Oral Answers to Questions

Gregg McClymont Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee for welcoming our decision to keep everybody in. In terms of certainty, everybody who was due to be enrolled this side of July 2013 will see no change in their dates, and we will publish early in the new year the revised schedule. I entirely agree that certainty is needed, and I can confirm that there will be no further changes to the timetable.

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

Auto-enrolment is—or should I say, was?—central to the Pensions Minister’s strategy, so his resorting to bureaucratic language, saying that “all businesses remain in scope,” is not going to reassure anyone. The fact is, as I hope he will confirm, that the schedule has been moved back and millions upon millions of the employees whom he was keen to get saving in a pension scheme will not be auto-enrolled until after 2015. Is that correct?

[Steve Webb]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of this, but under his party’s plans the roll-out of employers with one to 50 employees was already scheduled to go into 2016. I can confirm that the majority of the work force will be auto-enrolled during this Parliament. There was already a five-year roll-out for auto-enrolment, so it was already a phased process. Yes, we have changed the schedule, but, as he may be aware, his party changed it twice in a three-month period.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregg McClymont Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The change that we made—a commitment to ensuring that the changes are fair as they affect women—cost £1.1 billion. The difference between us and the Opposition is that their policy cost ten times as much and they had no idea where the money would come from.

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

The Minister knows how important auto-enrolment is to ensuring that future generations retire on a decent pension, but the Government’s Beecroft report on deregulation looms large on the horizon. Can the Minister reassure the House that whatever Beecroft recommends, no business large or small will be allowed to opt out from auto-enrolment?

[Steve Webb]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new role in the House. I much enjoyed his attempt to persuade the House last week that £11 billion was not very much if we divided it by 10 and by the national debt. In answer to his question about auto-enrolment, I can assure him that 2012 goes ahead as planned, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the Dispatch Box last week.

Pensions Bill [Lords]

Gregg McClymont Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

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

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

[Gregg McClymont]

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

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

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont)—this is the only time I am ever going to say that—on his new post. He mentioned Lord Turner. Is he aware that following the improvements in demographic projections that have taken place since Lord Turner produced his report, he is now on record saying that if he had been writing his report then, he would have gone much further much faster?

[Gregg McClymont]

The Minister is of course right. I believe that since the Turner report, longevity predictions have risen by 6.5% for men and 5.5% for women. There is no doubt that the issue is complex—no one is denying that—and there may well be a case for going further faster, but the burden of my argument involves the half a million women who must wait for up to 18 months. Our view is that that is a disproportionate burden, imposed without fair and due notice.

[Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gregg McClymont]

I should like to make a little more progress first. I shall be happy to give way after that.

In 2005, in the days when the Conservative party was trying desperately to shift the perception that it had not changed, the present Prime Minister said:

“If you put eight Conservative men round a table and ask them to discuss what should be done about pensions, you'd get some good answers… but what you are less likely to get is a powerful insight into the massive unfairness relating to women's pensions.”

[Alok Sharma]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that the Government have moved some way on the transitional arrangements, but may I ask him a question that I asked his predecessor, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), in Committee? How does he expect to fund the changes that he proposes?

[Gregg McClymont]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the savings that we are discussing have absolutely nothing to do with the deficit? They will accrue from 2016 onwards.

[Alok Sharma]

What the hon. Gentleman has said is interesting, given that when the Labour party was last in power, it did not really bother about saving for tomorrow. This is what his predecessor said when the point was raised in Committee:

“this is outside the period of the comprehensive spending review and the budget deficit reduction plan.”—[Official Report, Pensions Public Bill Committee, 5 July 2011; c. 8.]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are not going to suddenly stop spending and raising money after the budget deficit has gone. If we keep making unfunded pension commitments, that will add to the deficit and the debt in the future.

[Gregg McClymont]

That was not so much an intervention as a speech. The fact remains that the difference between the Government’s proposals and ours is £10 billion over 10 years. That is £1 billion a year. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that a saving of that kind cannot be found in a more sophisticated way, without placing an unfair and disproportionate burden on those women? I do not agree, and nor does any other Opposition Member.

The Prime Minister was right when he suggested that if you put eight Conservative men around a table you would get some interesting answers on pensions, but you would not get the right answer. The Prime Minister was right then, and the Government are wrong now. The Minister’s amendments are welcome, and I am sure that he would personally like to go further, but he does not sit at the Cabinet table, although perhaps pensions Ministers should be in the Cabinet. This concession thus remains too limited. Some 500,000 women will still have to wait up to 18 months longer before reaching state pension age.

Turning to a point the Minister made earlier, this is not an easy issue, and there are great challenges, including that of longevity. As people live longer, the state pension age needs to rise to ensure a decent state pension for all. Labour set in train the Turner consensus: the state pension to rise in line with earnings; the retirement age to rise to 68 by 2046; and private pensions to be opt-out rather than opt-in. Labour also maintained the timetable for equalisation set out in the Pensions Act 1995.

Members on the Government Benches ask why we did not implement that, but Labour made great strides on pensions. Some 1 million pensioners were lifted out of poverty between 1997 and 2010. That is a real achievement. The poorest pensioners were lifted out of poverty. No pensioner lives in absolute poverty any longer. I must also point out that we had to do that because the previous Conservative Government left the pension system, and particularly the poorest pensioners, in a very difficult situation.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman takes us back into the mists of history, but surely today’s announcement can be warmly welcomed by all Members on both sides of the House? The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) describes this announcement as “just a sticking plaster”, however. I cannot think of any other sticking plaster in history which has cost £1.1 billion and helped 250,000 people. That cannot have been the case even when the right hon. Gentleman was at the Treasury.

[Gregg McClymont]

Perhaps because I have a historian’s perspective, I do not consider 35 years ago to be the mists of time. I think that that era is relevant to our discussion of pensions today.

We cannot sit still and do nothing on pensions. We accept that changes have to be made; we have no complaint about that, and we accept the Minister’s point about rising longevity.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am very pleased that my hon. Friend has taken up his new post. I am sure he agrees that a balance must be struck between dealing with rising longevity by having a plan to increase the state pension age over time, and offering short-term certainty to women who need to be able to plan their personal finances. We must not keep adjusting our pensions policy just because longevity keeps on rising. A sensible balance must be struck.

[Gregg McClymont]

My hon. Friend makes her point with greater eloquence than I could muster, and she sums up the crux of our case.

Labour set two tests for the Pensions Bill, and the Government continue to fail both of them. They fail the first test of giving fair and due notice, to which my hon. Friend just referred. Even if amended in line with the Government proposals, the Bill will not give those 500,000 women fair and proper notice of the rise in their state pension age.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman did not respond to the earlier point about needing to strike a balance between what this country can afford economically and what any Government might like to do. As Age UK has said, £1 billion to help 250,000 women is a big step forward. We should welcome that, rather than play petty politics with it.

[Gregg McClymont]

Actually, I did answer that point very simply. This has nothing to do with the deficit, and there is a £10 billion difference between our position and that of the Government over the 10 years after 2016, which amounts to £1 billion a year. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that that £1 billion a year is a fair and balanced outcome, all I can say is that, given the greater burden being placed on 500,000 women, Labour Members disagree with him.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman mentions that the deficit will be brought down by 2015-16. That may be the case, but this country will still owe £1.14 trillion or £1.15 trillion. Does he think it fair and just that our children and their children, and probably their children, will be taking on that debt?

