Child Maintenance Service: Payment Recovery from Absent Parents

Albert Owen Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Before I call Mr Kerr, I remind Members that I will call the Front-Bench spokespersons at 10 past 5. Three Members have indicated in writing that they wish to speak, and I will call Mr Madders and Mr Pollard after Mr Kerr. If you divvy the time up among yourselves, we might be able to get more Members in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. If Members take about three minutes each, we will get everybody in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Tomlinson]

That is a fair point. I am sure the team would be very happy to meet those who are particularly interested in the operations side.

On direct payment, there are cases where we have advised what the financial contribution should be, and the parents set out to try and do that without using us. A number of people have highlighted how that can break down. The problem is then that the debts mount up, and the bigger the debts, the bigger the problem it is to get that fixed. So, we have rightly tried to be more proactive. Not only is there the annual review, but we now text the receiving parents proactively to ask whether there are any issues, and if there are issues, we ask that they should contact us immediately so we can either escalate ultimately to enforcement or move them on to the click-and-pay service. In the last quarter of last year, 9,000 people moved from direct pay to collect and pay. We are nudging that proactive level of support as quickly as possible.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), talked of 33% not being collected on collect and pay. The 67% was the last published figure, in June 2019, which is up from 62% in the previous year, and the improvement has been long-standing. The amount unpaid in June 2019 was £18.5 million, down from £22 million. That is £18.5 million too much, but we are heading in the right direction, through a combination of better training of our frontline staff, so that they can explain the options and potential punishments to both the receiving parent and the paying parent; better enforcement, which I am coming to; and the regulations that we passed to strengthen our ability to investigate and enforce.

Hon. Members have rightly raised areas where enforcement has not been quick enough. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) set out the exact reasons that we needed the two separate sets of regulations that were brought in over the last 12 months, which we did after listening to the cases, learning the lessons and seeing what was missing and what stopped us taking the action we all support. That is underlined by the fact that action must be taken much more quickly. The sooner we act, the easier it is to remedy.

We are also now benefiting from the ability to access more real-time information from HMRC and the strengthening of our ability with deduction orders, where we take money directly from people’s salaries. We are also reminding employers. Quite often, employees will say to an employer who is their friend, “My other half is being unreasonable. It would be really helpful if you helped me fudge this.” We are now using legal powers to remind employers that they will be liable and, unsurprisingly, those collections have gone up to 48,000 in the last quarter, collecting about £26 million, compared with the same quarter last year when there were 31,300 collections, collecting £19 million. We are also proactively highlighting success stories in the media, which doesn’t half focus people’s minds.

The most significant change is the introduction of the financial investigations unit. In the past, when lifestyle queries were raised, we relied on HMRC to investigate. HMRC had finite resources; if a premier league footballer was clearly defrauding it of a huge amount of tax, it was very quick to go and look at that, but, for many of the cases highlighted, while it was a significant amount of money to those children, it might not have been enough for HMRC to prioritise it.

The financial investigations unit, which is solely ours, does not look at the value of the money, because the money is as important to every single parent regardless, and it will chase each case. These are highly-trained ex-police officers and tax inspectors with fiscal investigation experience and they focus on doing a deep dive, using evidence, in these sorts of case. We initially recruited 30 in 2017 and it went up to 50 in 2018 and 80 in 2019. They are making a significant difference; about 4,000 cases are being investigated at the moment, and those numbers will increase as we gain evidence. That is a double win, because we will share that evidence with HMRC, which can chase any tax avoidance that has gone through.

The new regulations that we passed to help here include the ability to seize people’s passports. In the past, we went after drivers’ licences, but when people went to court, they would say, not unreasonably, “Well, you can take my driving licence, but I then won’t be able to earn, and I won’t be able to pay any more money.” But the possibility of losing their summer holiday doesn’t half focus the mind. Having sent out more than 1,000 warning letters, there is high engagement at that point.

We now have powers to access joint and business accounts, because that is a clever trick of solely employed people for hiding money. We can also look at assets, so when self-employed people are transferring what would be wages into assets, we can now take a nominal 8% of those assets. It is now easier to access information from pension providers, and we will be doing more joint work with HMRC. I gently remind some colleagues who have been calling for those extra powers to vote for them next time, because some hon. Members voted against. We must put the receiving parents first.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to the Minister, who has been a great deputy here today on behalf of his Department. Before I call Mr Peter Grant to wind up, I thank all hon. Members for their self-discipline and restraint about time, which has allowed us to get in all speakers, as well as a number of interventions.

ESA: People with Motor Neurone Disease

Albert Owen Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Twigg]

I agree entirely. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that what we are discussing affects not only motor neurone disease, but a number of other conditions. I will not take any further interventions, because I want to leave the Minister enough time to respond in this short debate.

The Government have yet to give a timeframe for a review of exemptions to take place. Until that review is complete, people with MND still risk being called for an unnecessary and wasteful reassessment at any point. Even worse, should the claimant be unable to complete the reassessment, their benefits could be taken away from them. That would be cruel and totally unacceptable.

