Pension Plan Charges

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Gale. I declare an interest: I have a pension myself, and I draw Members’ attention to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I have an interest in a company that has a pension scheme.

“Annual management charge”, “reduction in yield” and references to “bid/offer spread” are just a few of the descriptions that can be attached to our pension pots. When our annual pension statement arrives, do any of us study it in great detail, or do we just glance at it before scratching our heads and filing it away?

I imagine that most consumers feel confused when they see phrases such as “annual management charge”, “reduction in yield” and “bid/offer spread”. A natural reaction is to assume that pension companies and fund managers understand it all and know what is best for us. Many, however, feel that the information is important, but do not understand why that is so, or what it means, particularly, for their final pension pot. That is why the pensions industry and the financial media will carefully watch our deliberations today. Perhaps the complexity of the issue means that many people are unable to understand and see the purpose of it, or why it matters so much. That may well be an indication of why Members are present today.

It is right for there to be constant demands for transparency about pension fund investments, as the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) highlighted in an Adjournment debate last year, and transparency about pension charges should be no different. It is easy for us, as politicians, to exhort that everyone should save for retirement—they are easy words. We want people to do that to be able to provide for themselves when they are older. In Government, it is easy and clear, with our experts to advise us, to see why that matters and why money put away when we are young matters more as we get older. The biggest challenge for the Government and the pensions industry is to overcome consumers’ attitude towards pensions—only half of working adults between the ages of 20 and 64 are currently saving for retirement.

Although the biggest reason given by consumers for the lack of saving is their inability to afford the contributions required to build a pension pot, there are other interesting underlying problems. A quarter of respondents in a study by the National Association of Pension Funds stated that they did not trust the pensions industry. Other surveys indicate that 80% of people want greater transparency about how pensions operate and what they cost. Although research conducted by a pension provider, Aviva, suggests that only 2% of people cite charges as the single prohibitive factor preventing them from investing in a pension, the proportion rises to a worryingly staggering 20% for the under-24 age group.

Can we assume that the lack of transparency about pension charges, alongside a misunderstanding about the system of charges, is a fundamental problem holding back a wider retirement savings culture? If so, it is particularly pronounced among the lowest age groups and lowest earners. We need to target the transparency at the new generation of workers, whom we need to get saving as soon as they enter the workplace.

My position in today’s debate is not to focus or comment either way on the level of charges; it is for the companies that provide pensions and advice on pensions to argue why their charges are at a particular level when the charges of others are at another. The point of today’s debate is to highlight the need to be able to compare and understand charges and costs.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Regarding the lack of transparency about charges, we sometimes see what I believe to be helpful information in the financial press. We should push companies to ensure that they provide information on the impact that those charges will have, year on year, on the final pension received by a payee.

The point that needs to be clarified is the effect that charges will have at the age a person retires—60, 65 or 68; it is not just about making sure that the charges are transparent. Surely, if the ongoing and year-on-year impact of those charges were transparent, there would be a huge impact on a person’s choice of company.

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I will touch on it later. I fully agree that one of the issues that people do not understand is that a figure that seems small now can have a huge impact on how a pension pays out later on—up to 25%, as I will touch on later. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is exactly the clarity and understanding that we need.

Provident Financial’s clients are low earners, who often borrow just £100 or less to get through to the end of the month. The company told me recently that the issue for many of them is not so much about whether they can save. They may be able to save only a small amount; I know that the Minister appreciates that, because we have had a conversation about it. In some cases, it could even be just a few pounds a week or month. However, all that money can add up to mean something later.

The hurdle that those customers find is psychological. The company said to me that people who are on the lowest incomes understand and learn how to manage their money and how to get their family through a week or a month. Within that, they will still do certain things—£1 or £2 a week on sweets for the children, or something like that. What they do not do is trust an unnamed and unknown big organisation with some of their money, because it is complicated and there is no face to it. That is why they use organisations such as Provident Financial rather than high street banks.

By dealing with the issue of transparency, we may well be able to break through that psychological barrier and get more people saving. If the industry is clearer and puts things across more simply, it will instil more confidence in the customers that it is looking to pick up. I will return to that with a clear example in a moment.

The system is complex. People’s underlying attitude is unsurprising, given that we have such a diverse and complex pensions industry, with a wide range of schemes and options alongside an array of different regulatory regimes. A wide range of items may be included in pension charges—and alas, with no clear industry standard at the moment, providers often differ on what is included. Just to name a few, any or all the following may be included: product management, communications, services, administration, regulatory requirements, some investment management and, possibly, the cost of providing advice. How can any consumer find an easy way to compare like with like when there is such a range of options and figures printed on a statement? It is simply not possible.