[Gregg McClymont]

Does the hon. Gentleman not understand his own Government’s policy, which is to eradicate the structural deficit by 2015? [Interruption.] According to the Government, the deficit will have gone. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State, from a sedentary position, makes the distinction between debt and deficit. I can tell him that I am well aware of that distinction, but I suggest that Members on the Government Benches are not so clear on this. I say that because £1 billion a year is one 1,000th of the debt that the hon. Gentleman just—

[Mr Jones]

rose—

[Gregg McClymont]

No, I will not give way again, because I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s question very clearly. I will restate the point: £1 billion a year is one 1,000th of the national debt figure to which he just referred.

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

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. I am wondering whether he taught my son, who is still at Oxford, as now I am really worried. Let me ask him a simple question. The simple fact is that he is getting confused. His argument was originally about the deficit and it has now drifted, rightly, into being about debt. However, debt is not some esoteric issue. If we do not pay off that debt and have a plan to pay it off, all our interest charges rise. The key thing is that it stacks up. Whether or not it is one 1,000th—or whatever he calculates—we have to make a start. We are making a major start on debt repayment. If, as he says, we are talking about only—as he says—£1 billion a year, he needs to tell us where he is going to find this sophisticated £1 billion to replace it?

[Gregg McClymont]

I thank the Secretary of State for his intervention. I am sure that his son is getting a better education than I could manage to provide, as he rather ungallantly suggested. The fact is that this is one 1,000th of the £1.3 trillion debt, and the issue is one of balance and proportion. Is £1 billion—

[Brandon Lewis]

rose—

[Gregg McClymont]

I am sorry, but I have given way enough and I have to make progress.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

rose—

[Gregg McClymont]

No, I will not give way. I am sorry to be able to quote some relevant arithmetic to Conservative Members—they do not seem to like it— but these are facts. Let me continue my point: £1 billion a year for 10 years is one 1,000th of our national debt.

[Brandon Lewis]

rose—

[Gregg McClymont]

No, I will not give way.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Gregg McClymont]

I would be delighted to give way to my hon. Friend.

[Dame Anne Begg]

I, too, welcome my hon. Friend to his first outing at the Dispatch Box. Perhaps this exchange has just illustrated all too clearly why women are deserting the Tories in huge numbers—it is because they do not feel that they should be the ones who have to bear the burden of the debt that exists. It is that balance that the Government have failed to understand.

[Gregg McClymont]

My hon. Friend, with her usual sagacity, gets to the heart of the matter. Given that we are talking about a small amount of money in the scheme of things—[Interruption.] The two tests that we have set are: do the Government’s plans give fair and due notice to the women concerned, and do those plans bear proportionately on all women affected? The answer is no and no. The Bill continues to place the longevity burden disproportionately heavily on women in their later 50s.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

Conservative Members may not be able to understand the point my hon. Friend is making, but Labour Members clearly comprehend it. The Government have given us a target for when they will have paid off the structural deficit—we are into different territory. I was hoping that my hon. Friend might tease out from the Government how much of the overall changes they are making to the social security budget will bear on women compared with on men and women.

[Gregg McClymont]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that very important point. This all bears on the fact that, for all the talk, the Government do not understand the difference between a deficit and a national debt. That is pretty clear from our discussion so far.

[Richard Graham]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gregg McClymont]

No, I will not.

Let me restate our case. The Bill fails our two tests: first, it fails to give fair and due notice of the rise in pension age to the 500,000 women concerned; and secondly, the burden falls disproportionately on this group of women.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I am conscious that people watching this debate who are affected by it will begin to wonder whether we have somehow lost the plot. I have a constituent who has taken early retirement under deficit cuts and expected to get her pension when she was 64. She will now have to wait until she is 66 and she tells me that there will be a period when her money will simply have run out and she will have nothing to fill that gap. Does my hon. Friend agree that that could not by any stretch of the imagination be deemed to be fair?

[Gregg McClymont]

That bears precisely on the point. We are talking about real women and we must give due credence to their fears and anxieties, especially about due notice.

On fair notice, the fact remains that under the Government’s amended plans some women will have only five years to prepare. The shock of having to adjust at such short notice to a rise in the pension age of between 12 and 18 months cannot be overestimated—this reflects the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson). These women feel genuine anxiety. The 500,000 women in question made decisions based on what they thought was a contract with the Government that they had paid into the system for a certain amount of time and would get their state pension at a certain age. The Government have moved the goalposts dramatically for these women; there is no getting away from that and it is another way in which the Government are breaking the consensus we appeared to have in 2010.

The Government are going down a dangerous path with this Bill, which sets a precedent by which the principle of reasonable notice of changes in citizens’ state pension age is dramatically reduced. The precedent is important because as longevity rises and as the Minister already suggested, there will inevitably be further uplifts in the state pension age. The principle of reasonable notice is broken by this Bill.

The independent Pensions Policy Institute was very clear in its evidence to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions on that point. The 1995 Act gave women 15 years’ notice and although the Pensions Policy Institute understood that longevity is rising and that it is necessary to make changes more quickly, it still maintained that 10 years needed to be the minimum notice that any woman was given.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I share his concern that the principle that the goalposts can be shifted with very short notice is serious. Does he agree that the problem with the longevity argument is that there are huge disparities in longevity according to people’s occupations as well as geographically? I am sure that affects his constituency, as it does mine.

[Gregg McClymont]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. That is an issue that my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) often raises: averages can hide great disparities in social class as well as gender. That is a very important issue and I am sure the Minister is well aware of it.

The principle of reasonable notice is broken by the Bill. The Government’s concessions do not meet the fair and proper notice test, which is a principle of crucial importance. The second test we set for the Government was the proportionality test. They are unfairly and disproportionately singling out women aged 57 and 58 for harsher treatment. I do not suggest that they have singled them out deliberately—of course not—but I do say that they are not doing enough to compensate those women who have lost out in a birth date lottery that is not of their making. These women cannot, on the whole, afford the burden that the Government are placing on them, and they have certainly done nothing to deserve it. The Government should not make those women carry the heaviest burden of rising longevity—that is unfair and unjust. Some 500,000 women will still have to wait between a year and 18 months longer than they would have to reach state pension age. As I have previously stated, 330,000 women—one third of a million—will have to wait exactly 18 months longer, with the psychological and financial burdens that imposes.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

There is a further, regional unfairness in relation to the availability of work. If people are to work for longer, where are the jobs to come from? That will affect the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and mine as well as those in the north-east of England and many other places. Also, if people are filling jobs at the ages of 65 and 66, the knock-on effects on youth unemployment will be substantial.

[Gregg McClymont]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. If women and men are to work for longer, we have to look at the figures for employment. My understanding is that up to 38% of women aged between 56 and 60 are not in employment at the moment. That is a real issue, which I am sure the Minister is considering.

The Bill fails the two tests, in that it is unfair and there is an undue lack of notice. It also fails the proportionality test. Take the case of Laura Davis, who is 57, single and suffers from a heart condition and acute osteoarthritis, which hampers her mobility. She works full time but her commute is a struggle. She was hoping for a dramatic revision of the Pensions Bill’s terms. Laura, from Watford, Hertfordshire says:

“It is a shame the Government could not meet us half way and say that no one in my age group would be required to work longer than a further 12 months….That would have been a better compromise.”

That is a compromise that the Opposition suggest, and it is why we seek to amend the Bill through our amendments to part 1, which I shall now address.

