Compulsory Jobs Guarantee

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

Thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have to start by saying that I am particularly proud to be a member of the Labour party and the labour movement, as we debate this policy. I feel it reflects the heart of our movement and where our priorities lie in creating new opportunities for young unemployed and long-term unemployed people to give them the dignity of paid work and skills development, while simultaneously supporting job creation and business growth, making for a stronger, more vibrant economy with permanent long-term jobs. I have no doubt that, should we have a Labour Government in May, this policy will make an incredible impact in my constituency of Airdrie and Shotts, complementing the existing work going on at local government level and in the voluntary sector. Indeed, it will help thousands of people back into work across the country.

We know that youth and long-term unemployment has a detrimental effect on people’s self-worth, their mental and physical health and their circumstances. However, that impact is not confined to individuals; it is also felt by their families, by the people around them, and by their communities. The youth dole queue, which is currently the length of Hadrian’s Wall, shows us the impact that this is having, and can have, on society as a whole, and it is the responsibility of whichever Government are in power to tackle it.

In the short time that is available to me, I must confront the Secretary of State’s claim, in his opening speech, that the Labour party is opposed to work experience. I find that offensive, because it is categorically wrong. Our opposition is to the Government’s exploitation of the unemployed through poor-quality, mandatory, unpaid work experience. I would be less likely to be in the House today had I not had the opportunity to benefit from high-quality work experience when I was young. That led me to launch the Our Community project, in conjunction with the trade union Community and the local jobcentre. The project matches young unemployed people with voluntary, high-quality work experience provided by local employers. Work experience is extremely valuable, and we must do all that we can to nurture the culture that produces it.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has referred to the importance of keeping young people in employment, and to the project that matches them with local employers. Constant contact with employers makes it possible to find out what new skills and career directions can benefit those who are placed with them. Is that not one reason for the success of the project?

[Pamela Nash]

Absolutely—and I think that the jobs guarantee will extend or complement the ability to do that, rather than take it away. However, it will also have a positive impact as a whole. It will create new jobs. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), employers will have to prove that the jobs would not otherwise be there. It will also be mandatory for them to include a training element that will provide over six months of guaranteed paid work, with all the benefits that that brings.

As I said earlier in an intervention, the system is already working. We have seen several examples of that. My local authority, North Lanarkshire council, is doing fantastic work in getting people back to work, and creating new jobs—in the voluntary and public sectors, but mainly in the private sector—through its project “North Lanarkshire’s Working”. A key part of the project is the provision of a 50% wage subsidy for employers who give unemployed people new jobs for six months. It is aimed primarily at young people, although 15% of the funds are earmarked for older people, and it has returned nearly 5,000 people to employment and training. I hope that a version of it will be rolled out throughout the country, so that others can benefit from it. The project has also put considerable effort into encouraging the creation of jobs for those who find it most difficult to obtain work, including those who live with disabilities and young people who are leaving the care system.

Earlier, both SNP and Tory Members heckled my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, saying that after the six months was over, people would end up back in the dole queue. Our experience in North Lanarkshire shows that that is not the case among the vast majority of participants. The wage subsidy allows businesses to expand at reduced risk, because it allows them to take people on for six months and then create permanent jobs for them. Even when that has not been possible, the skills, confidence and routine that people have gained from six months of paid employment have left them with much brighter prospects.

The jobs guarantee that my party has proposed today, and in the last few months, is the culmination of other successful policies that we have seen in the past, and see currently in other parts of the United Kingdom. I think that it will be a game changer, creating jobs and tackling both youth and long-term unemployment, and I look forward to its implementation by a Labour Government in May.

Jobs and Work

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery). The Government claim this Queen’s Speech is unashamedly pro-work, pro-business and pro-aspiration, but that statement is an attempt to show a united front between the two coalition partners rather than a reflection of the reality of the content of this Queen’s Speech. Yet again, this Queen’s Speech is notably weak on something that matters crucially to the people of Britain: the quality of jobs and work. Once again, my constituents could be forgiven for seeing little in it for them: very little on jobs, very little for families, nothing to deal with the cost of living crisis, and nothing to instil confidence in the future for our young people.

