Amendment of the Law

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I respect the hon. Gentleman and I am glad he asked me that, because it allows me to point out something that I was going to come to later. We have raised the thresholds on taxation. It is not surprising, therefore, that some of the insurance levels are low. I am proud of that. I am proud that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is also proud of the fact that we are raising the point at which people pay tax for the first time. The real reason behind all these facts and any other issues that the hon. Gentleman raises in this regard is the fact that the previous Government saw the economy go over the edge of a cliff, and we have been picking it up ever since. If the question is why it is not perfect yet, the answer is that we still have some way to go, but we are making progress and going in the right direction.

Through this Government’s employment programme we are ensuring a jobs recovery for all. I want to point out some of the figures: 2 million apprenticeship starts since the beginning of this Government; over 1 million claimant commitments signed—as people go in to sign on to jobseeker’s allowance, setting out and reinforcing people’s obligations; work experience for 250,000 young people; 60,000 start-up businesses through the new enterprise allowance; and the Work programme helping more long-term unemployed people back into work than any other programme before.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will come back to the hon. Gentleman. I want to make a little progress, as I know that others want to speak.

The Work programme is continually improving. Nearly 1.1 million people have spent time off benefits, 680,000 have got a job, 400,000 have found lasting work, and job outcomes after 12 months are nearly twice as high as with the early cohorts, including the new employment and support allowance claimants. Compared with the previous back-to-work programmes—the flexible new deal, for example—the Work programme has helped more than twice as many people into work in the first two years as the flexible new deal, with nearly three times as many people in jobs for six months. This is not just getting people into work but ensuring that they stay there—that is the critical element.

I will give way to the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) and then make some progress.

[Mr Cunningham]

The Secretary of State said that when the present Government took over, the economy was on a knife edge. I remember the previous Conservative Chancellor claiming credit when we were in power for the handling of the economy. More importantly, the Secretary of State has not mentioned the fact that recently the purchasing power of wages has dropped by 6%. Wages might have gone up by 2% in the private sector, but their overall purchasing power has dropped by 6%.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am a little bit lost. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that the previous Prime Minister was claiming credit when he was Chancellor in the previous—[Interruption.] If he is referring to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), it is difficult for the previous Labour Government to claim credit when their Chief Secretary left a letter on the desk saying, “There’s no money left.” If the hon. Gentleman wants to claim credit for that, I will certainly allow him to intervene.

While the Budget proposed new measures to boost growth and support private sector job creation, in turn increasing employment, the Opposition’s only alternative, the jobs guarantee, it now turns out, is more like a no-jobs guarantee—a make-work scheme that the Institute of Directors has said is

“not the source of sustainable jobs”.

It is the kind of scheme that, for the past 20 years, the OECD has demonstrated is expensive and counter-productive in the long term. It says that large deadweight losses, displacement and substitution effects are of little success in helping unemployed people to get permanent jobs in the open labour market. We got rid of the Opposition’s last scheme, which did not work, and this one will fare no better. Labour’s flagship programme is just a rehash of the failed make-work schemes that seem to be its solution almost every time.

The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) made this comment about Jobs Growth Wales:

“I went to see a scheme very similar to this in Wales last week and...that’s what we would aim to do across the UK”.

If that is what she thinks she is going to do, let us deal with what Jobs Growth Wales actually produces. It has been revealed to be an expensive exercise in cherry-picking the best-quality people who want to go back to work. Far from being a guarantee for all, which I understood was her policy, the hardest to help are not eligible for the programme, and only one in three applicants has got a place on it. A success rate of 80%, at a cost of £6,000 per place, is trumpeted, yet that compares with the 90% success rate of all—not some of—the eligible people in Wales who apply, who move off jobseeker’s allowance within nine months anyway. The reality is that this programme, on top of already successful programmes getting people into work, is less successful than the programme that it seeks to replace. Apparently, this is the programme that the Opposition want to copy and turn into a national programme in government, and it is all a rehash of the future jobs fund.

In the public sector, this Government have achieved the same success as the future jobs fund achieved through work experience in the private sector, but—here is the key—at a twentieth of the cost of what it cost Labour to provide jobs in the public sector. That is the problem with this make-work scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

We introduced a cap on charges for stakeholder pensions and the automatic enrolment brought in policies for which Labour had already legislated. We are proud of automatic enrolment, but we disagree with the changes that this Government introduced, which mean fewer people are benefiting from automatic enrolment —1.5 million fewer, two thirds of them women. That is a real lost opportunity to ensure that those people who should be saving are actually saving.

What this Secretary of State and the Government he speaks for simply do not understand is that their failure to make work pay and to deliver a recovery that raises living standards for all is the root cause of their failure to control social security spending and balance the books as they promised. They have spent £25 billion more than they planned and their receipts from income tax and national insurance have, as has been pointed out, fallen short of forecasts by a staggering £97 billion over the life of this Parliament.

It is because of that failure that, in order to deliver his objective of a large surplus in the next Parliament, the Chancellor has now committed to even deeper spending cuts over the next three years than we have seen over the past five years. The Office for Budget Responsibility confirms that these plans will mean

“a much sharper squeeze on real spending in 2016-17 and 2017-18 than anything seen over the past five years”,

and

“a sharp acceleration in the pace of implied real cuts to day-to-day spending on public services”.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls)and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) have highlighted the threat this poses to police, defence and social care. Is it not the truth that the Chancellor’s extreme fiscal plan can be delivered only by putting our NHS at risk or imposing yet another Tory rise in VAT? Although it is hard to see how this Government can make the extra £12 billion-worth of cuts to social security spending when they have failed to deliver any savings in social security so far, these cuts could not be delivered without inflicting unimaginable hardship on low-paid workers, children in poverty, disabled people or carers.

So for this Government, this empty Budget will be a fitting epitaph. What of this Secretary of State who wanted to take his place in history as the compassionate Conservative who reformed welfare? His time is up and his record is clear: major reforms undelivered or descending into costly chaos; food banks in every town and child poverty back on the rise; more and more spending on in-work benefits as more and more working people find their wages do not cover the rent. No wonder the OBR says that the Government are guilty of “optimism bias”.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

One important factor in looking at low pay, child poverty and similar issues is that many people’s employment rights are eroded. We need only to look at City Link in Coventry to see that more than 1,000 people could not even get any redundancy pay because of the erosion of employment laws under this Government. That only adds to the poverty.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Of course, this Government have made it harder for people to access justice, too, through the cuts they have made there.

