Ford UK (Duty of Care to Visteon Pensioners)

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) on securing the debate. I know that you, Mr Caton, have a great knowledge and awareness of this business because some of your constituents have been directly affected. Against the backcloth of news reports about global companies having to take responsibility for tax, we are here to talk specifically about Ford and its responsibilities to its former workers and employees, whose pension funds have been asset-stripped by what is basically sleight of hand.

As you will know, Mr Caton, the background in a nutshell is that Ford set up Visteon in 2000, seemingly as part of a strategy to reduce input costs and increase profits. By creating an arm’s length company that it had control of in terms of the prices that it was giving that company, it was then able to set up a pension fund that in the first instance was underfunded by some £49 million. It controlled and pressed down the prices paid to Visteon, with the net outcome that Visteon made losses in each of the 10 years of its existence, in the order of $100 million a year. The net outcome of that was that the pension fund was further suppressed, and pensioners and workers who spent decades working for Ford in good faith now find themselves short-changed.

I am glad to be accompanied by hon. Members from both sides of the House in calling on Ford to do the right thing, as part of a wider debate to bring global companies to account where they employ people and make profits, so that they provide decent products and are also decent to their work force.

[Dr Francis]

On the point that there is broad cross-party support in relation to this issue, will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the all-party group that was set up several years ago to ensure justice for Visteon pensioners and in congratulating our hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Mrs James) on the sterling work that she undertook in the early stages? I also thank him for the work that he has done, because although the Visteon plant is located in my constituency, the vast majority of the workers or former employees are located in Swansea. I have constituents from Baglan, Briton Ferry, Skewen and Cwmafan, but the vast majority are in his constituency and hers.

[Geraint Davies]

I am glad to have had that intervention. It is very important to remember that this issue has been bubbling for 10 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Mrs James) has done an enormous amount of work, and obviously my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), who has just intervened, had the original factory in his backyard. As this situation has gone on so long, Ford may be under the misapprehension that the issue will go away. It has been mentioned that some of the pensioners may in fact die and nobody will take much notice of it. However, what we see here, on the foundation of the work that has been done in the past, is the coming together of a new all-party group. I pay my respects to the previous all-party group for keeping the issue moving, but we now have a new sense of energy.

The significance of this debate, of course, is that it will put it not just on the UK airwaves but on the US airwaves that Ford is not just a whiter-than-white company. It needs to take responsibility for its employees around the world, not least the British cousins of the US workers, who have worked so hard for Ford throughout their lives in good faith and now feel that they have been shoddily treated. We all know that the matter will be carefully argued in court by very rich lawyers, but what we are saying here, and what the Ford directorship in the US needs to understand, is that a cross-party group of parliamentarians in Britain will focus on it and keep it on the agenda, and ultimately that will have an impact on the brand values that Ford relies on for its profitability. We are saying not only that this is a moral obligation, but that Ford must financially do the right thing; otherwise, it will pay the price one way or another.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman almost anticipates the point I was going to make. Does he agree that this is not only an historical issue, but about the future of Ford Motor Company? Who in their right mind would work for an organisation that has treated its employees so dishonourably? It is about not only Visteon pensioners, but the future of Ford, the nature of its corporate and social responsibility and its future relationship with employees and customers.

[Geraint Davies]

That is precisely the point that needs to be made. There is great empathy with Ford in Britain. Everyone has heard of Henry Ford and thinks of the motor car as coming from Ford. As the story comes out and is amplified by more groups, people will think, “Why should I choose a Ford car over a Nissan or a Honda, who are investing hundreds of millions of pounds in new production in Britain this year?” We have a loyalty to the people who work in Britain, as well as a wish to buy the best product. If 3,000 pensions are affected, it is our responsibility to stand up and let the people we represent know what we are doing and why we are doing it. They can make judgments about which cars they choose to buy.

The original £49 million gap in the pension fund in 2000 was alongside a significant surplus in the main Ford pension fund. We should obviously ask why; it seems an unacceptable start. Since then, the gap has grown to something like £350 million. As the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green said, Ford had almost a monopoly over the supply of parts coming out of Visteon, so it was in a position to drive down prices unilaterally. There was no proper market. I have a Visteon internal e-mail from December 2000, which states:

“Ford have reduced PATS prices twice this year…9.2% as part of the EWC agreement…and then reduced prices again by 10.5%. This was never agreed.”

In that one year, prices reduced by 20%. If one company is supplying a company that controls the prices, it is not surprising that costs can be transferred. In one year, 2005-06, Visteon Europe lost £700 million and Ford Europe made a £700 million profit. Who makes a profit and who makes a loss is clearly determined by Ford. It had a direct knock-on effect on the value of the pension fund, which is now £350 million in the red.

Visteon had to buy inputs from Ford. It bought materials from the Ford foundry at Leamington, for example, which it could have sourced more cheaply elsewhere, to make parts that it then sold back to Ford at a price that Ford dictated. Clearly, this was all part of a strategy for Ford to manage down its costs and gradually outsource from Visteon, to places such as Korea, in a way that did not invoke any business discontinuity that would have cost it profits. It was carefully managed, but the people who really suffered were obviously the Visteon workers.

Meanwhile, on the Visteon trustee pension directorate, a separate pension fund was set up—the Visteon engineering scheme for cherry-picked Ford personnel. One of the people we invited to speak to us, who has not as yet agreed, is Mr Phil Woodward, a company-nominated Visteon pension trustee director. He was on the trustee board, where he had a duty of care to the Visteon pensioners, and transferred his pension to the new fund, taking money out of the Visteon fund. All the transfers and the voluntary redundancies would again deflate the Visteon pension fund. At that time, he was also involved in the closure of plants in Bridgend and Belfast. There certainly seems to be a conflict of interest there.

I shall not keep hon. Members much longer, as I know many others want to speak. The simple point is that there will ultimately be a decision in court, but we are saying that, from the evidence we have received—we are happy to receive other evidence from Mr Woodward or representatives of Visteon, who have not come to us either—we believe that there is a duty of care to our constituents who have been sold down the river. We will not let this rest until we get justice for the pensioners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

I am coming to that point. In fact, it was the Ford actuarial team that decided the amount of the transfer. The initial £49 million deficit in Visteon’s pension funding was clearly determined by Ford.

Can anyone imagine that there were not already thoughts, in some big boardroom in Ford, about how it could get rid of its liabilities—that nobody had in mind the thought that its biggest problem was the pension deficit and how to fund it for the future, and wondered what it could do to get rid of that? Can anyone tell me that they really believe that Ford had not already thought of hiving off the bits in the supply chain for which it could get cheaper prices, thinking that it could use its 90% purchasing power over Visteon UK to force down prices, before it embarked on the separation plan? It seems clear to me that Ford was determined to drive down prices even further than what it had agreed in the separation plan.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there was a very determined plan from the beginning. To me, it seems that there was a cunning plan: Ford wanted to maximise profits and to drive down costs on the backs of the workers in Visteon UK plants. Once it had managed to hive off certain sectors and to form Visteon, we heard that Ford was starting to drive down prices to ones that were significantly lower than those in the original separation agreement.

We also found that Ford tried to source components elsewhere. There were the dreaded confidentiality agreements: “Don’t tell Visteon that you’re making the bits that we get from them now, and that you’ll stockpile them so that we have them ready for when we get rid of Visteon altogether.” Do not tell me that somebody was not already thinking about that right back before 2000. If we look at the whole thing from beginning to end, there was a distinct plan of maximising profits for Ford and trying to get rid of the parts of the company providing components that it could find more cheaply elsewhere.

For Ford to do that on the backs of workers who worked loyally for it for 20 or 30 years is absolutely despicable and totally morally reprehensible. I fully concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who said that people have to make ethical choices about from whom they buy products. People need to know how Ford has treated the Visteon workers.