The Government claim to have turned the economy around, yet they ignore the everyday struggle of ordinary people. Under this Government we have seen a rising tide of insecurity at work, which is adding to the costs of social security as people are forced to rely on benefits to make ends meet. The truth is that most people across the UK are experiencing squeezed living standards. Families are working harder, for longer, for less, yet they are seeing prices go up and up. In addition, the talents of millions of our young people are going to waste, and small businesses feel that this Government are not on their side.

For the Government to declare their economic plan a success, they must continue to deny the cost of living crisis that is engulfing the country. Even people in work see that wages are falling, because of the increase in the cost of living, and there have been unprecedented falls in real wages in the UK since the start of this recession. If we cast our minds back—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Minister of State, I can hear your conversation clearly. Members have sat in this Chamber all day waiting to speak and we should pay them the courtesy of listening to what they have to say, even if we do not necessarily agree with them.

[Mr McKenzie]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Let us cast our minds back. We recall that this did not happen in previous economic downturns, when median real wage growth slowed, or at worst stalled, but did not fall. Under this government, the real wages of the typical worker have fallen by about 8% to 10%, meaning that most people, except those at the very top, have experienced falling living standards. There is a cost of living crisis across the UK, and young people have been particularly badly hit. Those aged 25 to 29 have seen real wage falls in the order of 12%, with falls of 15% for those aged 18 to 24. In addition, many young people cannot find a job at all. Some three quarters of a million under-25s are unemployed, with 25% of them having been unemployed for more than a year. Our young people need work—and on decent contracts; they do not need the rise of the zero-hours contracts that many now find themselves on. The Queen’s Speech does, however, offer a concession on zero-hours contracts, whereby firms will not be able to prevent workers on zero-hours deals from working elsewhere as well—I expect we should be grateful for this.

Let us consider another obscenity that is still occurring: the incidence of people paying below the national minimum wage. The Government have made re-announcement after re-announcement about cracking down on employers who do not pay the minimum wage. They have announced their name and shame policy on several occasions, but very few employers have been named or shamed. The Government need to match Labour’s plans for more robust enforcement. Labour plans to increase the value of the national minimum wage over the next Parliament to a higher proportion of average earnings and to help businesses pay a living wage through Make Work Pay contracts.

The truth is that under this Government, life has become more insecure for people at work, and it has become harder for employees to seek redress. This Queen’s Speech offers little hope to families in Inverclyde who are faced with spending cuts, pay freezes and rising prices. There is little to help the 178,000 unemployed Scots to get a job. In Inverclyde, we have been fortunate to have a Labour MP, a Labour MSP and a Labour council focused on what matters most, which is jobs and work.

A continuation of the future jobs fund has meant that Inverclyde has one of the lowest rates of youth unemployment in Scotland, but we could have achieved more if we did not have a Government in Westminster fixated on the rich and a Government in Holyrood fixated on independence.

If this had been Labour’s Queen's Speech, we would have introduced Bills to make work pay, reform our banks, freeze energy bills and build homes again. Labour would have recognised as wealth creators not just those who set up businesses, but those who put in the hours and do the shifts to make a successful business. Labour recognises that a recovery is created by the many and not the few. We want a plan for jobs. We need to identify industries of the future and to get Britain back to work.

amendment of the law

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

We have heard from this Government for some time that we are all in this together, but with Budgets such as this one we are not getting out of it all together, as it would seem that the coalition Government are determined to fast-track the wealthiest. I say that because this Budget did nothing to tackle the cost of living crisis, and the Government just do not understand the difficulties ordinary people are facing. Yet in this Budget the Chancellor did create a structural welfare cap—it is the only thing this Budget does on welfare.

Worse still, the Budget does nothing to address the multiple failings of the Department for Work and Pensions. The DWP appears to be a in a total shambolic mess, so it is depressing to note that DWP inefficiency throws large amounts of taxpayers’ money away on failed IT projects. In autumn 2013, it was announced that the DWP had written off £34 million of IT work on the universal credit programme. In addition, a further £140 million of money already spent was under review to determine whether the IT developed had any lasting value. Despite the write-off, the projected IT budget for the universal credit programme was increased by 60%, from £396 million to some £635 million. Early this year, we were given more bad news; the DWP had completed an internal audit of its IT strategy which revealed serious deficiencies in the Department’s technology plans. This Government seem to be focused more on waste than welfare.