My understanding—we will hear the Minister’s response in a moment—is that the system that the Department uses for ESA claimants is not able to differentiate between different diagnoses, so it is not possible for the Department to filter all the people in the support group who have MND or similar conditions in order to grant them an exemption from further assessment. Can the Minister shed some light on why the system has been set up in that way, and what changes the Department could make to prevent such issues from occurring again? I do not think that it would be unreasonable for the Department to apply an automatic exemption to all those claimants currently in the support group who have a certified MND diagnosis; and that should not require an additional face-to-face assessment, as there is no prospect of people with MND getting better.

Last month, the Department changed the personal independence payment system so that those with severe degenerative diseases will no longer have to undergo regular tests to prove that they remain eligible for PIP. That exemption includes people with MND as well as other conditions, such as Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis. In practice, that means that people whose condition is lifelong and degenerative can be awarded the highest PIP amount, with only a light-touch reassessment once a decade.

I would like the Government to adopt a similar mechanism whereby people with MND can avoid an unnecessary further assessment for their ESA. The Motor Neurone Disease Association has suggested a system in which claimants with MND can send a doctor’s note to the Department to prove their condition. The Department could then use that information to move the claimant to a long-term award within the support group, which would protect them from the need for any further reassessment. The Government have cited legal and operational issues that apparently prevent that seemingly straightforward and humane system from becoming the norm. The DWP has accepted that the work capability assessment is a demanding experience, especially for those with long-term or degenerative conditions, yet it still argues that it is the best method of assessing the suitability to work of those with life-limiting conditions.

As I said, the Government have already changed their policy on new employment and support allowance claimants and their policy with regard to personal independence payment. Today’s debate provides an opportunity for the Minister, who is back in the Department, to say that it will make a similar change for this crucial group of existing ESA recipients. People living with motor neurone disease face many challenges in their lives. Removing the threat of an ESA reassessment would make a real difference to the lives of hundreds of people and their families. I urge the Minister to look again at this issue, and to do so as a matter of urgency.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

In calling the Minister to respond to the debate, I welcome him to his place.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Albert Owen Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

The Speaker is right that the Minister is a courteous man. I have written to the Secretary of State and not yet received a response, and I was hoping to question him today on this very point. Before first coming to this House, I ran a welfare centre. This policy is flawed because it relies from day one on hardship payments. Hardship payments should not be a policy decision. The Secretary of State could do the decent thing now and pause this, or even reduce that period. I ask the Minister to respond directly to that point.

[Damian Hinds]

It is a system that is replacing a deeply flawed system and striving to face up head-on to endemic problems that we have had for decades and that were left in the “too difficult to deal with” tray—an old system, where complexity and bureaucracy had so often served to stifle the independence, limit the choice and constrain the outlook of its claimants.

Personal Independence Payments

Albert Owen Excerpts

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Justin Tomlinson]

I understand that point. It is difficult to comment on an individual case, and I am happy to look at such cases after the debate. The hon. Lady and I have worked together carefully on a number of cases, and I am happy to extend that invitation again.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

The Minister is giving the impression that people on the old DLA are all being upgraded under PIP and retaining their payment. What we see in our constituency casework, however, is people coming off benefits altogether, and he is not addressing that point. Some of those people’s conditions are either getting worse or remaining the same.

I will make one final point, if I may. Will the Minister or his Department take action after the “Dispatches” programme on Channel 4?

[Justin Tomlinson]

In fairness, I am trying to respond to those points. I will make some progress, then I will cover the TV programme that was shown on Monday.

Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme

Albert Owen Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Kate Green]

Absolutely. Given the relatively small number of claims and the relatively small amounts involved, it is a matter of justice, and I hope the Minister will address the mood of the House this morning by giving us some assurances.

Even if 100% payouts could be afforded from a lower levy, the 3% figure is important because, in addition to funding more generous payouts, surplus cash could be put to other uses, as we have heard. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton and the hon. Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) all asked about funding for research. Mesothelioma is always fatal. It is a truly terrible disease that is massively cruel to sufferers and their loved ones, who have to watch them die in the most horrific manner. There is a crying need for research into treatment of the disease, yet today research is woefully underfunded. Although the recently announced voluntary contribution to the British Lung Foundation by the insurers Aviva and Zurich over the next two years is welcome, the abundance of good research proposals, as evidenced by the written answer I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), on 7 January 2015, suggests that mesothelioma research could benefit from more funding, which would benefit the insurance industry, the public purse and, of course, victims. What steps are the Government taking to place research funding on a sustainable footing?

