on behalf of some of the pensioners involved. However, I understand that there is an argument that both existing pensioners and current members of a pension scheme should be treated with consistency on that. I raise the issue so that the Minister can respond. Those were the three queries on bereavement, change of occupational schemes—which has been answered—and the protected persons scheme.
In conclusion, what the Government are proposing in the Pensions Bill is important and will make a difference. The changes will enable people to save and that saving will pay. The technical details, which the Minister covered earlier, are important for smoothing out some of the small but niggly details that will affect our constituents in due course.
At the risk of repeating myself, I am disappointed by the approach taken by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. For him and his party to fall back on a slogan of “consultation not action” really was disappointing; after 86 minutes we would have hoped for a great deal more clarity on his precise proposals. What exactly does he intend to do on charges? In the absence of such clarity, I hope that he and Members from all parties will make substantive contributions to the consultation so that we can agree on the charges, make changes to the annuity details and say with pride to all our constituents that this Pensions Bill will make a difference to all our lives in retirement.
Greg Mulholland
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I remind the House what the improvements to auto-enrolment will do, which has not come out in the debate? Let us look at the figures. Some 1.6 million people have signed up for auto-enrolment. Of course, the ability to opt out remains, but rather than the expected one in three opting out, the figure is only 10%. Many millions of people are not currently saving for their retirement, but auto-enrolment will lead to between 6 million and 9 million people saving for the first time by 2018. That is crucial.
It is important to remember—this, too, has not been mentioned in the debate—that, as well as employee contributions, there will be support from employers and the Government. People aged 22 or over who are earning more than £9,440 a year will be automatically put into the pension scheme. Individuals who choose to save 4% of their income will benefit from an employer contribution of 3% and tax relief of 1%. It is important to welcome and emphasise that—it should be welcomed and emphasised by all hon. Members.
The key debate is on charging. The Minister referred to the OFT report that raised concerns about standards, particularly in legacy schemes. The Government have rightly amended the Bill to take that into account. I warmly welcome amendment 30 and his announcement of the consultation. I believe the consultation should be welcomed and not criticised.
I should gently make one point to my namesake, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. He gave the impression that he was critical of the Government’s approach on consultation, but in amendment (a), which he has tabled, proposed new subsection (3) to Government new clause 1 states:
“Before making regulations under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must undertake a public consultation”.
It is odd that he is critical of the Government’s approach while calling for the very same consultation in black and white.
The hon. Gentleman was slightly wrong, or he misplaced his emphasis, in his suggestion that the Government are consulting rather than taking action. He knows—his proposal shows this—that consultation is a necessary precursor to legislation. It is important in getting legislation right. Without daring to put words into the mouth of the Minister, I think it is important to say that the intention is clear—that there should be a charge cap and that one will be introduced. The point of the consultation is not whether to introduce one: it is to find out the best way to do so. We should be clear about the subject of the consultation.
I have one question for the Minister, which he may be able to answer. The announcement on the consultation is imminent, although it is not happening as part of the Bill, so will we see him back at the Dispatch Box soon to make it? He is clearly the right and proper person to make the announcement, given his involvement in the Bill. I hope that he will be back, perhaps even in the next 24 or 48 hours, to announce it, and I and others look forward to welcoming that and the details that I am sure he will wish to lay out.
Despite this being a complicated subject in terms of the figures, the construct of the Bill and the pension sector as a whole, we all know that in the end this is about people’s future incomes and ensuring that they have a reasonable standard of living in their retirement, as well as more certainty in their retirement. The figures that the Minister provided about the current impact of the 1.5% and 1% charges were startling in showing just how much money people lose over the course of saving for their pensions. That is why a cap is right.
I say gently to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East that in his 78-minute speech—at least, I made it 78 minutes, not 86 minutes—[Interruption.] I am being generous: perhaps the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) thought it felt like 86 minutes. In any case, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East showed his knowledge of his brief, and I commend him for that, but it is slightly strange to hear his many recommendations for auto-enrolment when the previous Government would not even countenance those suggestions at the time of introduction. Nor did he acknowledge the problems with the 1% and 1.5% charges.
This has been a long and challenging process. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made contributions that have been listened to and addressed. I look forward to the consultation. All of us with an interest in this issue should watch it closely and take part in it. We should also encourage others to take part. I shall end by congratulating the Minister, his team and his colleagues on what they have done to get this important Bill to this stage. It will lead to more certainty and fairer retirement incomes for the people of this country.
Katy Clark
In the short time available to me, I wish to focus on the issue of protected persons, which was raised in the debate by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who also has many constituents employed in the nuclear industry. The electricity sector will be affected, as well as many other sectors. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has tabled new clause 7 to address those affected in the railway industry, who are protected persons as a result of a privatisation that happened 20 years ago. Other industries affected include energy, water and mining. It is believed that some 52,000 people in this position will probably be affected by the Bill.