Our amendments do meet the tests of due notice and fair treatment for those half million women, and would ensure that no women would wait more than an extra 12 months to reach their state pension age. Our amendments would also bring forward the uplift in state pension age to 66 for both men and women, from 2026 to 2022, because we recognise that, as the Minister and other Government Members have emphasised, this is a difficult issue. There are no simple answers, and tough decisions will have to be taken. Our amendments would balance the sustainability of the pension system with the need to treat all women fairly. They offer a substantial saving of £20 billion, but not at the expense of those women. As I emphasised earlier in response to some amendments, the difference in annual savings from our amendments versus the Government’s is equivalent to 0.1% of central Government spending in 2011-12, or 1.3% of the Government’s annual pensions budget. Given the undue, disproportionate and unfair burden being placed on such women, I do not think that is too high a price to pay.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Gregg McClymont]

I will give way to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), followed by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid).

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I welcome my neighbour to his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. Given what he has just said about his party believing that this is not too high a price to pay, and given that the changes are not coming in and affecting those women until 2019-20, is he making a commitment today that were Labour to win the next election, the changes would be reversed?

[Gregg McClymont]

We are clear that we cannot have constant changes in pensions legislation. One of the problems that we face is precisely that— constant chopping and changing of the timetable, so we will vote for our amendments tonight in the hope that in their wisdom the Government will accept them. In that case we will all be happy, or at least those of us on the Opposition Benches.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

Having been born in 1954, I need to declare an interest in the debate. The hon. Gentleman has argued for the spending of an extra £10 billion, but he cannot come to the Dispatch Box and argue for that without saying where the money is coming from. Is he going to put taxes up, cut some other spending programme or borrow more money? Will he please tell us?

[Gregg McClymont]

To make the position clear to the hon. Gentleman, we are proposing savings of £20 billion. The Government are proposing savings of £30 billion. These savings will come into effect from 2016. No sensible Opposition or indeed Government would set out a spending plan for the next Parliament five years before it would come into effect. If the hon. Gentleman considers his position to be credible, the difficulties that the Liberal Democrats are facing become a little easier to understand.

[Mr Frank Field]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it goes beyond cheek for a Liberal Democrat to question what we might be saying to the electorate in the next Parliament when that party signed an agreement a year ago and is happily voting in support of the Government Bill tonight?

[Gregg McClymont]

My right hon. Friend again makes a telling point. The Liberal Democrats signed a pledge on tuition fees which they immediately went into government and trashed, yet they want the Labour party to tell them what the spending plans of a future Labour Government would be five years down the line. As my right hon. Friend says, that is pure cheek.

[Alok Sharma]

rose—

[Richard Graham]

rose—

[Gregg McClymont]

In the event that a modification in the timetable is necessary, and in answer to the questions about where the savings would come from, it may well be that the Government would do better to speed up the timetable for a state pension age of 67 and 68. That is something that we would consider. It is a much more sensible option than this disproportionate, unfair and unjust hit on women aged 57 and 58, of whom there are 500,000.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend’s point is well made. The Government’s position seems to be based on an assumption that women work for pin money. There is no understanding that women take time out for child care, that their pension pots are much smaller than those of men, and that these changes will create genuine hardship for the women on whom they impact.

[Gregg McClymont]

My hon. Friend is right. She represents a constituency where many women will be affected, particularly low-paid women. The proposed change has a socio-economic dimension of which I am sure the Minister is aware.

The amendment would make a real difference to the lives of the women affected. It is designed to secure a limited reform, targeted at a specific group whom the Government are not treating fairly, and it would give rise to costs representing just over 1%—one 100th—of the annual pensions budget.

The Chancellor has previously said that

“we are not going to balance the budget on the backs of the poorest and the most disadvantaged,”

but the costs of this Tory-led Government’s acceleration of the state pension age equalisation timetable targets a group with limited resources.

[Alok Sharma]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gregg McClymont]

I hope that this is better than the previous intervention.

[Alok Sharma]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is making a passionate point, and he talks about social justice and fairness, but all those on whose behalf he speaks up will ask, “If the Labour party ever get back into power, will they enact these changes?” It is a fair question for everyone to ask, and it is fair that he gives us an answer today.

[Gregg McClymont]

After the hon. Gentleman’s previous intervention, he did not listen to the answer; given that intervention, he did not listen to the answer I gave the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire. He just does not seem to get it.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gregg McClymont]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady, who I know is an expert on these issues.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, welcome him to his post and declare an interest also as a woman whose state pension age was increased to 66 under the previous Government. Given the £10 billion—

[Harriett Baldwin]

Eleven billion, that’s right.

Given the £11 billion commitment that the hon. Gentleman is making, and the £12.5 billion commitment that the shadow Chancellor has made, at what point do these billions of pounds add up to real money in the minds of Labour Front Benchers?

[Gregg McClymont]

The hon. Lady talks about real money, but the situation is clear: we are proposing £20 billion of savings starting in 2016; her Government are proposing £30 billion of savings. This measure would involve £1 billion a year over 10 years.

I understand that the hon. Lady has some actuarial experience, so she must understand that no sensible Opposition or, indeed, Government would put down in law that five years down the line they will still be committed to the same proposal. That is just common sense.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we talk about billions on one side of the House and billions on the other, the great irony is that public borrowing is up, when based on the Government’s predictions? If we are to talk about billions being out of place in terms of budgets, perhaps that is a good place for us to start.

[Gregg McClymont]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Government are very good at finding money when they want to, yet, on issues that affect a significant number of women—half a million—and given the anxiety and financial cost involved, they just seem unmoved.

Let us reflect a little on the kind of women we are talking about. According to the Library, the median total private pension of a fit 56-year-old woman is £9,100. That is not £9,100 a year; that is £9,100 in total. The same figure for a man is closer to £53,000—and not only that: these women are more reliant than men on the state pension. Often, it is a woman’s only source of pension income, and 40% of such women have no private pension savings at all—[Interruption.] No one suggests that that is the Government’s fault, and that is a pretty simplistic suggestion from a sedentary position by the Minister, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), but the fact is that 40% of these women whom the Government are going to make wait between one year and 18 months have no private pension. The state pension is all they have.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

That particularly resonates with my constituents in Inverclyde, where over 1,000 women who do not have a large pension to look forward to will be affected by this Bill. These are women who have taken time out to look after their children and are now providing child care for their sons and daughters, and perhaps looking after elderly relatives as well. These are women who can ill afford to lose out on their state pension, and also needed the time to prepare for this.

[Gregg McClymont]

My hon. Friend is spot on. Caring is a very important issue in this context. A third of these women are already retired, in their late 50s, and are often caring for relatives. Of course, men have caring responsibilities too, but in significantly lower numbers than women.

These women also earn less, on average, than men. They have less chance of making up for the £7,800 in lost pension income that the 330,000 women waiting for 18 months are estimated to lose. If pension credit is added to that, some women are losing up to £11,000, and that is before taking into account the benefits that accrue at state pension age, such as the winter fuel allowance, free travel and so on. This is a serious financial loss to these women.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has made the very point that I was going to make. These women are losing out not only on pensions, and potentially pension credit, but on the passported benefits that are so important for low-paid pensioners, such as the winter fuel allowance, free bus travel, free dental work and free prescriptions. Those things are really important to this group of women, and they will have to wait longer to receive them.