With claims lower than expected, and with a 3% levy, another possibility is to backdate payments under the scheme to an earlier date. Under the legislation, the cut-off date for claims is for those diagnosed after 25 July 2012 but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck pointed out, we have known about the lethal effects of asbestos for many years—indeed, since the early decades of the last century—and for many years, the industry did all it could to evade its responsibilities to victims. There will now be very few, if any, survivors who received a diagnosis before 2012, given the speed and ferocity of the disease after diagnosis. The usual prognosis is less than 12 months, and personal representatives cannot make a claim where the sufferer died before the commencement of the scheme. None the less, in a few cases there may be an opportunity for greater generosity in relation to the cut-off date, or the Government might like to rethink their position on personal representatives. Has the Minister considered the scope for earlier eligibility? What will happen if claims increase over the next few years to the extent that the levy is insufficient to meet them after all? Will payments remain at 100%?

Can the Minister confirm that the cost to the industry will never fall below 3% in any given year? Or is it his intention that the levy will not average less than 3% over the whole life of the scheme? What is happening to the Government’s £30 million loan and £17 million payment to the industry to help it meet the costs of the scheme? Given the lower than expected number of claims, will that generous Government support now be reduced or removed? We know that the industry expected the scheme to run for 30 to 40 years because of the long latency of the disease. What discussions have the Minister or his colleague, Lord Freud, who has been leading discussions with industry representatives, had about the industry’s forecasts of future costs?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck said, we would like the Minister to say something about the figure for benefits recovered by the compensation recovery unit. Under the legislation, social security benefits that have been paid to sufferers are clawed back if the sufferer makes a successful claim under the scheme. My understanding is that recoveries amounted to £8 million in the scheme’s first seven months. Does the Minister think that clawing back benefits at 100% is fair to sufferers who received less than 100% of average damages? Will he consider reducing recoveries from their benefits, at the very least, in line with the proportion of average damages that they actually received?

On other matters, what progress has there been on addressing the difficulty we ran into with the approach of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to releasing employment records, which are essential to making a claim under the scheme or, indeed, to pursuing a claim in the courts? I am pleased that a Government amendment to the Deregulation Bill has ensured that, in future, HMRC will be able to release those records without fear of breaching data protection law, but the Bill has not yet completed its parliamentary passage. Is the Minister aware of any cases in the meantime in which HMRC has been asked for records? What approach is HMRC currently taking? There has, of course, been a recent helpful legal judgment in a case brought by my own union, Unite, but I understand that the limitations of the judgment mean that the matter will not be fully resolved in all cases until the Bill becomes law.

Finally, and especially given the lower than expected take-up, has the Minister taken the opportunity to consider how the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme might be widened to non-employment cases, to cases of collateral contamination—for example, where a family member contracts the illness as a result of exposure to the clothes or equipment of a relative who has worked with asbestos—to the self-employed or to Government employees, including veterans of the armed forces, who are not covered by the scheme? What steps are the Government taking to provide relief for sufferers of other asbestos-related diseases?

The legislation passed by Parliament last year and yesterday’s announcement have at last offered some justice to some victims but, as the hon. Member for Strangford pointed out, this country has the shameful record of having one of the highest incidences of asbestos-related illness in the world. We can, and we must, do much better for those who have suffered. I hope the Minister will indicate his willingness, indeed his determination, to look for ways to do so.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady and to all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions. I ask the Minister to respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

What then is available to my constituent, who was diagnosed before 25 July 2012, but died in November 2012?

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

The Minister has just over two minutes left to speak.

[Mr Harper]

Given what the hon. Gentleman says, and it is obviously the reason why he has tabled written questions, his constituent is not eligible for this scheme. What I do not know without looking at the specific facts of the case—obviously, if he has not already done so, he can either write to myself or Lord Freud with those facts—is whether they will be eligible for one of the other existing statutory schemes. If the hon. Gentleman writes to us, we can then look into the case to see whether his constituent is eligible for the other schemes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

Let me just answer the hon. Gentleman’s question; I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me for not giving way to her. As I was saying, I will look at the gap between the number of research proposals—my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford suggested there are not enough proposals, whereas the hon. Lady suggested there were quite a lot of proposals but not enough money. Let me look at what money is available from statutory funding sources; from the National Institute for Health Research and other funders in the area. It might be helpful if we can draw that funding information together, so that Members can see the overall picture of funding in this area. I would be interested to look at that and see how it is related to the need, based on the number of people who are sadly victims of this dreadful disease. That may be helpful to inform further developments—

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order.

Housing Benefit (Wales)

Albert Owen Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2014 Westminster Hall

[David T. C. Davies]

My hon. Friend has made the point that I was about to come to. That supposition was put to us, very well, by one of the Ministers who gave evidence. I hope that today the Minister will be able to confirm that that is what has been happening.

The hon. Member for Ogmore raised the issue of housing. The Welsh Government estimate that about 14,200 homes need to be built each year until 2026. However, between 2005 and 2012 the average was only 7,200 houses—nowhere near the level that we will need to resolve the housing problem. Although the issue is devolved, I hope the Minister will do everything he can to encourage the Welsh Assembly to make greater efforts to ensure that the housing shortage in Wales is resolved.