[Geraint Davies]

People should also know that the lot of Visteon workers in the UK is far worse than those in Germany or the United States. That suggests that there has been a carefully choreographed judgment about where Ford can get away with ripping off workers. The view was that it could do it in the UK—covertly lining up alternative suppliers, and telling them not to tell Visteon that that was done to knock Visteon out—and the whole thing really stinks.

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. With Visteon workers elsewhere not being treated in the same way, we must question what went on. It seems to me that there was a massive cover-up and a real attempt to drive down prices in a way that, as I have said, was completely morally reprehensible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Metcalfe]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention, and yes, that is really why we are having this debate. Ultimately we all believe that, whatever the outcome of the court case, Ford has a moral obligation and that if it does not meet that moral obligation we will continue to highlight the fact that it has failed its former employees. One of those former employees worked for Ford for 30 years before working for Visteon for only three months, but they have now suffered a significant loss in pension.

As I have said, the courts will test the legality, but the moral case stands for itself. Ford wanted out of this expensive business, and that is why it spun off Visteon. Ford talks about being a “family”, and the reason why its former employees feel so aggrieved is that, because they felt part of that “family”, they trusted their employer, Ford. Ford is a blue-chip firm with a history going back to before the first world war, and its employees were told that their pension was secure. The employees took that at face value. Of course, perhaps in hindsight they should have sought a little more clarity and explored what that promise meant, but they were allowed to take away the general impression that their rights were protected and that they were still part of the Ford “family”.

If those employees had looked a little more deeply and if they had considered the nightmare scenario of the business collapsing and the pension fund being underfunded, perhaps things might have turned out differently; perhaps they would not have transferred and perhaps it would have been more difficult for Visteon to spin off. But they did not do those things. They took Ford at its word and Visteon was floated off in a vessel that I believe was already holed below the waterline even though it was trying to make its way in the world.

[Geraint Davies]

It is bad enough that Ford basically agreed terms of reference—it agreed wages and conditions, and pensions for a group of workers—but then hived them off and looked, as it were, to the future for lower costs. However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the pension costs are actually historical costs that should be honoured, irrespective of what happens in the future? Those pension costs are a part of the contract of employment in the past that should be signed and sealed. The workers thought those pension costs were signed and sealed, but now they find that they have been ripped off.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. People were left with the impression that they had protection and that a pension was their right, whatever happened. They were also left with the impression that once they retired, at that point their pension was secured for them. Little did they know that it could be cut at some later date from a business that they might have been detached from for the best part of a decade, and suddenly they would turn round one day and find that, because of something they had virtually no involvement with, they are now seriously disadvantaged.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Yes. That is a very interesting point and one that, as a group, we should pursue. We have been communicating with Ford UK and Ford Europe, but we should take this matter all the way to the main board of Ford in America.

It is interesting to note that the arrangements in the US are different from the arrangements here. The former employees of Visteon in the US have not been disadvantaged in the same way as the former employees of Visteon in the UK, and if this issue was on the doorstep of Ford’s head office and the 3,000 Visteon employees had been so disadvantaged closer to home, we might have had a different outcome.

[Geraint Davies]

The hon. Gentleman knows that the all-party group in support of Visteon pensioners has no power to require people to appear in front of it, but of course Select Committees can summon people. Does he agree that it would be helpful if the Minister perhaps signalled that that was something that he would encourage so that there was redress and people had to be accountable?

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Yes. I have written, and I know that other colleagues from across the House have written, to the Chairmen of various Select Committees, asking them to look at this issue, either on its own or as part of a wider inquiry into pension transfers. We can renew that call now; summoning people before a Select Committee would be a very positive step.

As I have said, I believe that people within Ford knew at the time that Visteon was spun off that there was no long-term future for Visteon. I do not want to damage my relationship with Ford; I have great respect for the company. I want it to succeed, and it has a great and noble history in this country. But even the best employers or organisations occasionally get things wrong, and on this occasion that is what has happened—Ford has got it wrong. It needs to stand up and meet its obligations. If it does so, I believe that people in this House and outside it will view Ford as being all the better for having done so.

That is why I am championing the cause of the Visteon pensioners, and why I am standing up for my constituents. I will continue to do that, and I will continue to fight until I get justice for them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

Absolutely. This is like trying to grasp something that we cannot quite grasp; we are all trying to see how we can produce a fairer outcome for the Visteon pensioners. We would be happy to engage constructively with any parliamentary process that could assist with that, so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East raised the interesting question: does the existence of the Pension Protection Fund mean that corporate Britain is tempted, shall we say, to shovel off its pension fund liabilities and hope that someone else will pay for them? Clearly, the anti-avoidance powers of the Pensions Regulator are crucial in that regard. The Pensions Regulator did not exist when the Ford Visteon transaction took place, but it exists now, and central to its remit is protecting the Pension Protection Fund and, indirectly, the levy payers of British industry. The regulator can, and does, therefore, initiate action to require firms that have allowed their deficit to get out of control to put money in and put up collateral against the pension fund.

There is a balancing act to be struck. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and clearly we do not want people shovelling off their liabilities on to everyone else, but if the Pensions Regulator goes in too heavily and presses companies, particularly at a difficult time in the economic cycle, to pump more money into the pension fund, which perhaps then precipitates problems for the firm, we get criticised from the other side. It is a delicate balancing act, but what is good about the new regime is that it is scheme-specific. Whereas when the Ford-Visteon transaction took place there was a reactive regulatory regime in place—the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority—which reacted to whistleblowers but did not go out proactively, the Pensions Regulator does go out to look at schemes, and acts on a case-by-case and a risk-assessed basis. We can only speculate about what it would have done had it existed in 2000, but in similar cases now the regulator would consider whether a deficit would be properly funded, and if a parent company had tried to pass a liability on to a spin-off company, it would want to take action.

[Geraint Davies]

Is the Minister saying that if a global company created an arm’s length company that supplied itself, set it up with an underfunded pension fund and then unilaterally reduced the prices and therefore squeezed the pension fund still more, the Government could, under current regulations, act to stop that and to prevent the kind of injustice we have heard about today from happening in the future?

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He has played an active role in the campaign. If a new pension fund is set up under trust, the trustees have a responsibility to look after the interests of the members. The scheme would have to be valued, and if there was a deficit a recovery plan would have to be agreed between the trustees and the new employer. The role of the Pensions Regulator at that point would be to sign off the recovery plan, on the grounds that it was a realistic basis on which the scheme could go forward. That could happen if, for example, a promise by the employer to make certain contributions over a period of time, or the actuarial assumptions, were considered realistic.

However, if a scheme were set up with a large deficit and the recovery plan was not credible, the Pensions Regulator could look at the parent company and require it to put up an asset as collateral or make a direct financial contribution to the scheme. Sometimes the regulator does that by passing a directions or issuing a notice, but often, as with good regulation, a mere threat is enough to get a firm to comply. Judging the effectiveness of the regulator by the number of times it uses its big stick is missing the point, because the point of the body is to spot things before they go wrong and get in there first, with enforcement as a last resort rather than as something immediately jumped to. In this sort of case, the regulator has far more power than it had back in 2000, under the previous regime.

This has been a broad debate, and for understandable reasons I have focused on the position of the pensioners. I hope that I have explained why the Pensions Regulator, while doing what it can, could not use its powers. We are, however, looking at whether the role of the Pension Protection Fund could be improved, so that the Visteon pensioners who have ended up in the fund through no fault of their own—principally those who have been capped—can get a fairer deal. That is something we will return to in the House.