We have had five years of Tory welfare waste—and it is high time we put it behind us. The Secretary of State wanted universal credit to be his legacy, but it is being paid to less than 4% of those who were supposed to be receiving it a year ago. Instead, this Secretary of State will be remembered for the hundreds of thousands of disabled people hit by the bedroom tax; for the 1 million people forced to resort to a food bank to feed their families last year; for the 3 million low-paid working families who have been hit by this Government’s cuts to tax credits. We cannot afford another five years of this Tory Government.

This could have been a Budget to make work pay, with a plan to raise the national minimum wage to £8 an hour and measures to promote and incentivise the living wage. This could have been a Budget for mums and dads who want to work and earn more, with 25 hours a week of free child care for all working parents of three and four-year-olds and guaranteed wrap-around care for those with children at primary school. This could have been a Budget that gave relief to working families on low incomes, by scrapping the ill-conceived and unfair married couples tax allowance and using the money to introduce a 10p starting rate of income tax instead. This could have been a Budget to create more of the productive, well-paid jobs we need by backing entrepreneurs, small businesses and the growth industries of the future, with a cut to business rates, a proper British investment bank, and new powers devolved to every city and county region across the country.

This could have been a Budget to secure our NHS for the future, with a tax on properties worth more than £2 million to pay for the thousands more doctors, nurses, midwives and home care workers that our health service desperately needs. This could have been a Budget that began to right the wrongs of the past five years, by tackling the tax loopholes and reversing the tax giveaways that have benefited a few and by cancelling the cruel and unfair bedroom tax that is hitting disabled people so hard. All that is not just the Budget that this could have been; it is the Labour Budget that we can have and the Labour Budget that we will have if we elect a Labour Government in just 45 days’ time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Campbell]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker.

What have we got? We have the pension provisions. Okay, that is those people’s money and I suppose they are entitled to it, but I can tell Members what happened a few years ago when the miners were given the chance to pull their pensions out of the national mineworkers’ pension fund. I was chairman of the local branch at the time, not an MP, and I remember the spivs coming in big style. We had nothing to do with them, but they had meetings in social clubs and pubs and brought all the lads in. The Major Government said at the time that people could take their pension then as long as they got a better deal, the lads thought that they were getting a better deal and, of course, the spivs and speculators all came in. The lads all gave up their pension, saying that they were going to get a better deal, but within a year to 18 months they had to come back into the pension scheme.

That was a scandal waiting to happen, because there was no advice at all. The miners were finished—it was after the miners’ strike—and we told them to keep their pension where it was, but of course the spivs were telling them how wonderful their options were.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

I remember exactly what my hon. Friend is talking about. Under the Thatcher Government, people were encouraged to come out of the state earnings-related pension scheme and to go into private pension schemes. I remember Rolls-Royce spending a lot of money encouraging people to do that, and look at how that ended up.

[Mr Campbell]

It nearly ended up in a scandal. The Government opened up the mineworkers’ pension scheme again so that people could bring their money out of the schemes they had been conned into joining. A lot of miners lost a lot of money, so the warning is there. As has been mentioned in many speeches today, the Government must be very careful that they do not fool the people.

I want to mention the national health service, because 65% of new contracts in the NHS have gone to private companies. I do not know what will happen if the Tories are elected at the next election, but I can tell Members one thing: in five years 65% of contracts in the NHS have become private and that is a disaster waiting to happen. I think that the Tories are waiting for 100% private contracts in the national health service, so that it is totally privatised. The Labour party is prepared to put in at least 5,000 more doctors and 20,000 more nurses, and I hope that that is a reality and that we can afford to pay for it.

I have to mention the banks, as they cost the taxpayers of this country a lot of money over five years. It is time that we started taking a lot more money off the banks than we are taking now. They owe the taxpayers of this country big time and we should increase the levy and say that they should pay the money back. We should not have bailed them out in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The Government parties are trying to brainwash us into thinking they have an economic plan, when in actual fact it is an economic puzzle, given some of the measures announced.

The Government have to be challenged over their allegation that the Labour Government created the economic situation in 2010. I think the Conservatives have forgotten that in opposition they said they would match our Budget pound for pound—in fact, they said we were not spending enough. That does not suggest any economic foresight on the part of the Chancellor when he was shadow Chancellor. Moreover, the previous Governor of the Bank of England, who was an adviser to the then Chancellor and Prime Minister, said it was not the Labour Government’s fault. It actually started in America with Fannie Mae and Lehman Brothers—the bankers—and the housing crash. In other words, the Government have become apologists for the bankers, rather than holding them to account for what they did to this country and the international community in 2008.

We should also remind the Government that we kept interest rates down to help young people, in particular, deal with negative equity. We introduced the quantitative easing that the Government are still carrying out today and persuaded George Bush—funnily enough, a Conservative American President—to pump more than $200 billion into the American economy, and when Obama came in a month later, he saved the motor car industry, which helped this country. If we had not bailed out the banks, some Ministers would be losing not just their houses but their pensions. We bailed out the banks partly because we knew that otherwise the ordinary person—the pensioner, the saver, the young person saving for a mortgage—would have gone under, but it also helped to rejuvenate industry.

As far as we know, the Chancellor needs to make another £30 billion of cuts, but we do not know if that means more cuts to the police. We know there will be benefits cuts, but we do not know where they will come from, and defence cuts, but we do not know whether there will be further cuts to the NHS. I am not scaremongering. Unless the Government tell us exactly where the cuts will be, it will be open to speculation. They have emasculated local government financially—is local government facing further cuts? Is that part of the plan? In Coventry, at least 1,000 jobs will go over the next three years, and the city council has to find £75 million in cuts, which will affect basic services. Today I attended a school where children were trying to save their local library. The council has granted a reprieve, but there is another area where the council might find itself in difficulty—care in the community. There has been bed blocking at the university hospital in Coventry because we do not have enough social workers to discharge people back into their own homes. Labour will certainly put that right.