Another issue of concern for the Committee was how to define bedroom size. We heard about people who had what were basically large cupboards or boxrooms that could end up being classed as bedrooms even though they were not big enough for anyone to sleep in. We suggested that the Minister might want to issue discretionary guidance to local authorities on what would constitute a room large enough to be counted as a bedroom, and I would be grateful for an update on that.

I turn now to something that was, frankly, an area of concern for me personally as well as for some—although not all—members of the Committee: direct payment of housing benefit under universal credit. I understand the reasons behind the policy, which I think are honourable. The aim is to ensure that people who have been on benefits long term get a sense of money management and responsibility; that was explained to me well by the Secretary of State. However, laudable though that is, I am still not entirely convinced that it is going to work. I have a fear about the policy, and the Committee expressed concerns—I should talk about the Committee’s view—based on evidence from housing associations.

In reality, the policy affects a lot of people who already have issues with money management and do not usually have large amounts of money anyway. If large sums are paid into their bank accounts, at the end of the month the money might not be paid on to the housing provider. In turn, that could have a big impact on housing providers that are dependent on money coming in to build further houses and to improve those that they have.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and the Welsh Affairs Committee on this detailed report on an important issue. He is making an important point, and I am sure that he and other hon. Members will join me in paying tribute to the advice agencies and local authorities in Wales that help and support individuals in the management of their funds. Direct payment does not in any way help the housing problem, which remains a big issue. As the hon. Gentleman comes to his conclusions, which may be different from those in the report, is he saying that we have to build housing to help people, or is he suggesting that we suspend the bedroom tax until such time as we have adequate housing?

[David T. C. Davies]

I am certainly not suggesting that we suspend the bedroom tax—or spare room subsidy, or under-occupancy charge, or whatever it happens to be called. I am suggesting that there are widespread concerns about direct payments. Pilot studies set up in Torfaen—the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) is in his place—suggested that debt grew when direct payment was put in place. There is great concern that some housing associations will struggle as a result of the policy. The Committee concluded that the financially sound decision would be to ensure that any tenants who have any problems at all with money management are able to continue under the old system. It may be laudable to encourage people to be given the money themselves to pay it on, but that will be impractical for a lot of people.

Personal Independence Payments (Wales)

Albert Owen Excerpts

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mike Penning]

The hon. Gentleman is being misleading.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. No one is misleading anyone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. Five Members are indicating that they wish to speak, three of whom have done so in writing. I need to call the Front-Bench Members at 10.40 am, so I ask Members to be disciplined with their time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

Good, but I am just giving the Minister that warning not to go through the history of the benefit but, yes, to deal with his responsibility, who is responsible—

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. Mark Tami.

[Mark Tami]

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) makes a powerful point. The situation is a mess. Whatever promises are given, it just seems to get worse, even to the point, as hon. Friends have said, that the Department is now having to send in civil servants to try to stem the tide of chaos that is overwhelming the whole system.

On the day on which the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has decided to go, I am not calling for this Minister to go, but his Department needs to look at this situation. It is affecting, and destroying, real people’s lives. It is causing great suffering out there. I ask the Minister just to look at the Government Benches. There is not a single Tory or Liberal Democrat MP from Wales here today. Why is that? It is because they also know what a mess it is and they have run for the hills.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

If the hon. Lady will be patient, I have another four minutes to speak and I will certainly address that issue.

With the contracts that were issued, there is not a change to a paper-based system. From day one, the perception was that the split should be 75:25 between face-to-face interviews and paper-based assessments. I have said that to the Work and Pensions Committee before. With the DLA, only 6% of claimants were interviewed face to face and nationally we are around about 97% for face-to-face interviews. So there is not a movement away from face-to-face interviews; actually, where we are trying to get to is where we were supposed to be in the first place, which is around 75% of interviews being conducted face to face and 25% of claimants being dealt with by paper-based assessments.

The contract with Capita allows for penalties and we are imposing financial penalties on it where it is not meeting its targets. That process is taking place now and we will continue with it. However, the best thing to do is for us to work with Capita to get accurate assessments.

The point about accuracy is the one that I will touch on for the remaining few minutes. One type of issue that we have is quality issues. We have been really tough, and previous Ministers were very tough, on both Capita and Atos about PIP regarding quality. Because of that, those companies have been very concerned—I have used the word “frightened” before, but they are certainly concerned—about ensuring they get things right, which is one of the reasons why we have nowhere near the number of appeals that we may have expected or that were made under previous benefit systems.

One reason for that is that we have put our staff into the offices of companies, particularly those of Capita, and we will probably do that elsewhere. It gives staff the confidence to make the decisions on the paper-based assessments. Very often, although staff feel they have the information in front of them, they are not sure about making a decision because they fear they will be hit on quality—“The audit will come down and say we should have done this”—so they have pushed the case through to a face-to-face interview. That is actually increasing the delays. We want to give people confidence; that is why our officials are there.