[Gregg McClymont]

That is absolutely right. There is no doubt that this is a significant blow to these 500,000 women. That is why we have tabled our amendments. If they were passed this evening, the 330,000 women facing an 18-month hike in state pension age would have restored to them the average amount of £7,800. If they were on pension credit, they would also have restored to them up to £11,000 and all the other benefits that accrue at state pension age that my hon. Friend mentioned. I say it again: this is a serious, significant issue for a large group of women.

Our amendments offer the Government one last chance to show women that they get it. We are all aware of the Government’s growing problem with women voters. We hear the reports of the Prime Minister huddled in No. 10 surrounded by advisers and pollsters explaining to him just how grim the news is regarding the opinions of women voters. Support for this Government among women is falling off a cliff. According to the reports from inside No. 10, the pollsters are telling the Prime Minister that 25% more women than men believe that the economy is going in the wrong direction, while 10% more women than men are saying that cuts are falling unfairly on women—and no wonder, given this Bill, among other things. According to the leaks from inside No. 10, favourability towards the coalition among women is now 12 points lower than it was 18 months ago. Women are twice as likely to think that their children will have a worse life and less opportunity than their generation. Overall support from female voters for the Conservatives and for the Liberal Democrats has slipped significantly, and we know today that the Government are falling further behind in the polls.

Our amendments offer the Government a chance to show that they get it and that they understand that what matters to women is the impact of Government policies on their lives and the lives of their families. Our amendments offer the Government a chance to show belatedly, on an issue that matters, that they understand women’s priorities. I commend our amendments to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Willott]

I was just going to move on to the fact that, although I am delighted by the changes, in an ideal world I would have liked us to go further. I would have liked to see the cap closer to 12 months than 18 months, but we are not in an ideal world and the cost associated with that would have been significant. I understand that the cost of capping at 12 months would have been close to £3 billion, which would have been a significant amount of money to find. That would have been an uphill struggle. We have to appreciate the scale of the money that has been found to make things better for the women who are worst affected.

There has been a broad coalition campaigning on this subject, including Age UK, Saga and Members of all parties. Some have been extremely constructive in their campaigning and in the pressure that they have put on the Government, whereas others have been slightly less constructive at times. Some of what the Labour party has proposed today is, I think, unrealistic. It is unhelpful to the attempt to make as much progress as we would like towards helping the women who are most affected.

The Labour amendments tabled in Committee and today on Report that would delay the entire increase by two years are not sensible or realistic. Regardless of what the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East says, £10 billion would be a huge black hole in the public finances, and it would be a significant amount that the Government would have to find. [Interruption.] I am told that it would be closer to £11 billion. I am not going to start the debt versus deficit debate again, but there would be a huge black hole if we accepted a Labour party proposal that would require an unfunded promise of £11 billion.

[Gregg McClymont]

I have a very simple question for the hon. Lady. Why take that money from these women?

[Jenny Willott]

I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could clarify to us where the money that he proposes spending would come from. Unless we tackle the financial crisis in this country and the financial circumstances that we face, my child and all our children and grandchildren will be paying off the debt. We have to tackle the debt—it is real money that needs to be found, and a £10 billion black hole would be a significant one to fill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

The incentive is clear: the providers do not get any money at all unless they help someone into work.

The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) mentioned grandparents: women in the age group under discussion who by taking care of grandchildren enable their sons and daughters to work. That is an important point, and that is why I was pleased to carry through in office proposals that had previously been brought forward on national insurance credits for grandparents—when their daughters are not using them—to ensure that their state pension rights do not suffer.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh East asked why we did not do all that earlier and referred to Second Reading, but I remind her that in that debate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the basic principle of the Bill is right—that we move to equality sooner and to aged 66 in 2020. We have been entirely consistent with what he said, but he also said that we need to make sure that the transition is fair and that those most adversely affected are helped. That is exactly what we deliver on today with the amendments.

We have identified, notwithstanding the difficult fiscal position, £1.1 billion to ensure that half a million people face a shorter increase in their pension age, and that a quarter of a million women who could have faced up to 24 months will now face a maximum of 18 months. It is worth keeping in context the fact that nine out of 10 people affected by the Bill will see an increase of one year or less in their state pension age.

The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who spoke last, said, “Well, it’s only a bit of money,” and, “It’s penny pinching,” and all I can say is that many people think that £1.1 billion is a lot of money. I know that it is a naïve observation, but I am in that category as well.

It was important to allocate to this issue a large amount of time for debate today, but we have simply had a repeat of what we heard in Committee: “Find £10 billion or £11 billion—it’ll come from somewhere, it’s not really a lot of money.” From the Government, however, we have seen a serious balance struck between introducing the fiscal responsibility that was all too often lacking under the previous Government and listening and responding to the needs of those most affected by the Bill—and I commend our amendments to the House.

[Gregg McClymont]

This been a very important debate. I thank the Minister for his reply, but he has not satisfactorily answered the question repeatedly asked by Labour Members, which is fairly straightforward. Why are these 500,000 women paying a disproportionate price? Why are they having disproportionately to carry the burden?

Our amendments, if accepted, would mean that not one of the half a million women affected by this Bill would have to wait more than an extra year for their state pension, and, importantly, that they would have at least nine years’ notice of the rise in their state pension age. At the same time, the state pension age of 66 for men and women would be brought forward to 2022. That would be a fair package, and it would keep the Government to the promise made in the coalition agreement. I should like to withdraw amendment 1 and test the will of the House on amendment 3.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 3, page 1, line 8, leave out subsection (4).—(Gregg McClymont.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Youth Unemployment

Gregg McClymont Excerpts

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

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

Scrapping the future jobs fund is a false economy for this country, because in saving a relatively modest sum in the short term the Government are recklessly running up much greater costs for society in the long term. Those greater costs will come from poor mental and physical health, to which persistent worklessness is linked, and which will have a long-term impact on the NHS and other social services. There will also be greater costs for the economy. A whole generation of people will be unskilled and unequipped for work. That will be a much greater cost for the economy because if we do not provide these young people with the right skills and experience during the downturn, we will lack the human capital to take advantage of the recovery down the line.

The future jobs fund was a serious response to the crisis of joblessness. At its heart was the guarantee of paid work for those who have been unemployed for more than six months. Underpinning it was the economic rationale that investment in jobs now would prevent a repeat of the lost generation of the 1980s. I was amused earlier today to hear the Prime Minister describe the Work programme as the biggest back-to-work programme since the 1930s. That is not much of an achievement, because there were no back-to-work programmes worth the name in the 1930s.

The analogy with the 1930s does hold in the following respect however. In the 1930s we had a Tory-led coalition presiding over mass unemployment. The unemployed were concentrated in the same areas that face the biggest challenges in creating jobs now. When the unemployed marched to London from Jarrow and elsewhere, the Government told them, “Sorry, but we can’t help you as the financial markets won’t wear it.” Does that sound familiar?

The FJF was a creative response to a crisis of youth joblessness. Its abolition is to be regretted for a number of reasons. It is a tragedy for young people in my constituency, which has 13 people chasing every vacancy according to the most recent figures, and it is a tragedy for the country. Unless we invest now in these young people, we will not be able to reap the benefits of the recovery which will flow at some stage down the line. Investment is necessary now. Not investing in these young people is a false economy.