Jobs and Social Security

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Byrne]

Let me give the hon. Gentleman some statistics. If he looked at the amount spent on benefits in 1996-97, he would find that it came to about £51 billion, excluding pensions. By the time we reach 2009-10, that had fallen to £44 billion, so I am afraid that no matter how he looks at it, the truth is that the amount spent on out-of-work benefits over the course of Labour’s period in office fell by £7.5 billion. The hon. Gentleman is a member of a party that has presided over an increase in the projected welfare spend by £20 billion, and there are something like 8,000 families in his constituency that are now seeing their tax credits either frozen or cut to pay for that cost of failure. I wonder how he is going to explain that to his constituents as we get closer to the next election.

It is not simply people in work who are paying the bill. We now know that about 6 million families are working, yet are still in poverty. There is another group of our constituents that we must worry about, too—those constituents who are disabled yet are set to lose something like £6.7 billion of help over the course of this Parliament to help pay for the failure to get Britain back to work. These benefits are being taken away, without any cumulative assessment of their combined impact, and these cuts total more than the Government are taking away from banks. That, I am afraid, is a sorry indictment of this Government’s values.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend will know that growth is at a standstill because of the collapse in consumer demand. Given that poor people spend all their money while rich people can afford to save or hide it away, does he accept that focusing the cuts on the poorest—cutting disablement benefits, the working families tax credit and the like—is completely counter-productive for job growth as it deflates the whole economy?

[Mr Byrne]

My hon. Friend is right. The Work programme has delivered only about 1% of his constituents into sustainable work. What we will publish this afternoon is an analysis showing that the per capita cuts in councils across the country are biggest where jobs are fewest. Where there is something like £200 a head in cuts, it means two or three times the national average of people chasing every single job. It is not surprising that the Work programme, flawed as it is, is finding it hard work because the Chancellor has throttled the economy and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is cutting back where jobs are fewest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Byrne]

rose—

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will give way to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill in a moment, but some of his colleagues behind him want to intervene.

[Geraint Davies]

Today, at that Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister said that 19,000 people out of 800,000 had gone into full-time work. I make that 2.3%, so the Secretary of State is saying that the Prime Minister is talking complete rubbish.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I stand by the figures that we published yesterday—3.5% is exactly correct. The reality is that what I have said today is what we said yesterday. The point that I want to make is that the thing that has gone missing in all this is that, without the Work programme, some 207,000 people who had been long-term unemployed would not be in work today—they are. Now, we work with those 207,000 people, many of whom have serious problems and difficulties, to make them longer-term employed, which is the key. The Work programme is all about resolving that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) and more especially to follow the newly elected Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), who made a magnificent speech, in sharp contrast to the ragbag of rubbish that we heard from the Secretary of State, who again painted the false picture that all the problems were inherited from the Labour party and that everything is hunky-dory now.

The reality is, of course, that under the previous Labour Administration we had sustained growth to 2008, after which there was a financial tsunami, yet we kept growth going through the fiscal stimulus. Two thirds of the deficit in 2010 was due to the banking community and only a third was due to pump priming, which kept us on the move.

What did we see then? The Conservatives arrived, deflating consumer demand by immediately announcing half a million job cuts—and we have seen virtually zero growth since. Growth is the prerequisite to getting the deficit down. It cannot be done simply by cutting and cutting, particularly by targeting the most savage cuts at the poorest, which is precisely the strategy of the Tories and their Liberal accomplices.

We have heard of figures purporting to show more people going into work, but when they are analysed, they show that the number of people in part-time work is going up. There is a transition from full-time to part-time work. The people with the least are getting less—again, deflating consumer demand—and people with less spend more of their income. In the time available, I want to answer the question how the measures for the restructuring of the welfare state impact on the effectiveness of the generation of jobs, growth and getting the deficit down, and how they impact on fairness, by hitting those who are least able to afford it.

Some of the most profound changes affect housing benefit. Particularly despicable, of course, is the reduction of housing benefit for people under 25, 45% of whom are with children. The question is whether this reduction in housing benefit, sometimes thrusting people into homelessness, helps or hinders them from getting a job, so that they can care for their family and provide tax for the Exchequer—or, rather, does it throw them into a situation from which they cannot get work again because they are, frankly, out on the street?

A couple in Wales were highlighted recently. The man had worked since he was 15 for nearly 10 years continuously, but he now faces six months of unemployment. His partner is now redundant, so under the new legislation, they face homelessness. What chance will they have to secure employment and what sort of springboard for life chances will their child have? Very little, I would suggest.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Is the hon. Gentleman experiencing in his constituency, as I am in mine, a greater demand from constituents for applications for housing benefit at a time when there is less money to go round? Does that not highlight the issue for the Government? They must provide more money for benefits and for housing benefit in particular.

[Geraint Davies]

We are seeing the perverse irony that the welfare bill is going up and up, with more people going into dependency, because the environment for job creation is not there. Meanwhile, the Government’s one-string solution is simply to give people less and less, when the focus should be on how to create new jobs, so that we can help people to get and sustain a job.

Another example—other than the targeting of under-25s who tend to have children and the escalation of child poverty into intergenerational poverty—is the empty bedroom tax. This is another horrendous idea whereby poor people—they are poor by definition as they are on housing benefit—who have an empty bedroom will lose about £7.50 a week, or £15 if they have two empty bedrooms. For example, a couple with two children, one of whom wants to go to university or get a job, will clearly have an incentive to say, “Don’t go to university,” or “Don’t leave home to get a job”—“Don’t ‘get on your bike’”, as Lord Tebbit would have it—“because, if you do, we shall end up being taxed £7.50 a week.”

A man who came to my surgery a couple of weeks ago told me that he was receiving disability living allowance, that he had a second bedroom—he used it for painting, as it happens—and that he did not have a job. Indeed, he was not a person who could have got a job. After he had paid his utility bills and all the rest, his disposable income was £20 a week. He will now lose £7.50 as a result of the bedroom tax, and next April the Government will cut the council tax rebate by 20%, which amounts to about £5 a week. His disposable income will then be down to £8 a week, which will have to cover his food, clothing and leisure.

This despicable and, in my view, socially criminal activity generates very little money from those who can least afford it, and one of the by-products will be mass homelessness. I have been a leader of a local authority, and I know that local authorities usually build family-size housing. Someone living in a two-bedroom flat or a three-bedroom house that ceases to be full when the children leave home will lose housing benefit and will then be evicted if he or she goes into arrears. Where do such people go when a local authority has not built enough one-bedroom accommodation because it is supposed to cater for families?

What if a child wants to come back from university, or to visit the family? What if there is a split in the family and the child needs to move from one place to another? The bedroom tax will cause massive disruption to communities in areas like mine throughout the country and disfigure the opportunities for us to create new jobs and get back on a sound track towards economic recovery.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will the hon. Gentleman not concede that better utilisation of the social housing stock and an increase in its capacity will give us an opportunity to reduce homelessness?

[Geraint Davies]

I have been the housing chair for London and for Croydon. I know that it is possible to devise strategies involving incentives to encourage people to move to smaller homes—and, of course, as people die over time, housing is recycled in any case—but the suggestion that a group of people in social housing should be evicted once their children have grown up and that, because suitable housing does not exist in their own communities, they should be moved around is not only despicable but completely counter-productive. It is economically insane as well as socially immoral.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that this is not an attempt to ensure that housing is distributed more evenly. It even applies to people with disabilities. Couples who have to sleep apart for medical reasons will be suddenly told that they have too big a house. It is a draconian measure.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There is a danger that those who wish to make a speech later will not be able to do so. I am sure that the hon. Lady understands that if she does not have an opportunity to make a speech herself, it will be her own fault.