The question was asked, “Where do these officials come from?” Many of them are actually officials waiting for these decisions to come back, so I have a capacity of people sitting there and waiting for decisions to come back. That is why we are putting people at the right grade into the offices of Capita to ensure that we can get better movement and that we get the split down to a manageable one; I hope it will be a 75:25 split.

We will probably announce the review later on today, if not tomorrow, outlining who will do the review and how we move on from it.

The truth of the matter is that there will be people who benefit from PIP and there will be people who do not benefit from it. However, what they need is decisions and we need to communicate with them much better. We are introducing a text system so that people will be better informed as to where they are within the queue system. That is slightly more complicated in certain parts of the country than others. We can text—

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. I am very grateful to the Minister, and to Members, for what was a full debate. The Minister has indicated that he will write to Members.

Food Banks

Albert Owen Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Roger Williams]

I have already written to a Minister and I am going to meet them to find out why the sanctions in different jobcentres have different criteria; why they have different systems for writing to and contacting people in order to encourage them to attend meetings; and why, if people do not attend those meetings, they get sanctioned.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Roger Williams]

No, I will not. I am terribly sorry. I would have, but I have almost run out of time. I have been very generous.

I think that this country needs a food policy. Huge spikes in food prices add to the difficulties faced by people trying to budget. We need a system to ensure that we have a secure supply of food with levelling prices.

This coming week I will meet the pastor of Elim church in Brecon and I hope we will be able to work with that church to set up our second food bank. I will do so with a heavy heart, but I know it will provide really good help for my constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Tony Baldry]

The research in the Church Urban Fund report shows that some food banks do that, but not enough. Many of them simply give food aid, which is important, but we need to develop longer-term solutions.

[Albert Owen]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I will make some progress.

If the situation is to be resolved, the root causes need to be tackled. In April, an online survey was sent to 3,000 Church of England incumbents. The Church Urban Fund asked clergy in parishes right across the country questions about their perceptions of food poverty and what was going on in their parishes. The respondents were invited to indicate what they considered the causes of food poverty, based on their experience of running food banks. These figures come to more than 100% because some clergy selected more than one topic, but 62% chose low income, 42% chose benefit changes and 35% chose benefit delays. As it happens, these three issues match those identified by the Trussell Trust as the most common reasons for food bank referrals last year. It is also worth noting that some respondents believed that individual behaviour was a contributing factor, with 27% selecting poor household budgeting as a significant cause of food poverty.

Alongside others set out in the report, those results suggest that if churches are to contribute to a long-term solution to food poverty, church-based activity needs to be rebalanced away from emergency crisis support and towards long-term work to tackle underlying problems. In its recent report on monitoring poverty, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has observed:

“Making comparisons of people using food banks over time is not easy, as there simply are more food banks now than five years ago. They may well be meeting need that was previously going unmet.”

However, there is obviously a need to look at the impact of benefit changes and, in particular, benefit delays.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams]

It is indeed. I pay tribute to the services that do exist, but they are patchy. Sometimes they are provided by local authorities and sometimes by volunteers. I mention in passing that the Child Poverty Action Group has made a pertinent point about the value of advice and the level of under-claiming, which is a persistent problem.

In Wales, there has been a consistent decline in economic performance and in people’s ability to buy the food that they need. The figures are stark. Wales’s GVA per head compared with the UK average was 78.1% in 1997. In 2011, it was 75.2%. That is a decline of three percentage points. For west Wales and the valleys, which the European Union recognises as some of its poorest areas, the figures were 67.2% in 1997 and 65% in 2011—a further decline. This is a substantial historical problem, and it is growing. I am sure the remedies are easy to list, and we have heard some already: better economic growth, better income distribution, particularly in the poorest areas, a living wage, and ending fuel poverty.

[Albert Owen]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Hywel Williams]

I must conclude my remarks; I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.

We call on the Government to publish the report commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on food bank use, and to commission further wide-ranging research into the rocketing need for food banks. I say to those on the Opposition Front Bench, however, that I cannot see how regional benefits would help.

My final point is brief but important and has not been mentioned so far. Wales is not a unique case in the UK, and certainly not in the European Union. We must look beyond our borders and those of Europe, and fight to provide food security for people all over the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate on an important subject. I pay tribute to my Stroud food bank, which is an excellent example of exactly what should be delivered for those who are desperately in need. It is a fantastic organisation that demonstrates precisely what we need to do. It is operating in difficult circumstances and has moved from premises with a difficult landlord in London road to some elsewhere, with a new landlord. It will launch itself yet again as an exemplar of what is needed.

We need to ensure that people have the opportunity to have a fulfilled life, which comes through work and by contributing themselves.

[Albert Owen]

The hon. Gentleman represents a region that contains many rural areas. Will he join me in paying tribute to the special work done by the independent trusts that help to run food banks? Food and fuel poverty are a lot higher in rural areas, which makes their job even more difficult.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Albert Owen Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

The Chancellor’s statement last autumn was an admission that the Government were failing in their economic policy. They had failed on their two fiscal targets and they now say that they will need two Parliaments to meet those targets. The Chancellor needs to divert attention from his economic policy and is doing so by the crudest of politics. The Bill is a wedge between one party and another for electoral advantage. It hits the low paid, the unemployed, of whom there are 2.5 million, and the under-employed—many, many people on low wages, decent, hard-working people, including nurses, primary school teachers and armed forces personnel—and to play politics with them through the Bill is wrong.