Credit Unions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend makes a fine point. There will be variety. One of the things that sets credit unions apart is having something about them other than just being a financial institution, and that aspect will absolutely continue. However, these deregulatory changes will also enable stronger credit unions to grow and reach out to more people.

The other thing that can facilitate great change, improvement and growth in the sector is the modernisation fund of up to £73 million, which the Government are making available to help credit unions that can expand to reach self-sustainability in four to five years. I know that Ministers are considering a feasibility study on this issue, and whether and how best to use that money. There are some ways that Government capital can make a big difference. First, it can help the sector to develop a common banking platform and business processing. The sector has already demonstrated its potential for doing that with the credit union card account and the credit union prepaid card.

Secondly, as has been alluded to already, there is the possibility of linking credit unions with the Post Office, marrying a huge, trusted, visible and, for most people, accessible network with financial services from credit unions, which currently suffer from not having that presence. Thirdly, there is the development of the brilliantly named Jam Jar budget account, which is all about helping people to mimic the way that our mums and dads’ generation organised their finances. They had a jar for the rent, a jar for this outgoing, a jar for that outgoing and then they knew what they had left. It is a lot harder to know that these days. I mentioned some of the bank charges that people can incur, particularly in the first year they have a transactional bank account and move away from operating on a cash-only basis. Of course, that is of particular interest at the moment, not least because of the Government’s ambitious welfare reform programme.

There is another idea that I want to throw into the debate. It is not something that the sector is calling for, but I want to see new and innovative ways for people right across the country who may not have an immediate association with a credit union to put part of their investment portfolio through something like a social ISA, to hook them up with opportunities with credit unions and perhaps also with community development finance institutions or other social enterprises, social impact projects and so on.

We want growth in the sector and we want more financial inclusion, but we have to note and accept that particular costs are associated with inclusive growth. I am not a banker—thankfully—but to oversimplify things hugely I suggest that there are three key cost drivers to extending credit: the first is the riskiness of the customer base; the second is the term, or length, of the loan; and the third is the cost of collecting repayments. On those criteria, operating in the sub-prime segment of the market and reaching out to riskier types of customer, particularly with small loans and shorter-term loans, carries an additional cost.

Credit unions are known as an affordable option; that is what makes them so attractive. Their 26.8% APR limit is absolutely key, but the thing that we perhaps do not speak about often enough is that the limit has limits and it restricts what credit unions can do. With the growth fund, credit unions were able to reach out to a more excluded segment of the market. For the people that process helped, the savings have been quite substantial; there have been total savings in interest of more than £100 million and there has been a big drop-off in that group in the use of high-cost credit. However, for the credit unions themselves it is a costlier segment of the market, which is part of the reason why we have seen an erosion of the growth fund over time. Of course, with the growth of payday loans in particular it is especially difficult—actually, it is mathematically impossible—for credit unions to compete with organisations that are able to charge an APR in the thousands per cent, when credit unions themselves are capped at an APR of something less than 30%.

Some of the increased costs may be mitigated by technology. Of course, part of the point of the social fund is that if there is direct benefit deduction it greatly reduces the cost of collection and the cost of default. Jam Jar budget accounts are another development that would help in that respect, as would different channel developments. Those developments may mitigate the increased costs, but they are not the whole answer.

The sector is not calling for a lifting of the 26.8% APR limit, but I am sure that some right hon. and hon. Members have heard from individual credit unions, as I have, that they would like a liberalisation of the limit. There are big perception issues around that question but we must keep the debate active, because even if the limit on credit unions was somewhat higher than it is today there would still be a huge gap between the APR of credit unions and the 272% that someone might pay a home credit provider, or the thousands of per cent to a payday lender.

In recent months, a wider debate about APR caps and restrictions overall has had quite a lot of currency in this place, although as I said earlier, that is not a debate for today. Suffice to say, however, that everything I know about economics tells me that a blunt general cap on APR would be a terrible idea for multiple reasons, with all sorts of unintended consequences. I know that the Government are actively engaging in debate and analysis of the issue, so perhaps it is possible to have a different sort of regime—a different structure to the restrictions—which would get rid of the worst excesses of the market without denying people access to credit altogether. Personally, I have been kicking around the idea of a double-restriction scheme, whereby there is a limit on the initial set-up fee and then a separate limit, or set of limits, on the interest rate charge, which would enable payday loans, home credit and all sorts of things to continue while getting rid of the worst excesses of the market. In that different way of thinking, it might also be possible to create a different sort of regime for credit unions, although I stress again that it is not something that the sector is calling for.