[Geraint Davies]

As has already been said, the tax affects those with particular problems such as disabilities. If one half of a couple is ill with flu and, because the couple are allowed only one bedroom, that person infects the other one, it will not help the other one to work. None of this has been thought through. The idea seems to be that such people live in council houses and receive benefit and that the Government will sort them out by cutting it, but what they are doing is preventing them from working and making their contribution.

The Government also say, “Let’s cut working tax credit.” Working tax credit was an ingenious device. If I were starting a small business—indeed, I have started and run small businesses—I might be able to give someone a job paying £12,000 a year because of the way in which the business worked, but that person might not be able to afford to work for less than £15,000 because of, for instance, child care costs. The Government stepped in and stumped up the difference. What did we end up with? A growing company and a job, instead of a company that was not growing and a person stuck at home. That is the economic logic of working tax credit, but it is being cut, so part-time workers are losing £3,750 a year if they do not work for 18 hours and go down to 16 hours, as there is not enough work to do. We need to evaluate keenly whether some of these nasty cuts deliver economic disincentives to working and are therefore counter-productive in getting the deficit down.

There are ways ahead, including targeted investment involving universities and various job programmes. Other Members have spoken of the effectiveness of the current scheme, but, as I mentioned earlier, the Prime Minister has confirmed the statistic in our motion, namely that only 19,000 people out of 800,000—2%—have gone into full-time work. That is in sharp contrast to what the Secretary of State said earlier, so someone must be wrong. We should refocus, by making sure that the changes do not disrupt job creation and that they are fair and put us back on track for a strong economy and a fair society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

I will not give way; the hon. Lady had her chance earlier.

The last labour market survey showed that 80% of people in part-time work wanted part-time work—it is right for them to do so. It is the right route back into employment for many people.

The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

[Mr Hoban]

Let me address the right hon. Member for Tottenham, who was critical of apprenticeships in retail. How many of our supermarket bosses started off on the shop floor? We should not close down any route to advancement. He also criticised apprenticeships in administration. For many people, a job in an office is a route out of poverty. He should welcome opportunities to broaden the range of skills that are available to people.

I should tell the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) that I get fed up with people talking down the north-east. I was born and bred in the north-east, and I went there a couple of weeks ago. Let us look at what has happened there. Employment is up by 40,000. People are talking about the need for more skills. There are big challenges in the north-east, but he does his region no service by talking down its people. While I am at it, let me say that he talked about the work capability assessment. Let me remind him that his Government introduced it. This Government are reforming it to ensure that it is the right policy and that it gets people into work and off a lifetime condemned to inactivity.

Disability Benefits and Social Care

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Byrne]

My hon. Friend makes my point for me. When the reform of ESA and back-to-work programmes such as the Work programme are failing so badly, shutting these factories down without providing real answers about their future will, I am afraid, have terrible consequences in communities all over the country.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend says that Remploy must change, which it must, but in Swansea it has been changing. In fact, the order books are—partly owing to my own engagement with major possible local clients—virtually full with increasing orders from universities, the private sector, health authorities and so forth, even when the Remploy central sales and marketing function has dismally failed. In view of the fact that, given a helping hand, Remploy can succeed, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is outrageous for the Secretary of State to make out that these people do not work and sit around drinking coffee? Should the Secretary of State not at the very least apologise—and if not, resign?

[Mr Byrne]

I very much hope that the Secretary of State will apologise shortly. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. What we need all over the country is leadership, ensuring that work continues in these factories.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend makes some important points, and we will ensure that support is in place for people affected by the announcements we are making. But what we are about is supporting thousands more disabled people into mainstream employment, and we have clear support for our approach from disabled people and from disabled people’s organisations.

Given that they had to be reminded, the Opposition seem to have forgotten that they closed 29 of these factories. The difference is that when they did that, little attempt was made to find any alternative buyers. Worse, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury did nothing to put in place a comprehensive support package for those made redundant. Perhaps that is why so many Labour Members know that in their own constituencies many of the people affected by the previous redundancies did not get back into work, and perhaps Labour Members should hold their previous Chief Secretary to account for that. We should contrast that with the £8 million package of support that this Government are putting in place. That shows the importance that we attach to the measure.

[Geraint Davies]

Would the Minister not agree that the previous Government set aside £500 million specifically to support the modernisation of Remploy factories, not to do something else on access to work? She is saying, “We will raid all that money that was for those factories where modernisation was a success and we will put it somewhere else because we judge it to be more successful.” It is all very well saying that we should have support for access to work, which I agree with, but that money was meant for a purpose. It is being robbed out of the hands of Remploy workers, and they will not get another job in the current conditions.

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman just has to face the fact that at the end of the modernisation plan, which we are approaching, decisions will have to be made. Given the fiscal problems we faced when we came into government—the devastating state the country’s finances were in—we could well have made some very different decisions, but we chose not to do so. We chose to stick with Labour’s plan to modernise Remploy, and it has turned out that we had £65 million of losses last year and it still costs more than £20,000 to employ somebody in a Remploy factory. We simply cannot allow that to go on. What we want to do is ensure that that money is working harder. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill would have had to take the same decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will be brief. I was out of the Chamber earlier because I was in the Welsh Grand Committee.

People working in Remploy in particular, but also the disabled community generally, feel very much that they have been kicked in the teeth. They feel as if they are having to pay the price for the mistakes of the bankers. We all know that we had a deficit, but we also know that two thirds of it was caused by bankers, with the other third caused by the previous Administration investing more than they were earning at the time to keep growth going—and being successful in that. Now we have got zero growth and the deficit is going up.

[Maria Miller]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Geraint Davies]

No, I will not give way. I do not have time.

Let me turn to Remploy, which was set up after the war. When I started becoming actively involved with my local Remploy factory about a year ago, the orders it was receiving were not high enough. I went round to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the local health service, the local university, and so on, and now the factory is working flat out, getting more and more orders. That just shows that if the central command in Remploy were more effective, the factories could be successful and could work.

As for the finances, yes, the previous Government closed 29 factories, but they also left a legacy of £500 million to modernise and reinvest. However, we now find that the residue of that—about £320 million—is being put elsewhere. It might be used to get people with disabilities into mainstream work, but that mainstream work does not exist, because of record unemployment and record numbers of people in part-time work, and we now have the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which will enable employers to get rid of people who are weaker without tribunals and all the rest of it. It all stinks, to be honest.

In regard to the financial literacy of the arrangements, the average subsidy has dropped from £25,000 to £20,000, and it costs £10,000 in lost tax and benefits to put a normal person on the dole. Lord Layard has just produced a report on the cost of unemployment in terms of mental health, and it is clear that people in Remploy will end up with other difficulties that will put an enormous cost on the health service. There will be no real economic benefit at all.

Alongside that, there is uncertainty about the pension fund, the factories and the assets. The Welsh Government have, in good faith, offered to take over the factories. They have said, “We’ll have the subsidies if you let us use the factories and make this work. Let us use procurement positively and smartly to make it work.” Of course, the offer has been turned down, because success in Wales would illustrate that similar success could have been achieved in England, and the Government do not want to see themselves failing. This is just a case of asset stripping of the most vulnerable people in our society, and it stinks.

Remploy

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Ann Clwyd]

That is a very important point, because the quality of the work produced is also excellent. A focus on procurement is therefore key to the future development of the Remploy factories.

The unions argue that Remploy’s capacity has been driven down through bad management, making it possible for the Government to claim that Remploy is not working. If orders are gained through effective procurement policies, which they are in some areas, the unions argue that factories can work at full capacity and that they can be viable. Surely, the future of Remploy can be secured by enabling each individual factory to procure work and to work with other Remploy factories, if needs be.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

On that point, when I visited the Swansea factory in the spring, it was running under-capacity. I therefore visited the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority, the local authority, the university and the health authority. That factory is now running at full capacity with much higher margins. Does that not illustrate that there is a strategic problem and that there is an over-centralisation of UK management instead of sales teams being devolved to enable local factories to pick up orders from large clients based locally?