Housing Benefit (Scotland)

Gregg McClymont Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Westminster Hall

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

I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber would agree that the provision of decent homes is the mark of a civilised society. Parliament has a role in ensuring that that consensus is reflected in policy. That is why I asked for the debate. I am concerned about the consequences of the Government’s choices on housing benefit and on local housing allowances for my constituents and for the whole of Scotland.

According to the Department’s impact assessment, 55,000 households in Scotland will be worse off this year as a result of the Government’s choices on housing benefit. I have been speaking to community groups, local government, housing associations and charities in my constituency. They are deeply concerned about the impact of the Government’s choices on some of the most vulnerable members of our community. As a result of just some of the changes, £2.2 million will be taken out of the pockets of people claiming housing benefits in north Lanarkshire alone every year, and 75% of social tenants claiming housing benefit will lose out in north Lanarkshire.

Some Ministers have expressed concerns about the impact of the cuts. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), has said that they mean that

“some people who are on the breadline will be put below the breadline.”

Therefore, I know that this Minister will treat these genuine concerns with the respect that they deserve.

I hope that the Minister will also accept that choices that the Government have made interact in a way that will make life harder for some people. I want to draw his attention to the problems posed by the interactions between some of the changes. For instance, consider a family in which working-age social tenants claiming housing benefit are living with grown-up children. There are many such families in all our constituencies. The Government have announced their intention substantially to increase non-dependant reductions in housing benefit for both social and private tenants.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is speaking remarkably well in an excellently chosen debate. Is he aware that, in addition to the vulnerable people whom he has mentioned, many of the organisations of and for people with disabilities are particularly worried about the impact on them? Many of them might be affected out of proportion to their numbers, and they really are the least able to bear it.

[Gregg McClymont]

My right hon. Friend raises a very good point. He is well known in the House for his expertise in that area. He is right to raise the issue of the impact on disabled individuals and families in particular.

One issue that I want to press with the Minister is the Government’s intention to extend the reduced shared-room rate of housing benefit to all single people under the age of 35. That will make it harder for young people on low incomes to move out of their family home, as the rate is frequently too low to cover the costs of accommodation. Outside major cities, there are very few licences for houses in multiple occupation in Scotland. Even in the major cities, those HMOs are likely to be fully occupied already. Also, some young people, particularly those with mental or physical health problems, would find it very difficult to live in shared accommodation, in many cases with strangers.

Even if young people do move out of the family home, another problem looms. If their parents are, like many people in my constituency, working-age social tenants, they will fall foul of the limit on payments for working-age tenants who are deemed to be “under-occupying”.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important debate. One key issue in my constituency is that there is a major drive—quite rightly, in many instances—to restrict the number of HMO licences due to the concentration in small areas. Would my hon. Friend like to comment on what impact that might have on this policy?

[Gregg McClymont]

My hon. Friend raises a very good point. There clearly is, broadly speaking, a real pressure on HMOs. That is one area in which policies, as I am sure the Minister will agree, can have interactions and unintended consequences that lead to deleterious outcomes for vulnerable individuals.

I was saying that there are parents who are working-age social tenants who will fall foul of the limit on payments for working-age tenants who are deemed to be under-occupying. However, we know that no social landlord deliberately puts people into properties that are too large for them. The Government believe that a negative financial incentive will lead social landlords to manage their properties more efficiently. My concern is that that outcome is not guaranteed. It seems likely that that choice could harm existing tenants whose circumstances have changed: the bereaved, the divorced or those whose children have left home.

A similar negative financial incentive is being introduced for the long-term unemployed to move home to seek work. The Government will penalise the unemployed by cutting their housing benefit entitlement by 10% once they have been unemployed for a year. That cut will apply even to those who are actively seeking work. It could affect almost 300 jobseeker’s allowance claimants in my constituency alone, and I am sure that it will affect many more in some of my hon. Friends’ constituencies.

The problem—again, I am sure that the Minister will agree—is that it is not easy at the moment to find work anywhere in the country, and Scotland has a particular problem. It is a harsh reality that at the end of last year there were four people chasing every job vacancy in Scotland, and there are few signs, so far at least, of that ratio improving.

My local YMCA, which I have spoken with recently, deals every week with cases of young people who are out of work and out of a home. Those are the most vulnerable young people.

[Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

On the issue of young people leaving home and perhaps not having a home, I appreciate that my hon. Friend is not from the same city as I am, but is he aware of a report by Glasgow city council, which has assessed the impact of the housing benefit reforms and calculated that there could be a loss of £8.5 million to homelessness services? That would have an impact not only on homeless people themselves, but on the regeneration of the city of Glasgow, which we have done much work to improve. Does my hon. Friend agree that whatever the Government do to tackle housing benefit, that should not exacerbate the problem of homelessness, which we have made great strides to deal with?

[Gregg McClymont]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She raises a very good point about Glasgow in particular, although I should say that I do consider myself a Glaswegian. Cumbernauld is not very far away. However, although I may consider myself a Glaswegian, Glaswegians may have a different view.

Every week, my local YMCA deals with young people who are out of a home and out of a job. Those are the most vulnerable young people. Many are unable even to provide the right documentation to make an initial claim for housing benefit within the narrow window open to them. Those are often young people with psychological and dependency problems, coming from difficult family backgrounds. Things that we find easy are sometimes difficult for people in a vulnerable situation.

The YMCA and other local charities tell me that the cut to housing benefits for JSA claimants will leave the young unemployed at greater risk of falling into rent arrears if they do find a place to live. I know that Ministers say that they want to encourage the unemployed to move to different areas to find work, but the Government underestimate perhaps the social, cultural and psychological challenges that are sometimes involved in that process.

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

Has my hon. Friend considered that the issue is not just that young people find it difficult to move? Very often, the areas where jobs are available are the areas where there is the biggest pressure on housing, so even if young people move and find a job, they might not be able to find somewhere to live.

[Gregg McClymont]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I was just going to suggest that Ministers will also be aware that there is a relationship between the number of jobs available and the cost of accommodation in an area. That is an extra problem facing those dealing with this aspect of policy.

Cuts to local housing allowances will make the private rented sector less affordable in more prosperous areas where work might be found. As I observed, the extension of the shared-room rate will make it harder for young people to find affordable accommodation once they leave home. Existing claimants in Glasgow will lose £7 a week on average as a result of that single change. That £7 could render a tenancy unaffordable for somebody moving in search of work. Research conducted by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that there is already a shortage of private rented accommodation that meets the shared-room rate criteria.

Meanwhile, restricting payments to the 30th percentile of market rents, rather than the median, as was previously the case, will put many properties in major cities further out of reach. In north Lanarkshire, that single change will reduce the support available for a single room by £5 a week and that available for a one-bedroom flat by £7 a week. Switching uprating to the consumer prices index will, over time, compound the problem.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Many people, especially in charity organisations and in the city of Glasgow, are deeply concerned about changing the uprating to CPI. Between 1997 and 2007, CPI increased by 20%, but rents increased by 70%. If we carry on in that way, housing benefit will cover only 10% of available properties by 2020. That will have a massive and devastating impact on Glasgow and other cities across the country.

[Gregg McClymont]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention. It is worth adding that CPI does not include housing costs as it stands.

The Government argue that reducing LHA will lead landlords to put rents down, but market pressure on rents in Scotland is moving them sharply upwards—it is supply and demand—and that is particularly true in the private rented sector. House building is falling. First-time buyers who are unable to secure mortgages are moving into the private rented sector. That is increasing the pressure on rents, and it would be an unusual landlord indeed who reduced his rents out of kindness.