To conclude, credit unions can deliver in Britain on a much bigger scale than they do today; we have only to look to Northern Ireland for a model of what things could look like. Credit unions can also deliver greatly enhanced financial inclusion. Let us not forget the human angle: more stable lives, less pressure on relationships and families and, essentially, happier people. Credit unions can also target and reach at-risk groups, such as those leaving care or ex-offenders.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I declare an interest as a fully paid-up member of the Society Credit Union in Londonderry. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this debate. In his very illuminating introduction, he mentioned a couple of times the differing aspects of credit unions. That applies particularly to Northern Ireland, where credit unions are flourishing and have done so for many decades. He has already alluded to flexibility, but does he agree that any changes we contemplate need to be sufficiently flexible to allow for growth in communities where credit unions have been stunted and have not really taken root, while allowing credit unions in areas where they show significant growth to expand even beyond the reach that they have managed over many decades?

[Damian Hinds]

I certainly take, accept and agree with the hon. Gentleman’s general point. There are very specific issues about the regulatory regime in Northern Ireland, but I am not an expert so I will not attempt to talk about things that I do not know enough about. However, I have a feeling that we may hear more about the Northern Ireland situation later in the debate.

More generally with affordable credit, if people are not overpaying for their loans it means that wages go further, and of course that has a beneficial marginal effect on employment and growth. Benefits go further too, and when taxpayers are paying out sums in benefit they want to know that it is going to support families and children, rather than being swallowed up in sky-high interest rates. Credit unions can also help to deliver a renewed savings culture.

I thank the Government for their support of the sector, their recognition of the role that credit unions can play in increasing and improving financial inclusion, and for their general interest in mutuals, especially in the wake of the banking crisis. I also thank them for seeing the legislative reform order through, for their boldness and ambition with the modernisation fund of up to £73 million, and their willingness to look at radical options, such as the Post Office link-up.

Inevitably, however, I also have some asks. First, I ask the Government to please provide a proportionate regulatory framework for credit unions in the post-FSA world. Credit unions should not be penalised for a crisis in which they played no part, and for which they share none of the blame. Secondly, it would be good to get further details of the modernisation fund, and to get the key projects under way as soon as possible. Thirdly, we ask the Government to understand the pressures, challenges and costs associated with reaching the hard-to-reach and, finally, to continue to work as partners with all levels of government to address financial inclusion, rip-off loans and the erosion of the savings culture, to help responsive and responsible financial services, and to further the cause of social justice that brought us all into politics.

Disability Hate Crime

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

It is an honour and a pleasure to take part in this debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and congratulate her on securing it. I was present in the main Chamber when she managed to secure the important concession from the Lord Chancellor on schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. I pay tribute to her and to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) for their work. They will be glad to know that, as well as the Members present, those in another place, particularly Lord Touhig, have played a key part in changing the Government’s mind. We met the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), only some 10 days prior to that concession, to press the case on schedule 21, and I am delighted that the Government have moved so swiftly to regularise the position.

That, of course, gives rise to the question: why not move in other areas? Why not regularise the law so that disability hate crime is treated in the same way as an aggravated offence, as is the case with race or religion? That would require an amendment to primary legislation, and yes, I know it would be a big step, but it would be an important one. If we are making concessions elsewhere, we should regularise the law in that area as well. We treat equalities as a single concept now and we have an Equality and Human Rights Commission.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Surely moving beyond schedule 21 means that, as a society, we should ensure that we do not seem to treat disabled people as a people apart, almost saying that different attitudes, legislation and approaches are required for them. The more we treat disabled people like those of us who are not disabled, the more likely society as a whole is to follow that example and move away from treating them as almost subnormal or abnormal.

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for dealing with a point that I was about to address and that has been alluded to by other Members. The focus needs to be shifted away from always analysing a case’s evidence by looking at the victim, and towards the wrongdoing and what the offender has done. That welcome shift of emphasis was displayed in guidance issued by the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecutors in England and Wales in March 2010. It is similar to the shift in focus that occurred some years ago in relation to domestic violence. People used to ask of the victim, “Why did she stay with him?”, instead of focusing on the behaviour of the perpetrator, which, I am glad to say, is what is now happening in cases of domestic abuse. The same must happen in relation to disability.