[Ann Clwyd]

I thank my hon. Friend for that remark. He wrote a very good article in the Western Mail last week on Remploy. I commend that article to my hon. Friends.

Remploy in Aberdare has failed to provide sufficient support to the factory since its so-called reprieve in 2008. Despite assurances, Remploy management have never made a concerted effort to make the Aberdare factory viable. There is a team of national sales staff—this picks up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies)—but they are all based in England and have generated little or no new work for the Aberdare factory. It is that model of procurement that urgently needs to change.

Across Remploy as a whole, major savings could be made by dealing with the over-staffing of management and senior management, the majority of whom are able-bodied. Savings could also be made by cutting the use of expensive outside consultants. The Sayce report suggested that Remploy factories could be taken over by worker co-operatives or mutuals. I hope that that is not just a cynical attempt by the Government to wash their hands of the Remploy factories. If there were an attempt to push a new model on Remploy without prior consultation or consent, it would obviously reflect very badly on the Government and be viewed as heavy-handed and top-down. Despite being among society’s most vulnerable people, disabled people should be treated like anybody else with dignity and respect.

Before the summer holidays, when I went to see the Secretary of State—the Minister was there as well—about my own factory, I questioned the quality of the information being provided by Remploy senior management, including to the Government. That was confirmed by a comment made during our meeting. It was said that my factory in Aberdare was part of the furniture business. I said, “Well, that’s news to me.” When I went to the factory a few days later, the people there confirmed that they do not make furniture—they make window boxes. I suppose that window boxes are furniture to some people, but they are not normally considered to be furniture.

The Aberdare factory still manufactures some items for the health care business. That was one of the main things it did that was taken away from it some years ago as a result of some fatuous reasoning. The manufacture of those items was transferred to Chesterfield. I have no objection to people in Chesterfield having a job, but not at the expense of my own factory. As I have said, we still manufacture some items for the health care business, including a subcontracted footwear contract from the Chesterfield factory. That seems to be a rather ridiculous situation that is like a sort of yo-yo approach. There is also a bra pocketing service and the manufacture of lumber supports. So the factory was not making furniture, and I question some of the things that are said to happen in certain places.

Finally, according to the economists, we know that unemployment is on course to hit 3 million for the first time in 20 years. It is clear that wide-ranging job cuts in the public sector are simply not being absorbed by the private sector. Those jobs are just not there in the private sector. It is the hallmark of a civilised society that it ensures that its most vulnerable people are protected. Those people should not be left to compete in a savage labour market, where hundreds of thousands more people will lose their jobs in the coming months. It will be hard enough for the able-bodied, but please let us safeguard Remploy and all who work within it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Lloyd]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that incredibly important point. The variability of the support that disabled people need is absolutely vast—it is like a length of string. Let me give an example. I missed a vote a few months after I was elected, because I did not hear the Division bell, which is not surprising, because I am half deaf. What was the solution? I made an adjustment in my office in Norman Shaw North, and I now have a flashing light there; it is not complicated, but there are some advantages. Of course, a lot of us in this Chamber sometimes appreciate it if we do not hear the Division bell, but that is by the bye.

However, that is a good example of what we are talking about. My disability is pretty minor—I have been hard of hearing ever since I got measles when I was six or seven years old—and one can accommodate it quite easily. However, someone with, say, profound mobility problems will need more support than someone like me, and someone with severe mental health issues will need even more support. I therefore entirely agree that this is not black and white, and it is not easy to pigeonhole people. If Access to Work is done properly, however, and there are other supporting mechanisms, it can be very effective, even for people with a profound disability, as I will explain a bit later.

Remploy employs 2,800 people, whereas Access to Work currently supports 37,000 and could support 70,000 if the budget were used better. Furthermore—this is unpopular but important—there are few new entrants to Remploy factories, as more and more disabled people are supported in moving to open employment. Given what the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley said, I am absolutely certain that some of the factories in the group are, despicably, not taking on some of the disabled people they should be; I cannot prove that, but I am sure she is right. However, one of the main reasons they are not taking on as many disabled people as they used to is that more and more of those who want to work are getting support to help them move into open employment.

[Geraint Davies]

Swansea Remploy, which I mentioned, is very productive and effective, but the voluntary redundancy scheme there and elsewhere was in danger of taking key people out of the production chain. Currently, Remploy’s management has imposed a virtual employment freeze; the factory is, for instance, looking for a design technician, which is holding back orders. In other words, the Government and Remploy’s management are preventing Remploy from succeeding, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman suggests.

[Stephen Lloyd]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I am not sure it is true. That is the same situation as we had years ago—it really is. These things have not come out of the woodwork under this Government.

[Geraint Davies]

I got that information first hand on a visit to Remploy in Swansea last week. It has a showroom and it is getting new people in ordering things, but it faces production constraints because it cannot recruit the right people. It wants to recruit more people and to be more successful, but it is being held back.

[Stephen Lloyd]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his further intervention. As I will explain later, the Remploy model needs changing. Remploy’s corporate size is a disadvantage and makes it very sclerotic, so it cannot move swiftly to adapt to circumstances. The Government need to be more creative about how Remploy factories and branches within the corporate body act. I do not deny what the hon. Gentleman says—indeed, I am sure it is true—but I guarantee that it could have been said 10 years ago. I absolutely promise that, because I know the subject.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will be brief because other hon. Members wish to speak. I have already said that active intervention locally can make a difference, and in my discussions with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the university and the health authority, we transformed the sales of the Swansea factory, quadrupled turnover and increased gross margins by tenfold. That is a case for more localised management and sales support and for removing the cap on overall marketing expenditure, which is less than 1% of turnover. All marketing literature must be checked by civil servants who have no idea about local needs.

My second point is about subsidies. The Sayce report states that the average subsidy is £23,000, but averages can be misleading. We all know that the cost of someone being unemployed is normally about £10,000 in benefits and lost tax. In the case of many of the people who work for Remploy, it would be much more because of the health on-costs. That needs to be properly evaluated financially.

Remploy works across a diverse range of markets. There is a case for focusing on whether there are greater growth opportunities and for examining the different business cases, rather than saying that it is a case of either closing all the factories or keeping them all and having no change. I do not think that anyone is arguing for no change.

There is a case for focusing on people with severe disabilities. Obviously, those with particularly severe disabilities need particular subsidies and support if they have virtually no chance of securing other forms of employment. There is a case for considering specific labour markets. In areas with very high unemployment, it is clear that those people will not get a job. There is a case for considering public procurement, as has been said.

It is also important to consider the specialist opportunities in relation to Remploy. For instance, Swansea Remploy is a specialist provider for young offender institutions in Scotland. It makes furniture that young offenders cannot destroy. They cannot break those things; there are no screws that they can pull out. It also provides furniture for mental institutions so that the residents cannot self-harm. The value is in tailor-made, focused transactions, where delivery is within budget and within the time frame. As I have already mentioned, it is important to ensure that key players and key skills are there to make the factories succeed.

People have mentioned that the factories provide an opportunity for training. Training is vital in manufacturing if we are to get back into growth and stop focusing completely on cuts. Clearly, if we just sell off the factories, we will see a fire sale of capital assets and the loss of the skills for ever. That is not sound financial management.