People in the public sector have not been appreciated and have had their wage increases held at 1% for the last three or four years. The Government can say what they like about wages rising by about 2%, but purchasing power has dropped by 6%. They say we are back to 2010 wage levels—well, that is one heck of a cut over the past four or five years. We have also had cuts to the legal aid budget, meaning that people cannot get social justice. We have 1.6 million people on low-wage zero-hours contracts, yet the Government have the effrontery to hand back £6 billion in tax cuts to their friends. The Chancellor proposes to cut £12 billion by reducing welfare spending and £13 billion by reducing departmental spending. Where is this coming from? Only £2 billion of cuts have been announced, so where might these cuts come from? I have already indicated some areas where they might fall.

The NHS is due to have increased funding in line with Simon Stevens’s proposals, which the Government are supposed to be in favour of. Similarly, the education budget is supposed to be protected, as is overseas development assistance. As I just mentioned, the Government have promised £6 billion in personal tax cuts, without bothering to inform us how they will be costed. We should also consider the NATO commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence, which the Prime Minister recently advocated. If they do not achieve this, will we see more cuts and job losses in the defence industry? The Government have also promised to ring fence universal benefits and the state pension triple lock. So it comes down to this: where do they plan to make the cuts and why will they not open up and tell us?

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is right. When we came into office there was an open door policy—people could come in, be unemployed and claim benefits immediately. They could claim housing benefit. Since we have been in office, we have stopped people claiming housing benefit. They must be resident for three months before they can claim jobseeker’s allowance, and after three months, if they do not have a job or the prospect of a job, they will not be allowed to stay in this country. These changes introduced by this Government and the new ones on universal credit today mean that we are serious about this. Labour never was.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Has the Secretary of State seen the Citizens Advice report which shows that many ESA claimants are left with no money and are reliant on food banks after being told that they are too fit to claim ESA and not fit enough to claim JSA? Most have had to wait up to 10 weeks for a decision. Will the Minister look into this?

[Mr Harper]

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to mandatory reconsideration when somebody is found fit for work, he will know that the average length of time taken to decide one of those is 13 days, not 13 weeks. He will also know that if someone is found fit for work, they are able to claim jobseeker’s allowance and they will receive support from the jobcentre to help them get back into work.

Mental Health and Unemployment

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

May I say what a privilege it is to follow the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow)? This debate is important and it sends a message that, again, this Chamber is discussing mental health. I have said, and I will say it time and again, that the more we talk about mental health, the better. Talking about mental health on the Floor of this main Chamber sends a clear message that this House—Members from all parts of it—is taking mental health seriously.

Clearly, work is central to most people’s lives. Mountains of research suggest that the right type of work is good and positive for somebody’s mental health. In this debate, I want to focus on three main areas. The first is mental illness and the benefit system—we cannot talk about unemployment without mentioning the benefit system. The second is how we manage long-term mental health problems in the community. Realistically, there are individuals who will not be able to work or hold down full-time jobs, so we need mechanisms by which we can support them in the community. The third area, which is related to unemployment, is how mental health is dealt with in the modern workplace in the UK.

Many people may ask: why is mental health in the workplace important? Well, to coin a phrase from Bill Clinton, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Bad mental health is bad for the UK economy. The UK report on mental health in the workplace, commissioned in February 2014, estimated that it cost the UK economy some £70 billion a year—4.5% of GDP. In the current economic climate, a reduction in that figure, which was drawn up using Department for Work and Pensions data and OECD and Eurostat labour market figures, would be welcomed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is also another important issue here, which is that it is good for the individual. In a decent modern society, we should ensure that people’s mental health is not harmed by the work that they do. We must remember that it is not just the individual who is harmed, but the families as well.

The right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam talked about the number of individuals who are on employment and support allowance, some 46% of whom have mental health problems. We have heard the rhetoric over the past few years about trying to be tough on welfare claimants and about getting people off benefits. No doubt we will hear more of that in the run-up to the general election. But I am not sure that such rhetoric helps the people with mental health problems who are claiming benefits.

The evidence is clear that the work capability test has been a complete disaster for people who have mental health conditions. It has also been a complete financial disaster for the Government. It does not work for the people it is supposed to support and it does not help the taxpayer.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentions the situation in the workplace with regard to mental health. I was very interested in what the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) said about the Health and Safety Executive enlarging its role in this area. What does my hon. Friend think about that? Does he think that it could play a role?

[Mr Jones]

I do, yes. There seems to be this feeling that business should be afraid of the Health and Safety Executive. I know from my previous life that it is good not just at dealing with stress but at driving up standards and productivity in the workplace. It ensures that the working environment is safe, so, yes, there is an opportunity there.

Like other Members, I have seen in my constituency the merry-go-round system of the work capability test. It goes a bit like this: a person is assessed by Atos, by people who have no mental health training whatever; he or she fails a fit-for-work test and is then put in a work-related group; he or she then appeals that decision and has their benefits reinstated. Then, ludicrously, within a matter of months, that person gets recalled to Atos, and they are on that merry-go-round again. That is not only bad for the individual but a complete waste of taxpayers’ money, as there is the cost not just of the assessments but of the appeals. The appeals system has been overloaded with people and has had to employ more staff, and that is not an efficient way of dealing with these individuals.

Charities in the north-east, such as Mental Health North East, have explained this expensive merry-go- round and have done very good reports on the numbers. Hundreds of people in the north-east of England are on the merry-go-round system, which has a tragic effect not only on the individuals but on their families. In some cases, it puts back people’s mental health rather than improving it. We should not shy away from the fact that there have been some cases nationally in which, because of the Atos system, people have taken their own lives. No Government should be proud of that.