Thanks to the Scottish National party Government slashing the budget for social housing in Scotland, waiting lists are rapidly increasing. In that context, social housing does not offer a credible alternative to the private rented sector. The vacancy rate for social homes in my constituency is less than 1%.

I am concerned that people in Scotland could face a triple whammy over the next few years. Conditions in the housing market are pushing rents upwards. At the same time, cuts to benefits are putting affordable homes out of reach. Meanwhile, the Scottish Government’s cuts to social housing mean that the sector cannot provide a viable alternative.

I therefore ask the Minister for a number of assurances. What is he doing to ensure that the housing benefits system encourages and supports people into work? What is he doing to ensure that the most vulnerable, particularly people with mental and physical health problems, including disabilities, are given the financial support that they need to remain in suitable accommodation? How will his Department support housing associations through the proposed changes and the ultimate switch to universal credit? What is his response to calls from Crisis and other organisations for tenants to be given the right to choose to have housing benefit and local housing allowances paid directly to their landlord? What is he doing to encourage his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland to meet the head of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities? I am sure that the Minister will address those concerns, having watched him as he has seriously addressed other concerns raised by Opposition Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

I think, technically, that right hon. and hon. Members who intervene are meant to tell me formally that they want to do so; I do not mind at all, but they have made their comments and I think it is fair that I respond to the hon. Gentleman.

There are several Scottish angles to the debate and I want to deal with some of them rather than make more general points. There is an issue about whether people who are covered by LHA are being driven into pockets—very localised areas. One aspect of the Scottish situation is that the 30th percentile tends to be closer to the 50th percentile than perhaps it is in other parts of Great Britain. The cash difference tends to be smaller, as I said earlier, so the impact is not as great as it might be in other areas where the rent distribution is more dispersed. I fully accept the point that the impact of the measures will be different in different places, but the 30th percentile has a smaller impact in Scotland because of the compressed rent distribution.

The hon. Gentleman quite properly raised the issue of unemployment. I would not for a moment suggest that it is ever easy or straightforward to find a job; but, again, headline unemployment is slightly lower in Scotland than for Great Britain as a whole. The majority of Scottish local authorities have lower unemployment rates than the Great Britain average. That is not to belittle the matter, but it is not a purely Scottish dimension. The issue is clearly one to be dealt with nationally.

As to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and the support that we are giving, an important feature of the new scheme is discretionary housing payments. We recognise that we cannot anticipate every hard case, so we give local authorities discretion. We give them funds so that if there is someone who just does not fit the rules terribly well or who is acutely affected by the changes—the hon. Gentleman gave examples of situations that might be difficult—local authorities have discretionary funding. In 2011-12, Scotland as a whole will be getting an increase of 15% over 2010-11. That is an increase of £360,000 in discretionary housing payments. The hon. Gentleman’s local authority will be getting a 34% increase; more than double the Scottish average increase will be going to North Lanarkshire to provide additional assistance. The figure will go from £77,000 in support this year to £103,000. It is worth saying that the 2011 DHP increase is much smaller than the increases will be in succeeding years; the Great Britain-wide figure will go from £20 million this year to £30 million, and then £60 million a year. Most of the increase in DHP will be in later years, but we have already added 34% to it in the coming year for the broad rental market area of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Although, inevitably, that money will have to do a lot of work, it is specifically designed for the sort of hard cases he spoke about.

[Gregg McClymont]

I have been listening closely to the Minister, because I wanted him to develop his argument before I intervened. Is he comfortable with a policy which, as he perfectly fairly described it, tries to put people who get housing benefit and may be working, on a level playing field with people who are, as he described it, low paid, but who do not get housing benefit, in the context of an economy in which there is not much evidence that people can move into better paid jobs? The structure of the economy in a place such as North Lanarkshire does not include many professional—middle-class, if you like—positions for people to move up to, if the Minister’s broader argument is about social mobility. From our point of view there is a danger that instead of focusing on trying to increase opportunities for a broad range of people from near the bottom to the middle of the income distribution, the focus is on people who are already struggling. I think the Minister would agree that we must do something about what happens further up the scale, to open up opportunities for the people who are affected.

[Steve Webb]

I entirely agree with that point. We want to encourage people not simply to move into any job at the bottom of the scale; we also want to encourage career progression and additional hours and training—the things that make people employable and enable them to earn more. That is the philosophy behind the universal credit. One of the problems is that there is an issue about the incentive to take any job; once a person has a job the current system can withdraw 95% in the pound, in extreme cases. That cannot be right and it traps people. Even if jobs are available and there are opportunities to do more work or gain more skills, there is no point, because the money is simply clawed away. With a lower taper rate for most people the universal credit will give people more opportunity to do just the sort of things that the hon. Gentleman describes.

[Gregg McClymont]

We know that the hon. Gentleman is a thoughtful Minister. A larger question looms over the issue, and that is whether, in the economy as it stands—not just in this recession but structurally over the past 30 years—there are opportunities for people to move up the ladder in large enough numbers. Does the Minister agree that such macro-structural political economy issues are related? Unless we have that possibility, what is happening may be seen as an attack on people who are already not exactly living luxurious lives.

[Steve Webb]

I certainly agree that we are not talking about people leading luxurious lives. There are, as the hon. Gentleman says, bigger structural issues affecting the economy. In the past few years under a series of Governments the economy has created millions of new jobs, but some of them are part-time, and they vary in nature. One of the things that the Government are trying to do, whether through apprenticeships or a range of other initiatives, is to upskill the work force. In a global economy we shall not be able to compete with very low wages in the far east, for example.

In the final couple of moments available to me I stress that we are keen to engage with the Scottish perspective, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. COSLA is represented on the Department for Work and Pensions local authority associations steering group, which meets each month, and along with the local authority associations it was formally consulted on the draft regulations for 2011 that I mentioned earlier. Officials from the Scottish Government have attended events and meetings to discuss the impact of LHA reforms, and Members of the Scottish Government have been invited to attend a conference that we are holding in Glasgow on 3 March 2011. We have invited all Scottish benefit managers from local authorities to attend, and we are inviting officials from the Scottish Government to be involved in the LHA reform national implementation group and the evaluation of the reforms.

[Gregg McClymont]

Would the Minister consider publishing evidence that LHA is pushing up rents in Scotland? He referred to that earlier and it would be an interesting piece of information for us, if he would undertake to pass it on.

[Steve Webb]

I was quoting from COSLA’s assertion, but we are happy to give the hon. Gentleman what evidence we have, although trying to prove cause and effect is a challenge.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this important debate, and I am grateful to colleagues who contributed.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregg McClymont Excerpts

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I start by offering my congratulations to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg). There are moments when awards are acclaimed in all parts of the House, and hers certainly has been.

We have already extended the contracts for all the legacy programmes, which people will take advantage of until June. There will be people on the future jobs fund in the new financial year, and we are working through the detail of the transition for the final few weeks before people join the Work programme. Obviously, some people will be referred for a short period before the start of the Work programme, and we will negotiate with the would-be contractors to ensure a smooth transition. Our goal is to ensure that there is proper continuity for all those who need specialist support.

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

2. What assessment his Department has made of the effects of changes to prices in January 2011 on the incomes of pensioners.