The danger we face in focusing on the victim and their behaviour is that in assuming that all disabled people are vulnerable just because of their disability, we start asking dangerous questions, such as, “Why don’t they avoid these situations? Why do disabled people put themselves in that position in the first place?” By asking those dangerous questions, we are at risk of driving disabled people back into their homes and into institutions, and away from mainstream society. That is wrong and I hope that today’s debate will give a clear message to the Government that we must avoid it. We are in danger of being as bad as the people in ages past who used to apply the dunce’s cap to disabled people in the classroom.

Such attitudes lead to other dangerous assumptions, such as that of some involved in the criminal justice system that disabled people are somehow unreliable or incredible witnesses, simply because of their disability. That is another dangerous and fatal assumption, which, I am afraid, has played far too great a part in the criminal justice system and has prejudiced and stopped cases involving disabled people. It has ended in miscarriages of justice involving disabled people.

I have mentioned the guidance, which was welcome. It followed a speech made by Lord Macdonald when he was Director of Public Prosecutions, which I think helped to clarify the CPS’s position and its understanding of disability. I welcomed his comments about the concept of hate. We have to be careful when using the word “hate”; we must make clear what it covers. The danger with the word is that hate is an extreme concept, so we think that there cannot be many people in our society capable of it. The definition, however, is a wider one, and includes hostility or prejudice. What does that mean? There are other words for hostility, such as unfriendliness, antagonism, meanness and sheer ignorance. That is particularly important when we consider that many acts are perpetrated over a long period. We have heard about many sad cases, both today and elsewhere, that involve the victims of a crime finally suffering the last straw that broke the camel’s back. It is important to remember that “hate” has a wide definition and involves a whole section of attitudes that I believe are bred from ignorance and sheer lack of understanding of the needs of disabled people. That leads to offences that take place on many levels; low-level offences can cause so much misery to the lives of disabled people.

We have been rightly reminded of the provisions of section 146 of the 2003 Act. To be fair to the drafters of that welcome provision, it says that the court “must” treat the fact that the offence was committed in an aggravating way when the offender, immediately at the time of the offence, or before or after it, demonstrated hostility based on the disability or presumed disability of the victim. The provisions are there; they are mandatory. The problem is with the previous stage, because there must be evidence of hostility beforehand, which is where the work of prosecutors becomes extremely important.

The guidelines include a welcome set of considerations that all prosecutors should consider when reviewing cases involving disability. They are the sort of factors that we have discussed today, such as previous incidents involving the victim and the offender. Are the incidents escalating in severity or frequency? Is the targeting becoming systematic and regular, rather than opportunistic offending? On the status of the offender, we have heard about so-called “friends” who befriend people and then manipulate the circumstances. A lot of proper questions are being asked in the guidelines. The key now is to ensure that in every case, those considerations are applied, looked at and checked in each case file.

Key actions could be taken now to help both prosecutors and sentencers. For example, section 146 should be flagged up as a consideration in every case file, so that when prosecutors assess and prepare the evidence, any sentencer is aware of it. In open court, the prosecuting solicitor or barrister should remind the court of their powers under section 146. Such nuts-and-bolts practical measures could see the sort of increase in the use of section 146 that was rightly referred to by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), and which we all want to happen.

Court practitioners and judges need more training on disability issues, most notably the use of section 146. The key point that I found, depressingly, time and time again is that the equation between disability and reliability has to be broken. We have to break that link in the hearts and minds of those involved in the system.

Pensioners and Winter Fuel Payments

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

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

May I first thank the Democratic Unionists for bringing this subject for debate before the House? It is an important and significant issue. As we have heard from the contribution of the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), particular aspects of the issue have particular resonance in Northern Ireland. I shall make some reference to the specific circumstances of Northern Ireland, but it is worth setting the UK-wide context for the decisions taken about the level of the winter fuel payment and the cold weather payment. The right hon. Gentleman is correct that the Government had choices to make, and they made a choice about the cold weather payment, but I do not know whether he is aware that that choice was a significant one—one that I believe has proved to be correct.

The backdrop was as my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) described it a few moments ago. Initially, the winter fuel payment was only for people on means-tested benefits, or a higher rate went to those eligible for means-tested benefits, but eventually, some years ago, it got up to its full universal rate of £200 and it stayed at that level year after year; it was not indexed. Then we reached two years before a general election when the public finances were looking good and the then Chancellor decided to make a one-off increase to £250 and £400. As I say, when it was announced, it was announced as a one-off. Then we reached the year before the general election and the Government of the day thought that cutting the winter fuel payment would look bad so near to the election, so they announced a further one-off increase to £250 and £400. They stressed again that it was a one-off.