People are under pressure, not just from the work capability test but from the economic downturn. Statistics came out last month that showed that the number of suicides now, at just over 6,000, is higher than it was two and three years ago. Surprisingly enough, the north-east of England is the region with the highest number of people—young men, mainly—committing suicide. I find it very uncomfortable that in 2015 we have a system that puts these pressures on individuals and that the major killer for men aged 20 to 34 is suicide. We need to address that, not just because it is the right thing to do but because of the economic case. That is 6,000 people who are not making a contribution to the economy of this country. We should also remember that 6,000 families will be hugely affected by the loss of a loved one. Each one is a personal tragedy and each one, like a ripple, has an effect on an entire community. It is important that we address the issue because we cannot have avoidable deaths going unchecked. Whatever happens after May, dealing with suicide and mental illness must be taken forward on a cross-party basis.

As for the Government’s response to the Atos merry-go-round, the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) is right that after four years they have finally worked out that it is not an effective way of dealing with people with mental illness on benefits and have put in place pilot schemes that go broadly in the right direction. However, like the right hon. Gentleman, I want to ask the Minister what the time scale is for rolling them out across the country. I am also of the opinion that we need to take people who have mental health issues out of the system. I do not argue for one minute that they should not be assessed at all, but putting them through the Atos system is not the way to do it. If we can ensure that they get the individual help and care that they need, that will not only help them return to work or gain access to work but save the taxpayer a great deal of money.

Compulsory Jobs Guarantee

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

Very few households choose to be workless. Indeed, very few—[Interruption.] I understand that the hon. Gentleman was not saying that. It is an issue not just of role models, but of opportunities. It is welcome that more people are in paid employment, but today’s debate is about that vulnerable minority who are scarred by long-term unemployment.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

One thing we should remember is that the Labour Government helped one-parent families through Sure Start, whose schemes allowed trapped housewives on council estates to get back into work if they wanted it.

[Kate Green]

I am extremely proud of the fact that, under Labour, lone parent employment rose from 44% in 1997 to nearly 60% by the time we left office.

An interesting debate opened up this afternoon about the proper role of Government in relation to long-term unemployment. One argument was expressed very well in a thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), who suggested that the role of Government was only to create the conditions for business to thrive and to make employment available. That is the real philosophical divide between Opposition and Government Members. We believe that it is the role of Government proactively to intervene as a backstop to tackle entrenched long-term unemployment. We believe that programmes that have attempted to do that—for example, the future jobs fund and Jobs Growth Wales—prove that such programmes, in those terms, are effective.

Those programmes were much criticised today by the Secretary of State, but they have been cost-effective and have created real jobs with real pay for those who participated. That, fundamentally, is what young people want.

Our compulsory jobs guarantee will be a quality offer for long-term unemployed people. It will be paid at least at the national minimum wage. It will guarantee work for at least six months. We expect, drawing on our experience of other programmes, that many of those jobs will turn into permanent jobs. It will consist also of support, to ensure that training and the opportunity to develop one’s career are embedded as part of the programme. Contrast those conditions with work experience which, of course, is important, but which fulfils a different function. I do not think it is appropriate to expect anyone, even our young people, to work for three months without proper pay, because at that point they must be doing a proper job.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who is not in his place, made an important point about our compulsory jobs guarantee—the fact that it is founded on the concept of mutual obligation. For those who are out of work, we will make sure that after a period of one year for the under-25s or two years for the over-25s it will be our role to take the responsibility to guarantee them employment, and in return that individual will be expected to take up the opportunity that is offered.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), who made a very useful speech in many respects, seemed to think that the sort of conditionality that we propose in our compulsory jobs guarantee programme was not appropriate. I am entirely with her in the appropriate and careful use of sanctions—which I do not think we are seeing under the present Government—but I do not see what the problem is with having conditions for support which our compulsory jobs guarantee will offer, and it is right that they should be contained in the programme.

There was an important and interesting debate about engaging the private sector in our programme. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham pointed out in opening the debate, we have seen successful engagement of the private sector, particularly of the small and medium-sized enterprise sector, in Jobs Growth Wales. One criticism that many Government Members levelled at the future jobs fund was that it had not engaged with private sector employers. I readily accept that the programme was brought in as an emergency in response to a significant employment and financial crisis, and at that time the most straightforward way to do so was through the medium of the voluntary and the public sectors. But there is no reason at all why that could not have evolved to encompass private sector employers, and indeed those private sector employers who did participate, such as Jaguar, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, found it a very positive programme, as did those who went through it.

We heard some useful contributions from, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), about the importance of accompanying jobs programmes with investment in education, skills and vocational training. As the hon. Member for Stroud said, it is right that certain industry sectors struggle to recruit suitably qualified and appropriately skilled workers. That is why I so deplore some of the reforms that we have seen to the education system under this Government, which so erode the value of vocational education and training. Although Government Members like to tell us often about the growth in apprenticeships under this Government, young people aged 16 to 19 have not seen a growth in opportunities to take up apprenticeships. What is more, those apprenticeships too often take young people to only a level 2 qualification, and we know that many employers consider a level 2 qualification insufficient for someone to make a meaningful start in the kind of jobs that the hon. Gentleman rightly talks of.

Finally, let me address the concerns that were raised by a number of Government Members about whether our programme is fully funded and costed. May I take the opportunity to assure them that it is? It will be funded by the bankers’ bonus tax—[Interruption.] Not again, as the Minister says. This will be the only purpose to which an incoming Labour Government will put the funds raised by this one-off repeat of the bonus tax. When the Minister for Disabled People is sitting on the Opposition Benches after 7 May, I invite him to hold us to that commitment, because this is one that I confidently give on behalf of my party.

We also think it is right to impose further restrictions on pensions tax relief for the very highest earners. I can see no objection to those with the broadest shoulders bearing more of the burden of funding so that some of our young people have the chance of employment, and that is what we will do.

Many people lost out after the global economic crash and in the three years after the general election, when the economy hardly grew under this Government. Even now, as Ministers point to improving levels of employment, long-term and youth unemployment remain a scourge on our economy. Labour’s compulsory jobs guarantee is the key policy to change that, and the sooner we have a Labour Government ready to introduce it, the better.