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

In April this year, benefits and pensions will be increased by more than £4 billion, more than three quarters of which will go to pensioners. In addition, price rises in January 2011 will feed through into the September 2011 price indices, which will be used in future benefit uprating.

[Gregg McClymont]

Pensioners on fixed incomes will be among the hardest hit by the Government’s VAT rise. Will the Minister confirm that the VAT hike will mean that pensioners are worse off in 2011 under this Government than they would have been under the previous Government’s plans?

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring to the previous Government’s plans. In his constituency, vulnerable pensioners, vulnerable disabled people and vulnerable families with young children received four or five cold weather payments this winter to help them with their fuel bills in January 2011. His policy, and the plans that we inherited, would have reduced those payments to £8.50 a week. We have paid £25 a week four or five times to vulnerable pensioners in his constituency.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregg McClymont Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, in which he outlines some of the complexities that disabled people face when they try to get back into the workplace. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, we want to ensure that work pays for everybody who wants and is able to get back into the workplace. That principle underpins all the work that we are undertaking.

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

13. Whether carer’s allowance payments will be included in the proposed cap on benefit payments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

We expect the benefit cap to apply to the combined income from all main out-of-work benefits. However, we will exempt all households with someone entitled to disability living allowance, many of which will contain claimants receiving carer’s allowance.

[Gregg McClymont]

I thank the Under-Secretary for that answer. Will she publish her assessment of the impact of the policy on poverty among carers?

[Maria Miller]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We obviously want to ensure that the policy works for everybody involved. The benefit system is designed to maintain a basic income for carers when caring responsibilities prevent them from working full time. It is right that carer’s allowance is paid with reference to what families could expect to earn if they were in fully paid work, but we will keep the policy under review and ensure that it works for carers.

Tackling Poverty in the UK

Gregg McClymont Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

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

May I add my congratulations on your election, Mr Deputy Speaker? I noticed that you have the “Directory of Members” to hand. I hope that you will agree that I do not look quite as bad in the flesh as I do in that truly horrific photo.

I come to this House from Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East—a constituency served with great distinction by my predecessor, Rosemary McKenna. Rosemary’s 13 years in Parliament were the culmination of a lifetime of public service. As teacher, councillor, council leader, president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and, latterly, Member of this House, Rosemary served the public with distinction for more than 40 years. Rosemary’s distinctions are many, but I would like to emphasise her temperament and character. Rosemary’s generous nature, her good humour, and, especially, her serenity served her well. To keep one’s head when all around are losing theirs is an asset in every walk of life, but especially, I suspect, in this place. I am sure that the House will join me in wishing Rosemary well in her retirement.

For those who do not know the geography of my constituency—and I suspect that there are a few—Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East sits at the heart of Scotland, roughly at the centre of a triangle formed by Edinburgh, Glasgow and Stirling. This central location, along with a work force well educated in our excellent local comprehensive schools and colleges, is attractive to employers both private and public. Indeed, Members unlucky enough to receive a call from the Inland Revenue will, I am sure, take some comfort in the knowledge that they are likely being called from my constituency, home to one of the largest Inland Revenue offices in the country.

The economy of my constituency is, I think, much like the economy of the country: it reflects a symbiotic relationship between the private and the public sectors. That is why I disagree with some of the speeches I have heard—not today, but in previous debates—from Conservative Members, who repeatedly draw a stark distinction between the public and the private. To me, that is rather artificial. Our economy depends on interaction between these two sectors. No man is an island, and neither is any private sector enterprise. In my view, the private sector could not flourish without a public infrastructure of roads, rail, sanitation, telecoms or, indeed, a people well educated in our public, by which I mean our state, schools.

That is the perspective that underpins the views of Labour Members on the Government’s deficit reduction plan, with all its implications for poverty reduction. Yes, reducing the deficit is important; yes, it is a priority; but cutting before the recovery is established and before confidence is restored is to flirt with disaster. Badly timed public sector cuts of the kind proposed by the Government will not, in my judgment, damage only the public sector, but the private sector, too, as they will reduce demand in the whole economy.

I urge Members on both sides of the House to read the report released today by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, whose chief economist has revised his forecasts. Looking at the proposed Government cuts, he now believes that unemployment will reach 2.95 million by 2012 and remain close to 3 million until 2015. That would be a disaster for the poor: when the economy retracts, it is the poor who suffer most. Substantial reductions in poverty depend on economic growth, because in the end substantial poverty reduction depends on the creation of jobs. I am sure we all agree that the single best poverty reduction programme is creating well-paid, secure jobs.

That is the context in which I raise my concern about how the Government are approaching the deficit, with all its implications for poverty in this country. I recognise, of course, that it is entirely consistent for the Conservatives to advance deflationary economic policies. As a historian, I can see them having been put forward in different guises for 100 years, whether it be by Bonar Law in the 1920s, Mr Baldwin in the 1930s, Mrs Thatcher in the 1980s or the new Prime Minister in 2010. The object is generally the same—to reduce the financial burden on those who tend to vote Conservative. That is understandable.

More depressing, from my point of view, is the Liberal Democrat embrace of this deflationary strategy. One hundred years ago, the Liberal party broke with that kind of economics. In his “People’s Budget”, Lloyd George rejected as inadequate and likely to increase poverty exactly the kind of approach that underpins the new Government’s strategy. I wonder what Lloyd George, Beveridge, and, above all, Keynes would make of the Liberal Democrat position. I suspect that those great social Liberals would see the Government’s so-called anti-poverty measures—whether they be fractional tax advantages for a minority of married couples, or appeals to the “Big Society”—for what they are. In my judgment, these are measures designed to ease the consciences of those who wish to feel that something is being done about poverty, while the actual priority is that that “something” to be done is of minimal cost.

More positively, I hope the Government can be persuaded that poverty reduction depends, as I say, on well-paid secure jobs. I believe that the minimum wage and tax credits are excellent measures that reward work and have done something significant to reduce poverty in this country. I urge the Government, if I may say so, to embrace them with the zeal of a convert.

I also ask the Government to consider the issue of work that pays not too badly, but too well. I welcome the Government’s commitment to ending excessive salaries in the public sector, but I think that we have to look at the private sector, too. Excess public sector pay is not fair and should be curbed, but it is not actively dangerous, whereas inappropriate incentives in the private sector—excessive and poorly calibrated bonuses in particular—have put our entire economy in jeopardy.

Growing up in the new town of Cumbernauld in the 1980s, I saw with my own eyes the harm done by deflationary political economy. It took over a decade of Labour Government to begin to heal the scars left in Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, and, indeed, in many other parts of the country. We ask not to be targeted again by a new round of deflationary cuts, particularly when the recession was inspired by the financial services sector. What I ask is that the burden is fairly shared.

In the end, I repeat, it is growth that will reduce the deficit in a way that enables the economy to prosper, thus allowing further reductions in poverty to take place. The best way to reduce poverty is to create work with a decent wage, which depends on economic growth. By cutting too fast, too soon, the Government risk a slump in demand across the economy: the result will be even higher unemployment than at present and thus greater poverty too. For me—and, I am sure, for many Members—that is a grim prospect indeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

This is my first outing at the Dispatch Box. I know it is customary for Front Benchers to start by saying what an excellent debate it has been, regardless of whether that is true, but I can in all sincerity say that today’s has been an excellent debate and I have been pleased to be able to sit here listening. Members on both sides of the House have spoken with conviction and passion about the fight against poverty, which blights so many lives and communities. Of course, we have also heard many excellent maiden speeches, in which new MPs have demonstrated their determination to do their utmost for the people they represent and the constituencies they serve.