Then we reach the March Budget of 2010, and it became apparent in March that the Government would have to announce the rate for winter 2010. Funnily enough, six weeks before a general election did not seem like the right time to reverse a one-off increase, so a further one-off increase was announced again for the winter of 2010. We know it was a one-off increase because the public spending plans of the previous Government were published into the new Parliament. We thus know that the plans we inherited were to cut the winter fuel payment back to its core level of £200 for the winter we are now going into and for succeeding winters. That was the baseline against which we made our decisions.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The Minister is outlining what happened under the previous Government and stressing that the single or “one-off” payment as he has described it on several occasions was maintained just before an election. Given that my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) alluded to the Government’s statement that they would keep faith with the previous Government and in conjunction with what the Minister has just said, does it mean that in three years’ time he will reinstate the cold weather payment?

[Steve Webb]

Well, obviously, cynicism would be well beyond this Government. The rates of public spending are published through a comprehensive spending review period and for the rest of this period the figure we inherited was £200. That, as I say, was our baseline.

Another strange thing that went on was to do with the cold weather payment. That is the money paid when it is freezing cold to the poorest and most vulnerable people—the poorest pensioners and the poorest disabled people. Temporarily, pre-election, that was increased from the regular £8.50 to £25 a week. Temporarily, too, for the year after the election, as announced before the election, it was to be maintained at £25 a week. You will not be surprised to learn, Mr Speaker, that beyond that, it was planned to be slashed back to the £8.50 a week level. In other words, had we done nothing and taken no action, the winter fuel payment would have reverted to its £200 level and the cold weather payment paid to the most vulnerable when it is most cold would have reverted to £8.50 a week.

Let me remind Members that that was the baseline from which we were trying to find something in the order of £70 billion to £80 billion-worth of savings, so the question was not whether we should cut the winter fuel payment or the cold weather payment, but whether we could find the money to reverse the planned cuts, and thus have to find still further cuts from across the budget.

I agree with the right hon. Member for Belfast North on one point—that Governments have to make choices about priorities. He listed some of the priorities of this Government: ring-fencing the NHS, for example, about which I suspect the pensioners of Northern Ireland will be glad. He also mentioned the penny on petrol duty. I was not aware that it was his policy that we should not have reversed that, but I am happy to be corrected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

I will give way in a moment. There is a recognition that, wherever we put the cold weather stations to try to capture some of the variation in climate, such as the seven stations that serve Northern Ireland—

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

rose—

[Steve Webb]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) first and then to the hon. Gentleman. No matter where we put the cold weather stations, somebody, somewhere says, “Hang on a minute, it is in the wrong side of the postcode” and so on. We keep these things under constant review because we want the system to work.

[Steve Webb]

Indeed. I feel that I am acquiring an encyclopaedic knowledge of the remoter parts of Scotland through this role, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House that we listen to representations that are made and take them seriously.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

Just two weeks ago, the Northern Ireland Assembly was informed of a change in my constituency, whereby the existing station in Ballykelly, which is a few miles inland, is to be replaced by a new station in Magilligan, which is right on the coast. The Minister will be aware that it is inevitable that coastal stations will be a degree or two warmer than those inland, so 3,500 people might or might not get a cold weather payment on the basis of a reading from a slightly warmer cold weather station.

[Steve Webb]

As I said a moment ago, we work closely with the Met Office on these matters. I do not claim expertise on meteorological matters, but the Met Office does. Where changes are made to metering stations it is always with a view to being more accurate, rather than less. There is certainly no attempt made to move them to where the sun shines. We will examine that issue this winter. If the hon. Gentleman’s impression from this winter is that that change is causing problems, I will be happy to hear from him.

Youth Unemployment

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Steve McCabe]

I entirely share that view. Part of my purpose here today is to argue that a greater effort is needed to respond to this problem rather than to collapse under its weight.

I was suggesting that the danger of persistent unemployment is that it makes people less employable. I was a struck by a young woman called Laura McCallum who came to see me at my advice centre the other week. She is 22 and has an excellent degree from Sheffield university, but she has been unemployed for two years, despite hundreds of applications and a number of interviews. I am told that she has an interview in three weeks’ time, so I hope that we will all keep our fingers crossed for her. Strangely enough, she wants to join the civil service—there are obviously lots of optimists around. Laura is a classic example of someone who has done everything right so far, but as the months go by her CV looks worse, because of this gap that she cannot plug.