Housing Benefit (Abolition of Social Sector Size Criteria)

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue). She is well respected as a knowledgeable expert on these issues. She said that the under-occupancy penalty is cruel and described the mindset of those who would introduce such a policy. Presumably, that is the same mindset that introduced this policy into the private rented sector and reinforced it. My record on this issue can be seen on a number of occasions, including on the Affordable Homes Bill, which received a 75-vote majority in this House on 5 September. My opposition to the under-occupancy penalty has been consistent throughout, including during the previous Labour Government.

It is not the fault of those who are in housing need that successive Governments have failed to build enough homes of the right size, and they should not be made to pay the penalty for that. It would be nonsense to move disabled people from homes that have been converted, often expensively at taxpayers’ expense, only to have to do it all over again in another property. It is rare in my constituency, and I know in many others, to find a suitable alternative home within 20 or 30 miles. It is wrong that people who have a settled life in a local community should have to uproot themselves from their social and family, and other supportive, connections to meet the requirement of this unacceptable policy.

The fundamental moral point is that the poor are just as entitled to a stable family home as the better off. There are many circumstances where apparent under- occupancy is for a good reason: the visiting carer; the young nest returner coming back to a family home—something that middle-class people expect to offer to their younger people—after perhaps not getting on in life as they anticipated; and those who provide shared care. We should be encouraging housing associations and other social housing providers to build larger homes. When I worked in this sector, I always sought to ensure that social housing providers had some flexibility. Having larger homes provided flexibility in the management of their estate. This policy drives them in the opposite direction. I fear there is also a sinister agenda to create an environment in which poor families will ultimately turn on their poor neighbours and blame them if they are living in overcrowded accommodation, rather than looking further afield to find the real culprit.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

What happened to the hon. Gentleman’s private Member’s Bill? How was it stopped? He mentioned poorer families. What is the actual cost? Is it costing £15 or £25 a week for those families who have to move?

[Andrew George]

It is already on record as 14% and 25%, depending on the number of rooms. I am concerned about the trading of statistics in the debate so far. I have to say that they are far away, and wildly so, from many of the statistics I have scrutinised when looking at the impact of the policy. They need to be traded in a calmer environment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

I will indeed meet the hon. Gentleman to talk about that case. However, that is why the Secretary of State is leading the way in bringing in universal credit so that we do not have all those discrepancies in the system, with points and differentials and things that are preventing people who want to return to work from doing so. The Government should be supporting them, and that is what we are doing.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

2. If he will make it his policy to pay employment and support allowance during the period of mandatory reconsideration.

[The Minister for Disabled People (Mr Mark Harper)]

I am afraid that I am going to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. We are not going to change our policy in that way. When someone is found fit for work, they should claim jobseeker’s allowance and work with Jobcentre Plus to get back into the work force.

[Mr Cunningham]

I think that the Work and Pensions Committee has also termed the policy illogical, but does the Minister not realise that, by virtue of the fact that he is not prepared to change it, he is driving more and more people into hardship and that they, in turn, are having to use food banks? The Government must hold some sort of record on food banks, because under this Government their use is the only thing that is increasing.

[Mr Harper]

That was not the sort of question I normally expect from the hon. Gentleman. If someone is found fit for work, they should immediately apply for jobseeker’s allowance, which is paid at the same rate as the assessment rate of employment and support allowance, so there is no change in their income. They should then engage with their Jobcentre Plus contact so that they can be moved into work. That is the right way for someone to behave when they have been found fit for work, and there is no reason at all why their income should fall.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey)]

Many of us were on the high street celebrating small business Saturday and helping our local businesses, but of course this Government are doing even more to help them to take on more people. Whether through implementing a £2,000 cut in their national insurance bills, extending the business rate relief or putting £10 billion of financing into the British business bank, we have done a great deal to help our small businesses, which are the backbone of this country.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

T6. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is sending letters to taxpayers detailing how their tax revenues are being allocated. This is being done in the name of transparency, but will the Minister tell his colleagues in the Treasury that teachers’ pensions are not welfare?

[The Minister for Pensions (Steve Webb)]

As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, the letters are sent by HMRC on behalf of the Treasury, and he is welcome to address his concern to our colleagues there. However, we clearly appreciate that there is a distinction between social security benefits and pensions paid to public servants in retirement.

Personal Independence Payments

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Clarke]

I know why my hon. Friend feels so passionate, and the experience that he has shared with us is reflected in the views expressed in the report that I am asking the House to consider.

Another example I can give is of an individual who has serious health issues and who last year was diagnosed with throat cancer. He has been waiting for an appointment with Atos to be assessed for PIP. Due to the length of time that his processing is taking, he is now in a great deal of financial difficulty, with rent and council tax arrears of almost £2,600, despite his wife working full-time.

As we all know, PIP is an important passport to many other benefits, such as carer’s allowance, disability premiums, the mobility scheme, concessionary travel schemes, etc. It is indeed a lifeline for people who could not afford to leave the house otherwise and it is a vital part of their personal finances. It cannot be right that many of them face ruin and destitution while they are waiting for their claim to be processed.

This extreme financial hardship has caused a number of individuals to rely on handouts from friends and food banks, and on the accumulation of debt to an unsustainable degree. I know of an individual who has been waiting for an assessment since November 2013, but now his income has been so reduced that he cannot travel to appointments; if he pays for transport, he cannot top up his electricity meter. He has post-traumatic stress disorder and his current situation is resulting in his becoming more withdrawn and reluctant to request help. His mental health is deteriorating as a result. He has worked his entire life and in his 50s is a first-time claimant.

In Coatbridge, which is in my constituency, on 1 April there were 82 PIP applications for daily living claims and 160 mobility claims. I checked with Coatbridge CAB this morning and discovered that all these claims are lying in the in-tray of Atos or DWP and not being brought to a conclusion. I also clarified the position of the CAB in Bellshill, which is also in my constituency. It is handling a PIP claim that has been pending for 10 months.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) tells me that there are similar problems in his city, and on that point I will give way.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and I congratulate him on securing a welcome and—in many ways—a well-timed debate. He has just described what we are experiencing in Coventry, including sloppy paperwork and long delays in receiving benefits, especially the earnings supplement, which is claimed by 25% of the claimants in Coventry. CAB time is taken up with that.