Part-time workers need help and support, yes, and I would support a reform that helps them, but to penalise them at this time is completely and utterly wrong. The Chancellor is not known for his consistency. In his autumn statement in 2011 he said:

“I also want to protect . . . those who, through no fault of their own, have lost jobs and are trying to find work”.—[Official Report, 29 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 802.]

Those are the very people who, 12 months later, he is going to hit hardest.

I can understand some of those on the Conservative Benches thinking that the wedge is very clever, but I cannot understand the Liberal Democrats supporting it. There are not many of them—

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

rose—

[Albert Owen]

I will not take an intervention as the hon. Gentleman has not been here throughout and there are not many of his colleagues here today.

My constituency suffered from high unemployment in the 1930s, the 1980s and the 1990s—mass unemployment in the 1930s. My constituency has a strong Liberal tradition. Megan Lloyd-George, one of my predecessors, refused promotion in the coalition Government because she wanted to stand up for the unemployed, the under-employed and the low paid, and she wanted to support the welfare state. Breaking the link today between the increase and inflation is in many ways a treacherous act for a Liberal.

[John Hemming]

rose—

[Albert Owen]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman for the reasons that I gave and the limitations. Had he been here at the beginning, he would have heard many of the arguments.

The Liberal Democrats have a lack of conviction, but they can make up for that. I know that some honourable ones will, and will vote for the amendment tonight and against Second Reading, because the Bill is completely wrong. There was no need for a Bill. The change could have been made as it has been in the past, but it was chosen for political theatre. After losing Corby, the Government in desperation went to Crosby, and Crosby introduced the wedge. The crudest of Australian politics has been imported to the United Kingdom.

Too many of my constituents—decent, honest, hard-working people—will see their benefits cut if the Bill goes through tonight. I appeal to the Liberal Democrats and those decent Conservatives who genuinely care about the underemployed, the unemployed and the low paid to join us by voting for the amendment and against a Second Reading and standing up—I make no apologies for this—for the decent, honest, hard-working people, the low-paid, the unemployed and the under-employed, who are under attack from this Government measure.

Unemployment

Albert Owen Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Minister. The statistics I will use are from the Office for National Statistics, but my experience is as a manager of a centre for unemployed people before I came into the House. I saw at first hand the failure of economic policy. That is what unemployment is: a failure of an economic system. It is not “a price worth paying” as a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer said.

In the 1990s, I ran a centre that helped young people to get back to work. We gave them life experiences and choices. Whether in the public sector, the private sector or the voluntary sector, those experiences were valuable tools and gave skills to young people. It is a shame that Government Members rubbish schemes involving the voluntary and public sectors, because people need help to get those necessary skills; they do not need Government Members to attack the public sector.

[Oliver Heald]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that it is something of a deception to put a young person in a job for six months with the idea that it will lead to something at a time when the public sector is being cut? Surely it is better to give that young person a private sector job opportunity or work experience that has some prospect of leading somewhere.

[Albert Owen]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman what a deception is: it is the Government saying that they will introduce a scheme next April when youth unemployment is going through the roof this month and last month.

[Oliver Heald]

It isn’t!

[Albert Owen]

Of course it is! The hon. Gentleman really needs to look at the ONS statistics. In every corner of the UK, youth unemployment is going up. Young people are facing unemployment because of the Government’s record.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Why is it a deception if the Government set out a well thought through policy that they are ready to deliver in three or four months’ time? That is not a deception but a well organised policy. It is ludicrous to trade such cheap remarks about people’s jobs and futures.

[Albert Owen]

I shall tell the hon. Gentleman my background in a moment—I certainly know what unemployment is like and have worked with unemployed people—but month on month, people are losing their jobs. Saying that there is hope in future of a scheme—he says it is well thought out, but nobody has seen it implemented—is a disgrace when the Government are doing away with schemes that were working and helping people. I met people who went on those schemes. They had the opportunity in a major global recession to gain work experience and skills. That is what the Government should be doing; they should not be talking about some generous scheme of the future that we do not know about.

The Government’s record is one of increasing unemployment, which compares with the Government of the 1980s and 1990s. The centre for the unemployed where I worked was established in the 1930s, and was re-established in the 1980s because of mass unemployment and mass depopulation. People left my area to look for jobs in the 1980s and ’90s as they did in the 1930s. The county of Anglesey, which I represent, was the only county in Wales that had a declining population in two consecutive censuses, because people went looking for work. Yes, they got on their bikes, but it harmed our community. Unemployment is not a statistic to bandy around in the Chamber; it involves real lives and real people. It affects individuals, families and communities. I have seen communities scarred by mass unemployment, which is why I am passionate about standing up here today to say that this Government’s policies are not working. We need to work together to find policies that work. When the Government scrap policies that have been successful in my community, I will stand up and say so—that is the reality of the situation not only in my constituency but in many parts of the country.