If we look at people at the other end of the scale—not graduates but NEETs—we see a much bigger employability problem. We know that NEETs are three times more likely to end up in prison, that 50% of them are likely to suffer poorer health, that 60% are more likely to develop a drugs problem and that female NEETs are 20 times more likely to become teenage mums. Those figures were produced by the Prince’s Trust, on whose authority in this matter I am happy to rely. These young people lose out, but the country loses out, too. The most recent OECD figures suggest that joblessness in this country is more than double that in apprenticeship nations such as Germany, Austria and Switzerland.

The Minister mentioned earlier that if we look at figures we have to take account of the fact that students make up a proportion of them. I accept that, and it is also fair to say that if we look at NEETs, there are indications that some of the youngsters have additional hurdles, problems or difficulties that make it harder for them to access jobs, and I have no doubt that that is a factor. None the less, the numbers are worrying. The figure for NEETs in the west midlands is about 20%, and it is going up steadily—it currently stands at some 4% above the UK average. NEETs are a particular problem in our region.

I recognise that there are some special problems that require attention. About 10% of NEETs probably find it difficult to join the job market because they are either pregnant or parents with very young children. About 6% of them might be students on gap years, and it would therefore be reasonable to argue that we would not want to include them in an unemployment breakdown, and at any one time about 4% could be in custody. We should not, however, be complacent and say that we can discount those figures; we should instead say that we need not only measures on which everyone works together but, for particular youngsters, even more intensive measures to ensure that their potential for the job market improves.

Labour’s proposals for tackling youth unemployment merit serious consideration. It has never been entirely clear to me, as it has not been to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), why, even allowing for the scale of the cuts, the incoming Government were so keen to scrap the future jobs fund and the guarantee of work or training. When there is so much public support for it, I do not know why Ministers do not look again at the idea of a tax on bankers’ bonuses, especially as the bankers continue to take money they have not earned and show, in my view, little by way of contrition for the problems that they created for all of us, which have caused the suffering of the young people that I have discussed. If we chose to tax bonuses in addition to having the bank levy, we would have the money for the kind of employment programmes that some hon. Members have already mentioned. We estimate that £600 million would fund opportunities for at least 100,000 young people—perhaps more—which might mean that as many as 10,000 youngsters in the west midlands would benefit. That is not enough, but it is a start, and it is a lot better than the present situation.

These folk are our next generation; they are the people we hope will pay taxes, produce growth and finance pensions and health care. They are the people to whom the Minister for Universities and Science claimed we have a contractual obligation in his excellent book, “The Pinch”. We are not fulfilling that obligation at the present time, but instead we are denying those people jobs, pricing them out of higher education and threatening their ambitions by preventing them from getting a foot on the ladder.

I am sure that when the Minister replies he will itemise some of the things that his Government are doing to tackle the problem, and I hope that he will also tell us what will happen to the young people’s careers advice and support agencies now that the Government have decided to abolish Connexions. I want to make it clear that I welcome some of the Government’s initiatives. The national citizen service, which launches this summer, is to be commended. It will offer about 10,000 places for 16-year-olds, although it lasts for only six weeks. It is a step in the right direction, but it is too little.

The Government say that they want to create 100,000 more apprentices, but I am not clear how they expect to do that with so few incentives for businesses to take on more apprentices. I appreciate that this is not strictly the Minister’s responsibility—the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning made it clear to me last night that everything to do with apprentices is in his domain. If there are criticisms, perhaps I should direct them at him. I am sure, however, that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), has some views on the matter, as he thinks about the more general issue of youth unemployment.

I think that we could do more to make apprentices attractive, especially for smaller companies. The Federation of Small Businesses has argued for two specific measures. It thinks that some kind of national insurance holiday and some measure of wage support would be helpful. Its members have also made it clear that one of the biggest problems that they face is managing the administration and bureaucracy of apprenticeships. Interestingly, they are keen on apprentice training agencies, so will the Minister say something about that? Those agencies were initially a Labour initiative, but he does not have to set his face against every such thing. If it makes is easier for him, I think they originated in Australia, so he should not worry about the affiliations. They are something that the FSB wants.

It is important to recognise that only 8% of small businesses have taken on an apprentice in the past year. The figures for 2008 show that half of all apprenticeships were in companies with fewer than 50 employees, and it is vital that we make inroads in that regard.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He is making a very important point about youth unemployment. In many parts of the United Kingdom, it is the small business sector, whether it involves the FSB or other groups, that will deliver for young people, rather than large, inward investment projects—we all love to see such projects, but their days are probably over. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the small business sector needs promotion and assistance, and that it can offer some prospect of employment to young people?