My basic theme is this. Let us focus on what works and make it work better. Let us accept that people with disabilities of varying sorts need subsidies. No one is saying that they can go off and succeed without any support. Let us use the levers at our disposal to make that work and stop just thinking about how we go about closing down 54 factories and making 2,500 people redundant. Those people are valuable assets in society, in our economy and in our future. Let us keep them doing that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. We have met on several occasions to discuss the issue. There are examples of areas where there can be success. Indeed, the hon. Member for Swansea West has walked the talk and made sure that the procurement issue has been uppermost in his local authority’s mind, and he has been very successful in that regard. There are opportunities for success, but the problem is that that success is not across the board.

I have already confirmed that the amount of money going into specialist disability employment is not the issue, because we have protected that pot of money. This is about ensuring that that money works hardest for disabled people. This is not about reducing funding; it is about using the money most effectively in whatever way that comes about. We have to consider those alternatives.

I have met Remploy trade union representatives on a number of occasions to discuss the matter. I have visited factories and listened to the views of employees, and I attended one of the consultation events in Reading in September. Let me restate that the Government’s commitment is to the five-year modernisation plan introduced in 2008. We are now in year four of that and those targets are not being met.

Last week, Remploy published independently audited annual reports and financial statements for 2010-11, which revealed that the Department for Work and Pensions spent £68.3 million supporting 2,200 disabled people in Remploy enterprise businesses at an annual cost of £25,000 per person. That is £5 million more than in 2009-10 and is more than 20% of the total budget available to help disabled people into work through the specialist employment budgets. We have to take a long hard look at the situation.

[Geraint Davies]

Does the Minister accept that there is a case for some job subsidy, even if it is as low as the amount that that person would otherwise be paid for unemployment benefit and health on-costs, or is she going to stick to her guns and say that there should be no subsidy and we should therefore make a loss to the Exchequer?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman asks a very detailed question. He knows that we have not yet made the decision about the way forward. A significant amount of money is available to support disabled people. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne talked about the Access to Work programme, which he rightly said is exceptionally effective. The Sayce report clearly says that if decisions are made about the prioritisation of the available money, more money—significant amounts of money—could be yielded to support Access to Work. That could well be the sort of support that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Swansea West would want.

Unemployment

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Byrne]

The Minister says that this is nonsense. I am afraid that he will be giving the House the illusion that he is not taking the figures that we saw this morning seriously enough. He went on the media this morning and said that today’s figures, which show youth unemployment rising to the highest level this country has ever seen, represented a stabilisation in the labour market. When youth unemployment is going up, overall unemployment is going up, and women’s unemployment is going up, that is not stabilisation—it is a tragedy for the people those figures represent, and he should be doing more to get them back into work.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was a massive strategic error for the Government to announce over a year ago that they were going to get rid of half a million public sector jobs? Public servants spent less because they thought they were going to lose their jobs. Together with two years of a 1% pay freeze, which will reduce real incomes by 17%, and the attempt to dress up a 3% change in income tax as a pension contribution, that has massively deflated the amount of consumption in the economy and given rise to flat lining growth.

[Mr Byrne]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. The recovery has been clobbered, and as a result the welfare bill is now going through the roof. That is a bill that the rest of us are going to have to pay.

We now have, since we last met, a youth contract on the table. That is a recognition that it was a mistake to get rid of the future jobs fund and to leave instead, for two years, no active programme for getting young people back into work. That was a grave error. The shame is that this contract was paid for by a botched deal between the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor; I do not think that the Secretary of State was even in the room. He should remember that if you are not in the room, it is quite hard to influence the decision. What emerged from the quartet, as I think it is quaintly called, was a shabby settlement that took money off hard-pressed parents with children to pay for this Government’s failure to get young people back to work. In the past, the Secretary of State has talked a lot about the marriage penalty, and there are sympathisers with his argument on both sides of the House. However, he too must now recognise that he is presiding over the biggest parents’ penalty that we have ever seen introduced into the benefits system, with twice the amount of money being taken off children and families than will be taken off the bankers over the course of this Parliament. Surely Government Members cannot be proud of that.

I want to ask a couple of questions about the youth contract to which I hope the Minister will be able to respond. First, will he admit that 53,000 work subsidies this coming year is far too few for the task that we have in hand? That equates to only one opportunity for every 20 young people now unemployed. Secondly, in 2009—this is perhaps of interest to the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald)—Labour introduced a form of work subsidy, but the take-up was not great and the Conservative party attacked it remorselessly. What has accounted for the sudden change of heart over work subsidies? Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly given the Minister’s concern about statistics, when will we find out how many people the youth contract is getting back into work? Will it be Work programme providers who operate the schemes? If so, why do so many of them appear to be completely in the dark about the scheme and its introduction? If the contract proves not to work in short order, will the Government consider reintroducing Labour’s future jobs fund, which was such a success?

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The last Labour Prime Minister will be remembered in the economic history books as the man who in 2008, alongside President Obama, averted a depression of a 1930s quantum by invoking a fiscal stimulus. The current Prime Minister may well be remembered as the Prime Minister who prematurely used his veto to stop Europe putting together a plan to promote economic stability and growth, and avert a crisis in the euro and a national sovereign debt crisis across Europe. We all know that we did not want the financial transaction tax, but that could have been vetoed at a later date.

We have a deficit, as we all know, two thirds of which was the responsibility of the international financial markets and the banks. The remaining third was due to the excess investment over earnings of the Labour Government. There should be no apology for that, because that investment was in lower VAT, the car scrappage scheme and so on, which stimulated growth on the back of what could have been the worst depression since the ’30s, and reduced the deficit forecasts by some £22 billion. With the change of Government there was a change of focus, from growth to cuts. Growth has now stopped. The immediate judgment of the new Chancellor was to announce 500,000 job cuts and, for instance, 7% cuts in local government for four years. That meant that everyone in local government thought they were bound to lose their jobs and therefore stopped spending. The reduction in consumption and spending has meant a depression in growth. Now the deficit forecasts are not going down, but going up. They went up to £46 billion, and now they are £158 billion.

As for business and inward investment, the Chinese are coming to Cardiff tomorrow. They are concerned about a country whose growth is flatlining, which has strikes and riots provoked by the Government parties’ policies, where crime is rising for the first time and waiting lists are going up—again, through cuts—and where the educational standards of those going to university are beginning to fall off. In other words, this dualist idea—that if we get rid of the public sector, the private sector will be all right—is completely fallacious. The Labour party has a five-point plan. For example, the VAT change would stimulate £46 million in the local economy in Swansea, helping to create new jobs, while lower national insurance rates would also be helpful in stimulating building businesses.

I should mention that the interest rates that we now enjoy are thanks to the Labour Government making the Bank of England independent. We remember the last time the Tories were in, when interest rates hovered between 10% and 15%, so I will take no lessons from the Conservatives about how the austerity plans and unemployment are the reason for low interest rates. In fact, since the summer, interbank borrowing rates—that is, wholesale rates—have increased by 1%, so small businesses are suffering.

Finally, there is a glimmer of hope for the future in Swansea and Wales, thanks to the standard and quality of research and development in both our universities, which are working with UK Trade & Investment to network into international markets. However, with an enterprise zone in Bristol, parked on the gateway to Wales, we are not helped, frankly, by the continuation of rising tolls on the Severn bridge, especially when we see them being cut on the Humber. That is basically leading to disinvestment in many investment projects, whether in St Athan or the Severn barrage. There is hope, but we need a refocus on growth, instead of an endless focus on cuts. Anyone who runs a business that is making a loss needs to focus on revenue, not just cutting everything. The Government need to think again and remember the success of the previous Labour Government.

Amendment of the Law

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Commons Chamber

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

In concluding the Budget debate, and recognising what you have just said, Mr Speaker, I will take interventions. However, I will try to make some progress, as many Members wish to get in and many of the points have probably already been made.