Where better to witness the waste of time, effort and money than the Government’s Work programme? It was devised to incentivise prime contract holders to focus extra efforts and resources on those who are hardest to get into the labour market. It would seem that instead of doing that, the prime contract holders have been creaming and parking: focusing on the easiest to place and reducing attention on the hardest to place. The Government’s own assessment of how the Work programme is going, conducted for the DWP by independent experts, suggests that it is still badly under-performing. The Work programme evaluation interim report was signed off ready for publication in September, but has been sat on ever since—I wonder why that is. Could it be that the whole payment-by-results contract structure does not seem to be doing what it was meant to do? So we have no work for the long-term unemployed, and delays to benefits and benefits assessments resulting in people using food banks. Some 73% of the people using food banks are doing so because of benefit delays. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report on food poverty has not been made public. I suspect that is because it links food poverty with this Government’s welfare reform.

What can we say about the performance of these reforms? Incapacity benefit is being replaced with the employment and support allowance, with those already claiming IB being reassessed to decide whether they are capable of work or eligible for ESA, and with the assessments being carried out by Atos Healthcare. Like many MPs, I regularly meet sick or disabled people who are not able to work but who have been described as fit to work by Atos or by the DWP. The Minister with responsibility for disabled people, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), has described the contract with Atos as a “mess”. Some 600,000 people across the country have appealed against decisions made by the Government to cut their benefits. Of that number, 60% have been successful. Such figures clearly prove that something is wrong with the process.

Atos is now saying that it wants to pull out of the contract early because of the threats being made against its staff. The chaos is costing taxpayers millions of pounds in assessments and tribunals, and it is causing distress and anxiety for thousands of disabled people.

Let us look at how the personal independence payment is shaping up. Atos will continue to carry out assessments on more than 3 million people receiving disability living allowance, soon to become PIP. Some constituents have been waiting months to be dealt with. However, even when Atos proves it is decent in its assessments, the Department for Work and Pensions overrules it, which is scandalous.

Let us look at another reform, the work capability assessment, because there is clearly a pattern forming here. In my constituency of Inverclyde, I have seen first hand the way in which people can be treated. One constituent was diagnosed with brain cancer. His surgeon, GP and even Atos said that he would never work again, but the DWP said that he should work and sanctioned him. It has taken many months to get back his payments. On top of all the worry, his family were faced with financial worry.

Another constituent suffering from cerebral palsy who could not travel for assessment was refused a home visit. Similarly, a constituent who was seriously injured in an accident at work was advised to travel to Glasgow for assessment, but, again, they were unable to travel because they were in so much pain. It gets worse. This constituent then had their benefit stopped because Atos sent the assessment forms to the wrong address. If it cannot get the address right, what chance do my constituents have? Those are just a couple of examples of people I have been dealing with. Clearly, my constituents have not been treated with the fairness and decency that they deserve, and the Budget does nothing to address that.

Last but not least is the bedroom tax. The best I can say is that in Scotland, thanks to a Labour Bill in the Scottish Parliament which was at last supported by the Scottish Nationalist party Government, the bedroom tax will not apply there next year. The bedroom tax is inhuman and should be abolished and Labour will abolish it across the UK.

[Mr Jeremy Browne (Taunton Deane) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr McKenzie]

I will not give way, as I am just about to finish. We will also introduce a Budget that recognises and addresses the cost of living crisis that people up and down this country face.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. Jade Etherington and Kelly Gallagher, and their guides, Caroline Powell and Charlotte Evans, are glowing examples of what can be achieved by sportswomen in this country.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

9. What recent discussions she has had with social media companies on tackling online antisocial behaviour.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

I chaired a meeting with social media companies on 13 February to discuss measures to protect people when they are online. We confirmed our position that social media companies should respond quickly to incidents of abusive behaviour on their networks and ensure that they have measures to protect users. We intend to continue to work with industry on those issues.