In 1992, unemployment in my constituency stood at 3,912—nearly 4,000. By October 2002 it was down to 1,516, and by October 2007 it was down to 1,093, because schemes that targeted the hardcore unemployed to help them back to work were introduced.

I remember that there was no plan to help in the 1980s. In 1992, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that unemployment was “a price worth paying”—it was an economic tool. The Minister shakes his head, but those were the Chancellor’s words, and he cannot contradict that because they are on the record. The Chancellor said that there were shoots of growth, but people were losing their jobs and livelihoods, and communities were being destroyed.

The buzzwords of the ’80s and ’90s were “downsizing” and “redundancy”. We needed a scheme, and when the Labour Government came to power in 1997, we introduced the new deal for the unemployed. A levy from the excess profits of utility companies was used and targeted to help young people. Between 1999 and 2004, it was hugely successful. I think it should have continued, but after 2004 the scheme was targeted at other sections of society that needed help. With hindsight, perhaps we should have continued to concentrate on young people.

Youth unemployment has gone up in the past 12 months, whatever statistics we use. Young people are losing their jobs or are not able to enter the employment market. My daughter’s peers, who are in their 20s, have taken extra university courses because they cannot get jobs. They are coming out highly qualified and cannot get jobs. That is the reality of the situation today. It is incumbent on us all, whichever party we represent, to get the number down. Although bandying statistics does not help, we must, none the less, use the records of different Governments to paint a picture. The record of this Government is to do away with schemes that were successful and to say, “We’ll replace them with something in the future.” The reality is that unemployment is going up.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

rose—

[Albert Owen]

I am afraid that I do not have much time; I have already taken two interventions.

In the 1980s and 1990s, there was a period of stagnation in my constituency. The gross value added, or the gross domestic product, was among the worst in the United Kingdom. The historical scar is there and people are finding it difficult. Between 1997 and 2007, the number of jobs increased by some 7,000 and many skills were brought back to the area through various schemes. There was a partnership between Government, the public sector, the private sector and the voluntary sector, all working together to help people. That is the way forward.

I accept that unemployment went up in 2007, but it started to come down in 2010, which is important. When this Government took office, growth was increasing and unemployment was coming down. The trend has now been reversed and we are back to what it was like in the 1980s, and once again we are facing mass unemployment. Some 2.64 million people are unemployed, which is a disgrace for any Government. This Government should apologise for the fact that their policies are not working.

The Welsh Assembly Government are introducing additional projects to help the unemployed. Austerity alone will not create jobs; it is getting people skilled up and giving them the necessary experience, growing the economy, and bringing down unemployment that will increase the GDP and the GVA of every part of the United Kingdom. Wales has been hammered by unemployment. We need to move forward. Today is a bad day for unemployment and a bad day for this Government’s record.

--- Later in debate ---

[David T. C. Davies]

I have heard about this tax on bankers’ bonuses, which has already been spent in myriad different ways. In any case, the Government have already introduced taxes on banks, which are bringing in far more money. I point out to the right hon. Gentleman—I am sure he knows this, given what his last job was—that the financial services industry in this country is contributing about 10% of all the money that we have, or somewhere in the region of £50 billion. At this moment in time, we cannot do anything too much that will damage that.

Let me explain to the House what I think the Opposition party’s economic policy was. Up until October and the Chancellor’s statement, the economic policy of Labour Members was to borrow even more money than we are being forced to borrow at the moment. Since October, everything has changed and suddenly their policy is to borrow less money. Amazingly enough, they are not only going to borrow less money, but spend more money. The Opposition are going to borrow less money but somehow there will be no cuts in Government expenditure and no freezes on pensions and everyone will have a job. It is a totally incoherent economic policy, but completely consistent with what we have come to expect from Labour.

[Albert Owen]

The hon. Gentleman says that we did not outline our plans. If he reads the motion, he will find them there, and he should be speaking to the motion. He said two things that were incorrect. He said that we would be spending more than the Government. In the autumn statement, this Government said that they would spend more than Labour. One tool of employment is taxation. Does he agree that reducing VAT temporarily during the previous recession helped employment and consumers? Would he support something of that nature now?

[David T. C. Davies]

The hon. Gentleman ought to know that I will always support any kind of tax cut if it is affordable and I welcome his conversion to that idea. I recall him talking about what happened when Labour got in, but he forgot one or two important facts. He forgot to tell us that when Labour got in in 1997, the national debt was some £350 billion. By 2007, before the economic crash, the national debt had risen to £650 billion. Yes, the Labour Government had been paying off the national debt for two years but when the election started to loom, all of a sudden off went the spending taps and they were spending at a rate of £30 billion or so on average more than they were earning. That meant that by 2007 they already had a problem, yet they let the spending rip and we ended up with a national debt of £1 trillion and a deficit of £160 billion. Their response was to say up until October that we should borrow even more money—now, they suggest we borrow even less.