The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) disappointed the House by telling us that he had turned down an invitation to join MP4, but given that the current membership consists of one Tory, one Scottish nationalist and one Labour Member, perhaps in the new politics we should be looking for a Lib Dem to join them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) made an excellent speech praising the diversity in her constituency and her predecessor for introducing the ban on smoking in public places.

The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) confirmed that she is not related to Stanley Baldwin and dwelt in some detail on the wonderful food produced in her constituency, which I think was rather unfair to those of us who were trapped in the Chamber all afternoon and not able to get out to have some lunch.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cumberland, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East—how did I do with that?

[Gregg McClymont]

Cumbernauld.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Oh, I wrote it down wrong. It is not my pronunciation that is wrong but my literacy. My hon. Friend told us that he was better looking than his photo in the parliamentary guide— I shall have to check that out—and spoke eloquently about the poverty in his constituency and the previous Government’s progress in tackling it.

The hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) told us that he is not better looking than his election photo, much to the disappointment of his constituents who met him on the election trail. He also told us that one of his predecessors had, as a lawyer, defended the Kray twins and then, on being elected to Parliament, defended the Governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major. I am not sure which was the most difficult task.

The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) talked about her great love of football, of which I am already very much aware, having attended a Chelsea-Arsenal game with her. Perhaps she could have done a little more to endear herself to the Press Gallery: pointing out that one member of it, Nigel Nelson, was writing articles before she was born might not be the best way to get into their good books.

I missed the speech of the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat)—I popped out to take a phone call—but I am told that he spoke without notes and with great eloquence about issues such as social mobility and worklessness.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), making his second maiden speech after returning to Parliament, delivered a passionate speech about the need to protect Sure Start and child trust funds, and about his support as a committed trade unionist for the agency workers directive.

The hon. Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) did not quite live up to the romance of her previously published works—novels such as “Passion” and “Sparkle”. I am the proud owner of an autographed copy of “Passion”, which she sent to me—we have never met, only communicated through Twitter. Perhaps an autographed copy of her maiden speech should follow.

My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) confirmed that she is taller than her predecessor, Ian McCartney. I want to place on the official record the fact that I too am taller than Ian McCartney, although it is perhaps a slightly closer match. She spoke with great passion about her interest in financial capability and the need to promote it, as well as her work with credit unions. I look forward very much to seeing her promote those agendas in the House.

The hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who is my neighbour, although we have yet to meet—he should get on Twitter; that is how I make all my friends—praised the work of his predecessor. I have to say that, in Roger Berry, he has a very hard act to follow, but I wish him well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) will not, I suspect, be glued to the television watching the new series of “Big Brother”, but she raised an important issue. Tackling poverty is not just about putting money in people’s pockets and a household’s immediate resources, but about things such as transport. The poor transport links in her constituency make it difficult for people to gain access to jobs.

The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) praised his constituency, and discussed the need to promote more green jobs there. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) discussed her support for international development, and I hope that she puts pressure on her colleagues in the Department for International Development to carry on its good work linking international development with work in schools. The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), as is almost customary for Members making maiden speeches about Swindon, mentioned the magic roundabout, and perhaps persuaded me that I ought to get off the train more often when I pass through Swindon on the way to London.

The hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) discussed his experience as the lead member for children’s services when he was a councillor. I was pleased that he expressed support for his local Sure Start scheme. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) said that she was pleased to see more women in politics—I am too, and I am glad that we are no longer looking at a row of men in suits on the Government Benches. Perhaps the Front Bench has a little more work to do, although I am glad to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), to her ministerial position.

The hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) tried to tempt us with the delights of Bury black pudding, which I shall pass on. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) gave us a cultural tour that ranged from George Eliot to Larry Grayson—quite a wide span. The hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) discussed how she wished to support members of the armed forces in her constituency and their families, and I wish her all the best with that. The hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) explained to a bemused House exactly where his constituency is. We are all very much in the picture now—somewhere around the Winchester area, I think. The hon. Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee) discussed the importance of volunteering and the experience that she will bring to the House as a lawyer who has worked on child protection issues. I am glad that she will pursue those interests in Parliament.

We also heard speeches that were not maiden speeches, including from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). I was pleased that he described Labour’s job guarantee as precious, and I hope that in his new role he can do something to protect our future jobs fund. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Miss Begg) on her election to Chair of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. I am sure that she will do an excellent job.

My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) made an excellent speech in which he rightly highlighted the progress made by the Labour Government in tackling pensioner poverty, for which we did not get enough credit. We heard two speeches from people whom I had the pleasure of working with on child poverty issues in the last Parliament: my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan spoke from her experience at the Children’s Society and discussed the legacy of communities that have been ignored and suffered from a lack of investment going back to the 1980s. Once that intergenerational cycle of poverty and worklessness is created, the issue cannot be solved overnight; it is a difficult problem to crack. I thought that she spoke incredibly eloquently about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston, who was chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group, impressed us all with the experience and knowledge of the issue that she brings to the House. I hope that Ministers listen closely to what she has to say.

In the short time remaining—I appreciate that we do not have long, given that many Members wish to speak—I should like to ask the Under-Secretary a few questions. I am pleased that Ministers managed to secure a debate on poverty, as it at least suggests that it is an important issue for the new Government. However, I have heard very little to convince me that the reality will match the rhetoric, and that their professed desire to tackle poverty will triumph over their desire to implement savage cuts. It was notable that when the Secretary of State replied to the Queen’s Speech debate on Tuesday there was barely a mention of any policy at all. I hope that we can hear a little bit more from the Under-Secretary today.

The Labour Government did not just talk about poverty but acted to tackle poverty. We acted to lift 1 million pensioners out of poverty with our pensions guarantee, the pensions credit, the winter fuel allowance, free bus travel and eye tests, and by cutting fuel poverty by insulating pensioners’ homes. We lifted half a million children out of poverty, not just by putting more money into their families’ pockets, but by helping their families move from welfare into work. It is a complete fallacy to suggest that the Labour Government did not try to move people from welfare into work. The suggestion is that we were quite happy to leave people languishing on benefits and that we did not address that. That is exactly what we were trying to do with nursery places, tax credits, and making work pay to ensure that people were better off in work. I could list a range of other policies that were all intended to address that issue.

When the Minister replies, will she say how, in terms of looking at the bigger picture, the Government can claim to be serious about tackling poverty, when, through their planned programme of cuts, they will undermine the package that the Labour Government tried to put together in the last 13 years to support people on their route out of poverty? How can they claim to be serious about tackling poverty and yet axe the future jobs fund, which aims to break the intergenerational cycle of unemployment that the Government claim to deplore? How can they say that they want to enhance the life chances of children growing up in poverty when they are scrapping child trust funds, and cutting tax credits, and when they will not confirm what is meant by their proposal to streamline benefits? Does that mean cuts in benefits for people or not?

How can the Government claim to care about so-called broken Britain—a phrase that I reject—when they fail to support Sure Start and family intervention projects, which work with families with the most difficult problems, when they oppose things like compulsory sex education in schools, which would have helped to address the issue of teenage pregnancy and lone parenthood, and when they are slashing public sector jobs and public services without a thought for the consequences?

The Government say that they want people to stand on their own two feet, but how can they do that if the Government pull the rug from under them? I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.