We see the same if we look at matters nationally. About 75,000 people are affected nationally, so what is happening in Scotland is also happening in Coventry and the rest of England. I do not want to repeat what my hon. Friend has said. Despite that, we should congratulate the city of Coventry, because it is trying to get on top of what is, quite frankly, an overwhelming problem. This whole facility—the entire benefits system—must be looked at now, because it seems to be a shambles.

[Mr Clarke]

I am glad that my hon. Friend intervened to underline my assertion that problems exist throughout the whole United Kingdom.

The truth is that the picture is depressing, and it is not as if the Department for Work and Pensions has not been warned. The National Audit Office, which published a report in February 2014 entitled “Personal Independence Payment: early progress”, investigated the performance of the DWP as it introduced PIP. It found that

“the Department did not allow enough time to test whether the assessment process could handle large numbers of claims. As a result of this poor early operational performance, claimants face long and uncertain delays and the Department has had to delay the wider roll-out of the programme.”

The Department anticipated that it would take 74 days to decide on a claim, but the actual average wait is 107 days. For terminally ill claimants—I underline “terminally ill”—the process was taking 28 days on average against a departmental assumption of 10 days. That represents a wholly unrealistic assumption of the capacities of both the Department for Work and Pensions and Atos in Scotland. The end result is a system that would not work on paper, clearly does not work in practice and is further straining claimants’ finances and health.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said in response to the NAO report:

“The Department need to understand the causes of this backlog to develop a clear plan on how they are going to work with contractors to clear it, and ensure there are suitable processes in place to make sure this does not happen again.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

Okay. On other passporting issues, blue badges can be issued without PIP being in payment, so if someone is not getting PIP, it does not mean that they cannot get a blue badge. NHS help with travel expenses and prescriptions is based on the receipt of income-related benefits. Local authorities are able to provide social care or help with adaptations on the basis of their assessments, and they should not exclude people just because they are not entitled to the personal independence payment.

In the couple of minutes remaining, I shall say a little more about claims relating to those who are terminally ill. In addition to the things that I have mentioned, we have put in place a dedicated phone service for such claims, as well as an electronic form so that the medical information we require from GPs and consultants can get to the Department as quickly as possible. As I said, we are now achieving the performance that we would want from the Department, so we have made progress in that area.

I understand the frustrations that people have experienced. There have been cases in my constituency of people waiting too long. I have been frank about that, and my top priority is to improve that situation. We are making progress and moving in the right direction, and we will hit the Secretary of State’s commitment by the end of the year—I give the right hon. Gentleman my assurance about that. I have clearly set out that we are spending more money on supporting those on DLA and PIP in every year of this Parliament compared with the year we came to office. It is not the case that we are dealing with the deficit off the backs of disabled people, and I want to ensure that the customer experience is improved.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about an independent review. He will know that Paul Gray has been appointed to carry out the first independent review. He has taken evidence from a range of people involved in this benefit. He is due to provide his report, which the Department will publish, by the end of the year. It will set out, according to his terms of reference, information about the quality of assessments, how the providers are performing and whether the assessments are correctly putting people into the right categories.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Harper]

So long as the hon. Gentleman is very quick, as we have 35 seconds left.

[Mr Cunningham]

I will be as quick as I can. On the 75,000 claims waiting to be assessed, what progress has been made in England? The Minister has talked about Scotland, but what about England, where there are similar problems?

[Mr Harper]

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman represents an English constituency, as I do. We are making progress in England. By focusing on Scotland, I was not trying to say that that is the only place where we are making progress, as we are making progress across Great Britain. I was simply making the point to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill that the performance in Scotland is better than it is elsewhere in Great Britain, and I hope that what I have said will reassure constituents.

Affordable Homes Bill

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Friday 5th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George]

There is nothing on this issue that I have withheld from the public domain. Indeed, I have already said to the House that in its original form the Bill contained a wider range of measures, particularly in the clauses that I have mentioned, and I had a number of other proposals that I wanted to discuss with Members. The whole purpose of the Committee stage of a Bill is to consider whether there is further evidence that might advance the case. This is, in any case, a developing area of policy, and it develops on the basis of the evidence. I have long had a deep concern about it, and all I seek to do is ensure that the Government get it right.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

rose—

[Andrew George]

I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) and then to the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown).

[Mr Cunningham]

The hon. Gentleman has been consistent on the subject of this Bill—let us be quite clear about that. Does he agree that the Government’s measures placed a burden on the needy and disabled in this country, and the chickens are now coming home to roost for the Government?

[Andrew George]

I assume that that remark is directed at those who sit on the Front Bench today.

I want to make a further point about the evidence from the interim evaluation. It is clear that total rent arrears held by landlords increased by 14% in the first six months, and the National Housing Federation says that two thirds—67%—of affected tenants are finding it difficult to afford to pay the rent, compared with less than a third of non-affected tenants. Affected tenants are four times more likely to say that they need to borrow money and therefore go into further debt than they were before 1 April 2013, when the measures were introduced. The evidence that is now available helps us, and I certainly hope that it helps the Government, to consider how best to respond to the issue. That is why I strongly urge all Members of the House to support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Universal Credit

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The previous Conservative Government had form in this area, particularly in relation to benefits, although my hon. Friend probably was not in the House at the time. We heard a lot of ballyhoo about the horizon project, but at the end of the day it cost billions to put right. Again, it was the people on benefits who suffered as a result. The Conservatives have form. They come up with all sorts of excuses over the years, and claim to be compassionate. They are not. We have only to look at people with disabilities, who still have to go through medical tests.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. No, I was not in the House at that time. We recognise that we did not get everything right either—I am sure there will be an intervention about that—but this Government and this Secretary of State are now in power. It is their programme that we are scrutinising and it is a categorical failure. It is a mess. I have spoken about the waste of money. The Major Projects Authority said that there have been so many changes to universal credit that it cannot be seen as the same project: it must be seen as a new project.

As I said last week, and as was mentioned also by the Chair of the Select Committee, we started off with four pathfinders, including one in my constituency, Oldham. Those were announced in 2011 and were meant to be followed by a national roll-out in October 2013. On the day that the Secretary of State was supposed to provide evidence to the Select Committee, we learned that there was not to be a roll-out. Again, he was very indignant that we were questioning him about that. It was appalling arrogance.