I think that it has been an excellent Budget, given the circumstances we find ourselves in. The Chancellor is to be congratulated on focusing on his priorities, which he stated clearly, for rebuilding the shattered economy that we inherited. Let me remind the House that when Labour came to power in 1997 they received a golden economic inheritance, the like of which few Governments since the war have received, which gave them money to spend. Despite that, the painful scar of youth unemployment hardly changed, some 4.5 million were stuck on out-of-work benefits, 1.4 million had never worked at all and we had the largest structural deficit of any G7 economy. Intriguingly, the worst thing is that that point was reached even before the recession had started.

After that, things just got a whole lot worse: 5 million on out-of-work benefits; working-age poverty up; youth unemployment at a record high; more children in workless households than the rest of the European Union; and the largest budget deficit in the UK’s post-war history, of more than £150 billion. That deficit is for one year, piling on top of the outstanding debt mountain, and £120 million is spent on interest payments alone—every single day. There was even talk of an International Monetary Fund bail-out, bringing alive memories of the dark years of the late 1970s—and, of course, the House knows who was in power then.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that two thirds of the deficit—£84 billion—was due to the financial crisis, and that the Budget’s overall fiscal tightening is £98 billion? Does he not agree that he is going too far, too fast, savaging whole communities, choking growth with cuts and stoking up inflation with VAT? Is that not completely wrong? That is why so many people marched against it.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

That gives me an opportunity to put the shadow Chancellor right. He said in one of the Budget debates last week that the structural deficit was low as we entered the recession. We had the highest structural deficit in the whole developed world, and intriguingly he is in denial about that, so whether he talks about debt or deficits, in reality as we entered the recession, the economy had been badly run, leaving us with a record structural deficit.

Importantly, what has been Labour’s response as a result of that? Acceptance that it had lost control; perhaps even a little humility? Not a bit of it. Instead, we have seen a desperate scramble to find almost anybody else to blame for the problems, and it appears, even today, no attempt to make any amends publicly. In the Labour playbook, the previous Government were just innocent bystanders in somebody else’s evil game. Poor old Britain. Apparently, we were just minding our own business when along came some nasty industrialists and bankers who ganged up on us in some international capitalist conspiracy. It is like some ghastly, poor script. It really does read like some really poor script from an Austin Powers movie, and I am pretty sure that any minute now the shadow Chancellor is going to try to blame Dr Evil and bring him into the script as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased to say that this morning we had a coalition ground force moving into Swansea in a dawn raid at 8.30 am, with the Business Secretary alongside the Secretary of State for Wales talking in the chamber of commerce, and they had a great deal of local resistance from people with placards and the like. In Swansea, 40% of people in public services are facing cuts and unemployment, and we have been denied electrification by the Government, which would have meant inward investment in Swansea. In addition, Tata Steel has just had a bomb dropped on it about the new carbon tax, which will focus only on its facility in the UK and not on those in any of the other 20 countries in which it makes quality steel. Obviously, it is a very valuable employer in the area.

The people resisting the Secretaries of State this morning were similar to the hundreds of thousands who marched in London on Saturday. Who were those people? They were nurses, doctors and teachers—people who keep our work force healthy and educated. They were tax collectors who face losing their jobs—people who are supposed to be collecting tax more efficiently. They were police officers, who are meant to patrol and police, as well as look after the riots and protests being incited by the cuts. They were small business people who are clearly concerned that the Government’s attitude to small business is, “If you make a loss, sell your tools,” as opposed to achieving growth through increased sales. They were service users—people who face cuts in libraries, leisure centres, pools, centres for the elderly, Sure Start and so on. The people on the march had one common cause—that there should be an alternative mix of growth, tax, cuts and timing that is optimal to confront the deficit before us.

It is worth reminding ourselves that the deficit did not come out of some sort of Labour inadequacy. It was the price paid to avoid a depression caused by the banks. Two thirds of the deficit—£84 billion—has been evaluated by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others as being the impact of the financial disaster that we imported from sub-prime debt. The fiscal squeeze on which the Government have embarked is about £98 billion, more than the overall financial crisis. That is to take place over four years. The question is whether, if there is a massive outside impact on the country’s financial deficit, we can hope to get rid of that and more within four years without disrupting our economic capacity and social fabric. Should it be the case that three quarters of that is cuts and only one quarter is tax?

The OBR has reached its verdict. It has had to change the growth forecast from 2.6% to 1.7%, which shows that less revenue will come in from people working, and the Government will have to rely more and more on savage cuts. There is an alternative, the Labour alternative—to halve the deficit in four years rather than get rid of it completely, and to use three methods instead of just one, cuts. The three methods are to focus on growth, make the bankers pay their fair share and make savings over time. Germany, for example, is clearing its deficit through export-driven growth, rather than focusing on cuts.

I was over in Germany. I went to UK Trade & Investment, which markets Britain for inward investment. There are lots of German companies queuing up to invest in Britain. Those offers were put on a computer platform for regional development agencies to draw down, but because the RDAs have been abolished, those inward investments are not being taken up and are going to other countries. German regions, let alone the whole country, have offices in Seoul and other emerging markets and are trading and getting inward investment there, and we are not. We are undermining our ability to grow. Instead of a budget for growth, we have cuts.

Growth went negative in the last quarter of last year. Why? Because consumer confidence, the inclination to spend, and investment confidence were washed away by the talk of austerity and the reckless, breakneck speed at which the cuts were made. In addition to the 300,000 people who are to be sacked from public services, PricewaterhouseCoopers says that another million jobs will be lost in the private sector, costing around £7 billion in lost tax and benefit costs per year. Add to that the £4 billion that we have to spend on restructuring the NHS to help privatise it, and the other costs of unnecessary structural change at a time of shrinking budgets, and we can see that this is economic incompetence at its worst. It is not necessary in its current contortion, it is not fair and it is not sensible.

The key issue on banks is that they need to provide liquidity to small business as the engine for growth. We all heard about Merlin, but the question is whether that will be delivered. Sadly, a person in my constituency is on hunger strike over the issue. Finally, people may not have noticed the 3p reduction in inheritance tax given to bankers, who are now paying a smaller proportion. If they give money, for example through works of art, we can see from the fine detail—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)]

There has been a good debate today and over the past four days. Today the debate was graced in particular by a contribution from the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), the former Chancellor, who addressed the topic of business confidence and gave the House the benefit of his experience of issues in the world economy. He might have noticed that figures today show that business confidence is rising, but it was good to hear from him in the debate, and also from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) who, among many other hon. Members, made the point that it was important to hear from the Opposition what they would cut.

This year’s Budget is about reforming the nation’s economy so that we have sustainable growth and jobs in the future. As many hon. Members observed in the debate, none of this would be possible without the difficult decisions that we have already had to take to tackle the enormous budget deficit that we inherited—decisions that have secured our international credit rating and been praised by the OECD, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank; decisions that have provided the firm platform that we need to build a strong, sustainable and balanced economy; and decisions that have brought about economic stability and confidence in Britain’s ability to pay its way in the world. That stability and confidence would be forfeit if we stepped back from our plan, as some have suggested. To do so would cost jobs and growth and would mean more cuts for more people for longer in the future.

The action that the Government have taken is allowing us to move from rescue to recovery, from a decade of unbalanced, unsustainable policy to the hard road back to prosperity, for this Budget confronts the problems that our predecessors chose to ignore. For the past decade Britain has been losing ground in the world’s economy. While other nations have reduced their business tax rates, ours have increased. While other countries have removed barriers to enterprise, ours have grown higher still. While our competitors have improved their education systems, reformed welfare and increased exports, we have had to endure the opposite. That is the legacy of the Labour Government.