[Steve McCabe]

I totally agree. As I have said, the figures for 2008 show that about 50% of all apprentices were in small companies. Moreover, if we look at micro-companies, we see that they are the businesses that need things such as an ATA or some sort of support or incentive. I think that that is where we will find the extra apprenticeships.

I did not call this debate to totally damn the Government, but I want the Minister to recognise that I am not alone in thinking that not enough is being done. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research argues that the current funding for apprenticeships is simply not sufficient to tackle the scale of youth unemployment. Its director told the Treasury Committee in March that neither apprenticeships nor work experience were sufficient to tackle the scale of the problem.

Of course, there are some good news stories, as is the case in all such situations. I received a letter in advance of this debate from Emma Reynolds, the government affairs director at Tesco. I know that Tesco does not always get a wonderful press, but it is the largest private sector employer in this country. It is worth noting that 25% of its almost 300,000-strong work force are under the age of 25. This year alone, it hopes to create 10,000 new jobs. It has provided 3,000 work experience placements, and last year, despite all the difficulties, it was able to take on 335 graduates. It also has a regeneration partnership, which means that it works with Jobcentre Plus in areas in which it is developing new stores or centres. I hope that I can work with it on that, because it has submitted a planning application in my constituency.

Not to be outdone, the Co-op has also announced that it plans to create 2,000 more apprenticeships over the next three years. It is worth noting that its chief executive, Peter Marks, joined the company at 17 and knows exactly what it is like for someone to get their first foot on the ladder and work their way through the company.

I urge the Government to think again about an immediate jobs and training programme. Like many other people, I believe that it could be funded, or part-funded, by a tax on bankers’ bonuses. I also think that the Government need to establish proper arrangements for careers advice and guidance for young people. Although it is welcome to see examples like the big retail chains— we should encourage more of that and I am all for it—we need to listen to what the FSB is saying and to recognise its problems, particularly in relation to ATAs. If the Minister can indicate that the Government are willing to take some of these things on board, we might be in a situation whereby the accusations that we do not care would not be so loud, and the likelihood that we repeat the things that happened in the 1980s would diminish significantly.

State Pension Age (Women)

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on bringing this important matter before the House.

I start by declaring an interest. As a man born in 1954, I will be affected by the increase in state pension age. However, the extra time that men will have to work is slight, and the change is being brought in gradually. I can therefore accept that change. The real problem created by the Government’s proposals is for women born at about the same time as me. They will have to work considerably longer before they can collect their pension, and they are being given short notice to prepare for the extra work.

As others have said this morning, the Turner commission recommends 15 years preparation. The Government have had to make many difficult decisions because of the record-breaking deficit that they inherited from the previous Government. The Government’s aim is to eliminate the deficit by 2015, but this proposal will not help them to achieve that goal, because it does not come into effect until well after 2015. Therefore, they cannot put forward the argument that the proposal will help to eliminate the deficit.

The proposal will also not bring any long-term recurring benefits to the public finances. Equalisation and the increase in the pension age to 66 will take effect in the long term and this proposal will only bring a benefit over a few short years. The proposal is not needed for the Government’s overall strategy. It is also not in the coalition agreement, which said that equalisation should not take place before 2020.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman remember the Minister speaking in the House last month? He said:

“If we want to encourage pension saving, the key is getting the state pension system right.”—[Official Report, 4 April 2011; Vol. 526, c. 795.]

There is an obvious anomaly here and this section of getting the system right has not been achieved. Today’s debate gives the Minister an excellent opportunity to rectify what is an obvious anomaly.

[Mr Reid]

I obviously agree that we must get the pension system right. The Minister has an excellent track record in campaigning for justice for pensioners. As the proposal is not in the coalition agreement and is not needed to eliminate the deficit by 2015, I hope that the Minister will go away and reflect on the matter before the Pensions Bill comes to the House.

Disability Living Allowance

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I am glad to have secured this timely debate on the reform of the mobility component of disability living allowance—the debate could scarcely be timelier. I am also grateful to the hon. Members who are here, as well as to those who have expressed their interest but cannot be here. Lastly, I am grateful to the many organisations that have provided briefings to me and others for this debate.

Disability living allowance is highly valued. Currently, the lower rate is £18.95 and the higher rate is £49.85. As the response to the Government’s consultation states, DLA, and attendance allowance before it,

“had a major positive impact on recipients’ lives…DLA recipients of working age were unanimous in expressing views that DLA made a big difference to them.”