What the hon. Ladies and Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches do not understand is that it is very easy to create a little employment in the short-term by borrowing money that one does not actually have, but the problem is that that will always lead to greater unemployment in the longer term because at some point—they do not realise this—that money must be paid back. In the meantime, the interest on it, which is about £30 billion a year at the moment, has to be paid. The only way that money can be paid back is by raising taxes, which destroys jobs, or cutting public spending. That is a basic economic fact that Labour Governments throughout history have failed to comprehend.

Of course, there are more things that this Government can do. We have taken the brave decision as a coalition to get rid of the deficit as quickly as we can. It might take until 2017—[Interruption.] Yes, I accept it is not going to be an easy task, given what we have inherited. It will take a number of years, but we will stay the course and do it, and we will do more, besides.

We must consider immigration. It cannot possibly be right that 250,000 people are coming into this country at a time of recession if we have to find them all jobs, too. My wife is one of them and my sister-in-law, who is from Asia, is another. I am not in any way against those who come here; I welcome the fact that people have come here and are making a contribution, but we must consider whether that is sustainable in the long term.

We must also consider the attitude of some British people—that has to be said. Neither of my sister-in-laws had problems coming over here from Asia and eastern Europe and getting jobs, but there is unfortunately a small minority of younger British people who would prefer to stay on the dole than go out and get a job. It is a harsh fact but it needs saying and it is something that this Government will actively tackle.

We need to look at the attitudes and training of those who come out of our schools, ensuring that they can add up and have basic English and social skills, as it is often people’s attitude that gets them a job. We must consider what our universities are teaching people, because it is no good if everybody comes out with a degree in media studies. There will always be some jobs for some people in the media, but not for all those who want them.

I have spoken to a number of people working in companies that are contributing a lot to this country—gas and oil companies and so on—and they say that they have had to go abroad to find people because there are not enough with the necessary practical skills in this country. By that I mean people who do not mind getting their hands a bit dirty. I spent four or five years getting my hands a bit dirty, as did many people on the Opposition Benches. I have no problem with that whatsoever. Unfortunately, some young people in this country at the moment do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I shall take no interventions, given the need for brevity. I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald) that Labour Members seem to have collective amnesia about exactly how much they frittered away during the prosperous times for this nation and that they now claim that only they know how to fix it.

I am amazed that that flexible old chestnut, the bankers’ bonus, has been wheeled out yet again as a way of solving all the ills. This is from a party that did not tackle bankers’ bonuses in the good times, when there were plenty to tackle, and seems to have found them now as a cash cow that can be used many times—this is the sixth or seventh time the Opposition have proposed using that source of finance. They did not tackle bonuses then, yet they did abolish the 10% tax rate, which they seem to have forgotten about. Many women and low-paid workers were on that tax rate. Indeed, when I was knocking on doors during the 2010 election, many people told me that after that rate was removed it was hardly worth them working. There are still people caught in that trap, which the Opposition have collectively forgotten about.

The Labour party has also collectively forgotten that companies have been disadvantaged by the regulations it put in place. For example, Bombardier could not competitively tender because of the regulations that Labour put in print, which resulted in job losses. Unfortunately, it also presided over the lowest number of social house starts for decades. I read with interest that it now proposes building 25,000 affordable homes—again using the bankers’ bonuses—but with no new funding of the sort that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government has rolled out. At least this Government are making new funding available, rather than relying on the ever-flexible bankers’ bonus.

[Albert Owen]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Main]

No, I shall not give way.

I am also amazed that the Labour party, while talking about wanting to attack bankers’ bonuses, was so lacking in its support for what our Prime Minister had to do last week, which was to defend London against being raided by the European Union. They do not seem to want to do that either. I can tell Opposition Members that many bankers and wealth generators in the City would otherwise have upped sticks and gone, and there would be no bonuses for them to use in this flexible way.

Labour Members are asking us today to believe their statistics—this from a party that spectacularly underestimated the number of people who would come to the UK through its failed immigration policy at only 5,000. If they looked back at the figures, they would see that they completely underestimated the number of people who chose to come to Britain to work, so I have little faith in the statistics they regularly wheel out. They left us with the highest number of workless households in Europe and only now are coming up with ideas on how to fix that. It bears no credibility. They propose spending bankers’ bonuses multiple times and have few other ideas on how to fix the failed and broken economy that we inherited. They left this Government the note stating that they had spent all the money, but they had in fact mortgaged it. They mortgaged the future of many young people in this country.

I have only a few seconds remaining. If the Government were not taking these tough choices, more and more young people would be looking forward to a fruitless future without hope of social housing or affordable housing, because, unlike this Government, the Opposition had no appetite when in government to tackle the problems, and now they carp from the sidelines and apparently come up with solutions to fix the problems they created.