As we have heard, there are supposed to be 7.7 million people on universal credit when it is fully implemented. Currently about 6,000 people are on it. The Secretary of State thought it was highly amusing when I asked him last week how long it would take at the present rate for 1 million people to be on UC. It is a matter of simple maths. Perhaps he, like the Chancellor, has problems with that. The answer is 2091. The Secretary of State did not like answering that.

Last September the National Audit Office reported IT problems that the Government had known about for 18 months but had failed to tell us about. That is deceptive and dishonourable. Some £40 million spent on software has had to be written off and a further £91 million written down. Good money is being poured after bad as the Government continue to spend £37 million to £38 million on the old IT system, while at the same time spending extensive sums on an end-state solution or, as it is now called, enhanced digital—whatever.

In addition to saying that it was now treating universal credit as a new project, the MPA, together with the NAO, reported its concerns on significant issues of governance, transparency, financial controls over supplier spending, and ineffective departmental oversight. It could not get worse. How is the Secretary of State still in his job? In any other profession, he would have gone. Why is he still there?

We supported and still support the principles of a simplified benefits system and one that makes work pay, but whether that will happen is questionable. There is real concern that the aim of making work pay will not be achieved. Recent evidence has shown that by 2018 cuts to the basic and work allowances will mean that universal credit is £685 a year less generous for a lone parent with two children, saving the Government £1.7 billion a year. There are also concerns that UC will weaken the incentive for second earners in couples to work. One in five children in poverty now lives with a single-earner couple. Ensuring that more second earners, principally women, are able to take up employment will be critical to reducing child poverty rates. Finally, the decision to leave council tax support out of universal credit means that the aim of simplicity is being undermined, with many claimants facing two rates of benefit withdrawal when they move into work or when their income increases.

The introduction of universal credit has been a car crash—a demonstration of how not to implement policy and of how the policy intention of making work pay is failing. This Government and this Secretary of State are failing to reform our welfare system. Of course, we need to make sure that welfare spending is not profligate, but in reforming our welfare system so that it is fit for the 21st century, we must remember why we developed our model of social welfare, retaining its principles of inclusion, support and security for all, protecting any one of us should we fall on hard times or become sick or disabled. It is a hand-up, not a hand-out.

Fairness in Pension Provision

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

It is good to see you in your place, Mrs Riordan. You, too, have a great interest in pensions, in the fairness of the system and in applying that fairness.

Since I was a very young person, I have always accepted that pension provision is part of deferred income and should be treated by employers and Government as such. All my life, I have believed that fairness should be applied to the whole question of pensions. At the bottom of this debate in many respects, however, is the unfairness in the application of the state pension scheme over a great number of years. I commend the Government for some of the changes to the scheme, making it much simpler than it was, but there is still a long way to go in terms of how we see the future for some elements of the situation. I will cover that later.

I come before the Chamber mainly because of the many constituents who came to see me to complain about the system. None of the three I will mention is after anything for themselves. They all accept that they are at an age when nothing further can be done for them, but by making themselves available to public scrutiny they want to help and protect those who follow to have a more level playing field.

I want to talk first about Ann Aitken, a constituent of mine for some time. She, as well as the other two, has worked since she was 15. She worked for ICI locally in various jobs, and then went to a knitwear company. She took five years off employment to bring up her first child and afterwards worked in shops and factories, before going to a local computer company, Fullerton Fabrication. Since then, she has worked in Crown Paints for some 22 years. She retires this Thursday, so I congratulate her.

Ann wants to bring to the attention of the House what she sees as an anomaly. Over that whole period, she never put her hand out for any form of Government assistance, other than the credits available for the times off she took. That would be in connection with the additional state pension. She is a friendly person and, from talking to her friends, has discovered that her additional state pension is less than that of someone who has never worked. She receives something like £16.22 for the additional state pension, while others she knows receive £21. Although she took five years off, she got no tax credits, because no such thing existed, yet she is now facing the penalty. She has a simple question: what reward was there for her working? What reward has she had for all the years that she has given? She hopes that her situation will not be repeated in future. That is what Ann is concerned about and why she has raised the issue with me.

The second person I want to talk about is Jean Dickson, another constituent who has come to me about her position. She worked from the age of 15, for all her days. Sadly, she lost her husband in 1998, and was grateful for the widow’s pension she received as a consequence, but she has worked all her days, even taking five years out to improve her educational standards. Latterly, she was employed as a nurse in an acute surgical area of the hospital. She, too, says, “Look, I have a state pension, and I am very grateful for it”, and it will be £566 per month. In addition, because of the occupational pension, she is receiving £240 per month before tax. As a result of her husband having a pension, she receives another £300 per year. As a consequence of the unfairness that I will cover in the latter stages of my presentation, she receives £166 per annum for the state earnings-related pension scheme, SERPS. In her last job, she paid 6.5% of her pay towards superannuation, so she still feels that there is injustice in her situation. She retired in October 2012, but is being penalised for working all her days, compared with those who perhaps were not.

The third case is that of Lawrence Clark, who came to see me and whose case particularly caught my imagination. He started working at the age of 15, similarly to people such as myself and my colleagues—he is of our age group. He started as a trainee accountant at Hyster, a local company, and went on to work for various companies, including Simpson Turner as a toolmaker. He moved on to Wilson Sporting Goods, another local company, where he worked for 25-odd years. He then worked for Digital, a local company that went bust, and for Scottish Golf Cast, which again lasted a few months. He ended up at the charity Quarriers for 15 years.

After that working life, he has managed to accrue £97 a month from his Wilson Sporting Goods occupational pension and £223 as a consequence of his work at Quarriers. In addition to that, on the basis of advice he received—another point I want to address in my conclusion—he paid towards a private pension that gives him something like £14 a month. From November 2015 he is going to receive a state pension of £123 a week. He is saying that, after 47 years, as a consequence of all that, as well as of being unemployed—if that is the right terminology for him—up until that point next November, he gets £60 a week for his pension credit guarantee, whereas others are apparently receiving £140. If he had not paid something like £30,000 into a superannuation scheme, he believes that he would currently be better off per week until he retires. That seems very unfair, and it should be looked at. He thinks that, had he not taken out a private pension or been involved in superannuation, he would have been better off. That is the unfairness that those three constituents believe they face.