Many of my constituents have been in touch with me on the issue. They tell me that the Government have still not responded to the consultation on whether to exempt protected persons from changes to their pension schemes to reflect higher employer national insurance costs from April 2016. I will focus not so much on the detail of new clause 7, which would help those in the railway industry, or new clause 37, which would help those in other sectors, but on the principle they both address.
Gregg McClymont
I want to speak in particular to our new clause 8 and amendment 37. We are now discussing the provisions in this Bill that relate specifically to state pensions rather than private pensions, and it might be of some significance that the issue of protected persons and protected pension schemes is emerging in this context.
We have listened to the very powerful case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and one cannot but feel that there is a specific set of circumstances around the privatisation of nationalised industries. My hon. Friend has eloquently focused on the railways, but amendment 37 deals with the issue of former nationalised industries in the round, and there are also energy schemes and some coal schemes.
We are in a curious situation. The Minister is giving himself the power to keep the promise made to the members of those schemes, but he has not yet said whether he will use that power to honour that promise. This is a Pensions Bill and there are 50,000 or so remaining members of these pension schemes, so it is curious that he has not yet said what he intends to do. Will he do so in his reply?
Katy Clark
Does my hon. Friend agree that the difference is that these privatisations were hugely contentious and there was huge opposition to them, and the pension promises were made by politicians to try to ensure that these things happened? That puts those situations in a different category from many of the others we are talking about.
Gregg McClymont
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I agree that there is a specific set of circumstances around these pension schemes. I am certainly not saying that accruals and the terms and conditions of a pension can never be changed in any circumstances, but there is a specific set of politically charged circumstances to do with the privatisation of these industries. Specific undertakings were given to the members of those schemes to encourage them to accept, if not actively support, the privatisation of the industries in which they worked. I urge the Minister to tell us this evening, if he can do so, whether he intends to use the power he is giving himself in the Bill to honour the promises made to the members of those schemes. If he will not do so, we will force a Division to test the opinion of this House on amendment 37, which would mean that the promises made to the 50,000 or so men and women in those protected schemes were met.
I am conscious of the time and allowing the Minister appropriate time to respond to the broader debate. I noted closely what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said about her new clause 6 and her belief that the 700,000 or so women in the group born between 1951 and 1953 will not get the new state pension, because they are the last pension cohort before the equalisation of the pension age, whereas men of precisely the same age will get it. Let me put it in simple terms: if there were twins, one male and one female, in that age cohort, the male twin would get the new state pension in 2016 but the female twin would not, having retired a little earlier. Such issues do emerge when we are involved in pension reform. The Minister and I have gone back and forth on the matter on a number of occasions, and I will not anticipate his arguments because we have gone through them some time before. However, we have to look at the issue in the context of a view that has grown up among many women that this Government’s attitude to their pension provision is not as generous as they believe it should be.
When considering the 2011 legislation, we had to deal with the issue of a significant number of women having very little time to prepare for retirement and short notice. They would have had to work for longer but some of them would have had only five years to prepare for that. They were five years from when they thought they would be retiring and then found out that they might have to work for seven more years. I am pleased that the Minister made a concession on that, although he did not go as far as we wanted. That group of women—a slightly different group from those we are dealing with here—who were also approaching retirement, felt that they were being unfairly treated. Not only did they feel, rightly, that they were being unfairly treated, but we have also had to deal with the Minister’s approach to auto-enrolment, which is excluding more than half a million women—and rising—from the benefits of auto-enrolment, because of the raising of the threshold for auto-enrolment in line with the personal allowance. A general sense has developed that this Government do not quite get it with women and pensions.
Oral Answers to Questions
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Esther McVey
I will not be taking this moment to apologise, but I hope that those on the Labour Benches will apologise for the mess they left us, which we have corrected. Employment is up by 1 million since the election and unemployment is down by 400,000. Inactivity records are at an all-time low and the number of people not in employment, education or training is at the lowest rate for a decade. That is what we are doing, and the statistics we are putting out are correct. I am really disappointed that we cannot all celebrate the great work this Government have done.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
12. What assessment he has made of the effect of the Government’s housing benefit changes in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)
All the Government’s housing benefit changes have been subject to full impact and equality impact assessments. We have closely monitored the implementation of the measures and commissioned independent evaluations of the local housing allowance reforms and the removal of the spare room subsidy.
Katy Clark
Alex Salmond is coming down from Edinburgh on Wednesday to ask the Prime Minister to scrap the bedroom tax, and the Scottish Labour party is putting a Bill before the Scottish Parliament to stop evictions and provide funding to councils and housing associations for discretionary housing payments. Does the Minister accept that in the meantime, councils and housing associations are under huge pressure to raise rents because of the massive rent arrears resulting from the introduction of the bedroom tax?
Esther McVey
What I will say is that we are putting in place support for those housing associations and local authorities that are finding that they cannot come to terms with the issue, although they have had three years to do something and have failed to do so. I would like to talk about the 1.8 million people on housing waiting lists and the 250,000 people in overcrowded accommodation, whom nobody had looked after. We are looking after everybody and supporting them as best we can with discretionary housing payments.