Many people depend on DLA. With some reservations, I say that the application and decision making processes are clear. I will refer to that later, but at least we know where we stand. Research also shows that DLA is unlikely to be subject to fraud: the Department for Work and Pensions estimates fraud at 0.5%, the lowest rate in the entire benefits system. The system seems to be working. As a rural MP in north Wales, I know that DLA is particularly valuable to people in rural areas, who generally face intense problems with mobility. The money can transform people’s lives.

My concerns about the Government’s proposals relate to the assessment system, the threats to automatic entitlement, the extension of the waiting period, mobility payments for people in residential care and assessments regarding the use of aids and adaptations. However, my overarching concern is about the prospect of cuts of up to 20%. If cuts are made, who will pay for them? I strongly suspect that it is people with a disability who will be hit.

To rehearse the history, the mobility element of DLA was introduced in its earliest form, mobility allowance, by the Conservative Government in 1973. At the time, the Government were responding to the consensus between parties and civil society organisations that something had to be done to address the changing circumstances in which people with disabilities were living. They were living, living longer and living in the community rather than in residential care, and they were often younger than the disabled people who would have been living in the community 10, 20 or 30 years earlier. The world was changing, and the attendance and mobility allowances were introduced in response.

I have personal experience of those allowances. A close relative of mine, a young person severely injured in a car accident, was in just such circumstances in the early 1970s and was living in the community after extended medical treatment. At the time, mobility allowance made all the difference. It transformed his life then, and it still does now, given that he lives in a remote rural area and depends on his own transport.

The Government say that DLA needs reform. I agree, but my grounds for reform might be somewhat different from theirs. I think that the application process can be a disincentive. Many people have come to me, as their MP, in dismay over the substantial form that must be filled in, and I have been glad to refer such people to the citizens advice bureau. I pay tribute to the CAB’s work in the benefits field in general, but its expertise in the particular instance of DLA is truly inspirational. The application process could be changed.

I worry about take-up. There are few current statistics about the level of take-up of DLA and the mobility element of DLA. I did a bit of research with a colleague and found a reference to research in 1998, more than 10 years ago. The family resources survey estimated take-up of the mobility element at between 50% and 70%. Will the Minister tell us, now or by letter, whether any more recent estimates of the take-up have been made? I think that many people do not claim DLA or DLA mobility, even though they would clearly benefit from it.

As I have said, the application process could be improved. The number of successful appeals suggests that the initial assessment is not what it should be. Also, the DLA mobility element is age-restricted. Mobility allowance was initially subject to age restrictions—it was confined to people between 25 and 45—which were gradually expanded over the years. However, as one elderly constituent said to me recently, that benefit, which would help older people with mobility problems, is deliberately denied them by the age limits, which seems somewhat paradoxical. Will personal independence payments for mobility awarded before retirement continue to be paid afterwards, as DLA is at present? People are worried, perhaps unnecessarily.

The Government are proposing changes, as we will see this afternoon, and introducing PIP. The proposals will be subjected to detailed debates. As I have said, I worry about the possibility of 20% cuts and share people’s concerns and perception that there is a problem.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his success in securing this debate. He has returned to the issue raised in the press of the possibility of a 20% cut in the numbers applying. If we take that figure with his earlier figure of less than 1% fraud or abuse of the system, we see the inevitable consequence that, even if the Government’s reductions target all those who fraudulently abuse the system, more than 19% of those targeted will still be genuine claimants, who will suffer unnecessarily.

[Hywel Williams]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. The fundamental question is who will pay if cuts are made. The people squeezed out of the system will be genuine claimants who are disincentivised, or people with lower-level needs.

I am concerned by the Government’s conflation of the arguments about promoting the take-up of work and the need for reform. DLA literally helps some people get to work, but it is not a work-related benefit; it exists to assist with the additional costs of living with impairments or long-term health conditions. There is a coincidence between receiving DLA and experiencing difficulty finding work, but that means only that work for people with a disability is scarce. DLA is a marker rather than a cause, as the consultation paper seems to suggest. The work problems that I see confronting people with a disability involve ignorance among employers about the value of disabled workers. But perhaps, Mr Davies, I am straying into a subject beyond the strict bounds of the mobility element.

I am concerned about mobility and people in residential care. When I first thought of applying for this debate, that was the main issue that I wanted to address, as it is of concern to a great number of people. I certainly welcome the Government’s decision to delay the provision and to review it until 2013. That is unsurprising, given the view of the Social Security Advisory Committee, which said:

“This measure will substantially reduce the independence of disabled people who are being cared for in residential accommodation, which goes against the stated aim of the reform of DLA to support ‘disabled people to lead independent and active lives’.”

I very much welcome the postponement, but it is only a postponement and people are concerned.