I have outlined three cases in which there are problems with the pension provision directly, but we can also compare other aspects of the life they have lived with those of other people. Others have had free dentistry, free prescriptions for glasses, and housing benefit has been part of their scheme. The situation may have changed in Scotland now, but some people had to pay for their prescriptions all their lives. I am not saying for a minute that it is wrong that unemployed individuals are receiving these elements, but those three constituents say that perhaps more concern should be given to how they deal with the situation and how the Government deal with their problems.

On that basis, I want to broaden the argument. That is the difficulty for each of those individuals, but the position is more general too. The problem is that the great mass of people in this country do not have a clue, when they are aged 25, 35 or 55, about what provision they are making. They do not know what the result of their contributions will be for their pension. This issue has plagued me over the years, and it still does. Even here in the House, there are hundreds of Members of Parliament who do not have a clue what their pension provision is, and I say that as someone responsible for trying to educate them about that. It is clear that there must be a fundamental shift—information must be provided to every individual in this country to make them aware of the provision and advice available.

I commend the Government, because at the very least, and on the basis of all-party agreement, we now have financial advisers who are independent—in every sense of the word—in the advice they are giving. It used to be that financial advisers worked for companies on commission. The same individuals now charge for their services. That, at the very least, is a bit fairer, or gives the impression of being fairer.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I certainly remember the early ’80s when people were encouraged to take out a private pension, but unless they worked for a reputable company it was not explained how a private pension could sometimes affect the state pension. There must be thousands of people in that situation in this country. Whatever my views about the Government’s pension proposals, at least they will explain them to people. When I worked at Rolls-Royce, it spent a lot of money trying to persuade us away from the state pension to a private pension scheme and to some extent we got reasonable advice, but I can think of other car companies in the Coventry area where even today there are still problems with pensions.

[Mr Donohoe]

My hon. Friend has focused on an issue that was dear to my heart and about which I argued forcefully when a previous Administration allowed people to contract out of their company’s superannuation scheme. I was a joint secretary of the Scottish Transport Group when, for the first time in about 1982, people were given the opportunity of opting out of its pension fund and going private. I argued forcefully with everyone and anyone that that was a big mistake, that they were leaving themselves open and that when they eventually retired they would find themselves in a different situation. We had what was recognised at the time to be the best pension scheme—perhaps not as good as that for MPs, but certainly a very good pension scheme. Some people are now in a worse position because they were pounced on by supposedly independent financial advisers who told them that they would be far better off in a private scheme, when the truth was the exact opposite.

Many years ago, I was a convener and shop steward in a shipyard where the blue-collar workers were not in a pension scheme. I argued with the employer and succeeded in persuading them to introduce a scheme. That company is still in my constituency and I still have people telling me, some 40 years later, that it was the best thing that was ever done and that they have never been better off after taking advice and voting overwhelmingly to join that scheme. I do not know whether I am an anorak in terms of pensions, but I believe that making provision for a pension is more important than anything else in life. People should understand that, and do so earlier.

I seek clarification on one or two points, but I want to make a plea to the Minister. How widely defined are “employees” and “new arrangements”? Are the self- employed, carers and the unemployed included? They exclude zero-hours contracts and people who may have two part-time jobs. That is unfair and should be looked at.

I have grave reservations about the new scheme because people will be able to take out money and go on a world cruise or buy a Ferrari. That worries me. It will send the signal to many people who do not understand pensions that they can draw on that money, but at the end of the day they will be a lot worse off. I want an assurance that they will be protected. Financial advice is important, and that must be stated clearly.

A business man came to me and said that every business man in the UK received a letter from No. 10 Downing street telling them about the advantages of the latest Budget proposals on national insurance from 6 April. Will the Minister have a word with No. 10 Downing street to see to it that every single person in the country is sent a letter telling them how fundamental it is for them to look after their old age, and telling them that if they were to die in service, that would be looked at as far as their families are concerned? If I get that assurance, I will go back to my constituents and tell them that the debate has been worth while. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

My problem with what the Minister has said about zero-hours contracts is that surely a situation is possible in which someone falls below the threshold because there is not continuity of employment. That is a “suck it and see” situation. How would the Minister deal with that, 40 years down the road?

[Steve Webb]

A zero-hours contract is a contract. If someone has a contract of employment, in the weeks or months—whatever the period is—when they are above the earnings threshold, money goes into the pension. We will not insist on pension contributions being made in weeks when people do not earn any money. How would they put money in?

I think the zero-hours contract argument is greatly overdone, in the sense that the typical person on a zero-hours contract does 20 hours a week, on average. It may vary—when they earn a lot in a good week, they will put a lot into the pension; when they earn less, in a bad week, less will go in. As long as they get work through the contract they will be in a pension, possibly for the first time. I think that many people on zero-hours contracts will do better, because employers would not generally have put them in a pension at all. We are making that happen.

As to people with multiple jobs, a small number of people have jobs that, taken together, would put them into the system, but, taken separately, do not. Sometimes they will have children, and if they do they are credited in the state system anyway. Only 35 years of contributions are needed for a full pension, so someone might not make contributions for a number of years and still get a full pension.

The House of Lords, in about half an hour, I think, is going to talk about the issue in the debate on the Pensions Bill. We will gather more data on it. We think the issue is small, but clearly we need to ensure that we know what is going on. The number of women, for example, doing multiple part-time jobs went down in the past 12 months, so we do not think that the assumption that the numbers are all going up and that it will all get worse is borne out by the data. However, it is a serious point and we will look into it.

The hon. Gentleman is right that people often do not have a clue. It would be lovely to think that one letter from Downing street would fix things. I have two views on the matter. We need to make sure that pensions work for people who do not get it and never will, because with the best will in the world, expecting tens of millions of people to understand all this stuff is a heck of an ask. For me, we have to make sure that the system works for people who do not understand it and do not make active choices. That is where the state pension reforms come in.