That is why, in the Budget, we have set out the Government’s new vision for growth—a vision that has four key ambitions at its heart. First, Britain should have the most competitive tax system in the G20. Secondly, Britain should be the best place in Europe to start, finance and grow a business. Thirdly, Britain should be a more balanced economy by encouraging exports—

[Geraint Davies]

If the right hon. Gentleman is creating an environment for inward investment and enterprise, how does he explain the fact that when I spoke in Dusseldorf to UK Trade & Investment, which markets Britain abroad, it said that it was generating lots of leads for inward investment, but because the Government had abolished the RDAs, those were not being drawn down and all that inward investment was going elsewhere? Is that not a pathetic indictment of the Government’s failure to generate growth?

[Danny Alexander]

I am grateful for that intervention, but I disagree with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.

Welfare Reform Bill

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

What we want from the Bill is to encourage people to get involved in the process—to help people to use it as part of the incentive of trying to make the right decisions about taking work and providing for their families.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the example of a married couple who are at work and have five children from previous marriages, but then lose their jobs because, for instance, they work for the local council? Because they have five children, they would get almost £500 of personal allowance and £200 of housing benefit, taking them over the £500 cap. Rationally, they might choose, because of the £500 cap, to split up their family so that there are three children and two children in two houses, each with £250 of personal allowance and £200 of housing benefit, making a global total of £900, when it would have been £700. Surely his policies of breaking up families and making demands for more and more social housing, alongside making people unemployed, do not add up to fairness or competence.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point and can, I hope, assure him that as the Bill progresses, and as he will see as we reach Committee, our objective is to recognise that unemployment, for those who fall unemployed, is probably a temporary condition. He will understand that point more as we get into the detail, but trying to find some way of protecting such people through that process is critical to us, as the vast majority will be back in work within a set period: 90% of people will be back in work within a year. Most people will get through that process, and it is for us to ensure that the transition is met and dealt with, but I think that he will be very happy in due course to hear what we propose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Byrne]

I am grateful for that observation. I say gently that, with five people chasing every job in the economy, if we are serious about getting people back into work—I think that the Government do want to do the right thing—we have to do more to create more jobs. We can pass laws and put in place extra help for unemployed people, but there must also be an economic policy that creates more jobs to absorb the very deep public sector job cuts that we know are coming down the line.

[Geraint Davies]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the deficit was the price paid to avoid a depression caused by the bankers, and that the best way to get rid of it is to focus on economic growth, make bankers pay their fair share and make sensible savings over time, not to make the poorest pay the most while the richest are lavished with massive bonuses, which is what the Bill is about?

[Mr Byrne]

I will avoid getting into an extended debate about macro-economic policy, although I would happily discuss it all afternoon, but my hon. Friend is right. Under our approach, despite the fact that we faced the worst global crash since the 1930s, unemployment did not go beyond 3 million, as it did not once but twice under the Conservative Administration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is a mean-minded, ill-thought-out Bill that is not designed to promote fairness or help people into work. Rather, its purpose is to punish the poor, the disabled, those with children, those trying to save and those starting a small business for the cost of the greed and recklessness of City bankers, who created our deficit. That is laid at the door of the poor, while those responsible indulge in sharing £8 billion of banker bonuses under a system propped up by the taxpayer, whereby if risks go wrong the public pay and if they go right the bankers profit.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s sense that the banking system is responsible for the greatest injustices in our society, which I fight often, but, as has been pointed out, these reforms long predate the banking crisis.

[Geraint Davies]

I shall come on to the reforms.

The deficit was the price paid to avoid a depression, and the Government had a clear choice: they could halve the deficit in four years by focusing on economic growth and making the bankers pay their fair share while also making savings over time that are fair and do not harm economic growth. The alternative, which the Government have chosen, was to cut the deficit at twice that pace, clearing it in half the time—in four years. That is a “formidable” challenge, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which says that the Government need a plan B.

There is an over-reliance on savage cuts, particularly to public sector jobs and the welfare benefits we are considering today. That will throw whole communities into poverty, with a third of a million public sector redundancies triggering a further 1 million private sector job losses, which will cost an extra £7 billion a year in benefit costs and lost tax. The benefits of those thrown on to the dole will be cut, forcing them, in the worst instances, into community projects like criminals when they cannot find work. Why is this happening? It is happening because the Government have thrown a bucket of water over the embers of economic growth that Labour had kindled.

[Mr Heald]

That is a nice soundbite, but the policy will cost the taxpayer money. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that it is not giving money to people at the bottom of the pile, but we are talking about £2.6 billion to help poor people into work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

The Bill will cost around £4 billion to implement, and save some £18 billion by taking from the poorest families. The Government’s plans are incompetent, unfair and counter-productive. The fact is that the cuts are choking growth and VAT is stoking inflation, and both are pushing the deficit up, not down. In Germany the focus is on growth, not cuts, and growth continues apace. In Britain, of course, growth is negative—and it is not just the snow. Alongside the £4 billion cost of the Bill is the £4 billion cost of dismantling the health service and the £7 billion lost through the unemployment created by the job cuts, and so it goes on.

What is the impact on people in Swansea? Some 40% of its workers are employed in the public sector. We face the second highest level of job cuts and very large benefit cuts. Some 65% of people employed in the public sector are women, and the combination of cuts in jobs and welfare payments will impact on families in particular as they pay their share of the £18 billion in savings that will be made.

The Bill will hurt children, the disabled and enterprise. Let us consider a Swansea woman with children who works for the council and is made redundant. She has savings of £18,000 and, being an enterprising person, wants to start her own business. She will get no benefits, of course, because she has saved more than £16,000 in good faith. She will have no wage, but she will be assumed to be getting the minimum wage as she is starting a business. Her business will face various start-up costs, such as a computer, setting up a website and promotional literature. She will be penalised for being a worker, penalised for being a saver and penalised for being an entrepreneur.

Let us assume for a moment that the woman is successful, despite those barriers. She will be threatened with the loss of her council house if she earns too much—hardly an incentive for people on council estates to start their own businesses. Let us say that she is in her second marriage and she and her husband have five children. Her husband was also employed by the council—they met working there—and both were made redundant. They have five children, so they have nearly £500 of personal benefits in addition to £200 in housing benefit, which means they get £700 in total. The £500 cap is imposed on them, so they are forced to split up. They now live in separate council houses, each drawing £200 in housing benefit, with one parent looking after three children and the other looking after the other two. This is a recipe not just for destroying jobs and crushing entrepreneurial activity, but for splitting up homes and increasing the cost to the Exchequer to £900 when it was £700.

The Government’s approach in Swansea and elsewhere in Britain will make people jobless, make them poorer, break up families, crush enterprise, punish saving and harm children and the disabled. This is a Bill born not out of fair-mindedness and enlightenment, but an unnecessary and unwise economic strategy of cutting too far too fast and punishing the poor for the reckless greed of the bankers. It should be opposed so that we can go back to the drawing board and think again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely assure my hon. Friend that that will be a factor. As we select organisations to fill different geographic parts of the Work programme, bidders’ ability to demonstrate a knowledge, awareness and understanding of the geography they will be dealing with will certainly be a factor for us. In substantially rural areas, it is essential that organisations have the expertise to deal with the particular challenges of the rural economy and not simply with those found in towns and cities.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister agree that the best personalised assistance that could be offered to a couple with six children who are facing the £500 benefit cap would be to advise them to split into two single-parent families of three children? As a family, they already consume £500 in benefits plus £250 in housing benefit, but as two separate units they would get £250 each in benefits plus £250 in housing, thereby costing the Exchequer £1,000, using two houses and being a split-up family.

[Chris Grayling]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise how important it is that work pays in our society and how frustrated working people are that it is possible for a family to receive, when the tax equivalent is taken into account, an income comparable to £35,000 a year in benefits. If we are to send the message that work pays, we have to limit the amount that the state supports people when they are outside work.