[Mr McKenzie]

We have continually called on the Government to introduce legislation to deal with the epidemic of cyber-bullying that we are witnessing, so why do they not make it an offence in its own right?

[Mr Vaizey]

Working with social media companies in a flexible, responsive way is the best way forward. We have covered a whole range of issues, including age and identity verification, the reporting of abuse, adjudication, auditing, filtering and funding; we can cover all of those comprehensively and flexibly through dialogue.

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jim Sheridan]

I speak as a former ship worker on the Clyde. I have seen at first hand the pressure that was brought to bear on employees who worked in and around asbestos and whose jobs were threatened if they refused to work with it. It was only with the support of the trade unions and the health and safety part of those unions that we managed to get that pressure taken off the employees and to give them the protective clothing they had so long deserved.

I do not think that I am the only person in this House who has had a visit from someone who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma. We can see the desperation in their eyes when they know that they do not have long to live and the only thing that keeps them going is the fact that they can get some compensation, not for them but for their families. That is the important thing. The most graphic description of mesothelioma I have heard was from a victim who told me that it was like a tree growing inside you which eventually chokes you to death. That is the kind of death we are seeing, and it is somewhat disappointing.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) talked about Scotland and pleural plaques. The Scottish Government took a different road and were successful in the courts in pursuing compensation for those with pleural plaques, but just for the record, no one in Scotland has received a single penny of that compensation because the insurance industry has now taken the matter through the European Court of Human Rights.

People will have different views of the insurance industry, but I personally have a very toxic view. That is based on my own experience some years ago in Scotland, where there is a different legal system. Then, when people were diagnosed with any asbestos-related disease, their claim died with them. The insurance companies would go to court and have sitting beside them a doctor who would, from a distance, try to gauge how long the person had to live, and the companies would then find some sort of technical reason to get their case put back or delayed in the hope that they would die and their claim would die with them. That is the reason for my toxic view of the insurance industry.

I spoke about the cut-off date on Second Reading, and my opinion has in no way changed. The consultation in 2010 was extremely clear in its intention, and the industry’s very competent public relations people—perhaps the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) might have been one of them—picked up on this issue immediately. There is no doubt that the companies have been preparing for the scheme since the day the consultation was launched, and there is no reason why we should be letting them set the agenda in this way. The rights of victims are being completely ignored by the arbitrary setting of a cut-off date in 2012. The argument that basing the legislation in 2010 is

“unlawful interference with insurers’ property rights”

does not give due importance to the rights of the victims. Having more money should not buy someone more rights, though under this Government that seems to be exactly the case. Nor do I believe the argument about the initial spike in payments. Insurance companies would have put money aside to alleviate the risk of making those payments, and even if they did not, the payments would be a drop in the ocean for this multi-billion-pound industry, which can easily afford to make them.

Between February 2010 and 25 July 2012, an extra 700 people will have died as a result of mesothelioma, and they should not have had to suffer due to the insurance industry dragging its feet. This proposal is affordable within the Government’s figures and, more importantly, it is fair.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend and I come from the same area of the Clyde, which has had a long tradition of shipbuilding, and we know that victims of asbestos-related illnesses are still being identified. Does he agree that perhaps the insurance industry is looking ahead and estimating that what we had hoped would be the peak in the number of these victims is not the peak? In fact, still to this day, GPs on the Clyde actively ask people who go to see them with chest complaints, “Where did you work? Did you work near asbestos?” Is not that why the insurance companies are so reluctant?

[Jim Sheridan]

My hon. Friend and neighbour is absolutely right. He, like me and many people who worked in the industrial sector, whether it be in the shipyards, in the mines or wherever, live with the constant fear that a cough could develop into something more worrying like mesothelioma. In the industrial sector, regardless of the part of the country we come from, that is something we have to live with on a daily basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Woodcock]

The Minister is absolutely right; it has gone up from 70% to 75%, but the case has been made powerfully and strongly today that he can go further, to 80% at least.

[Mr McKenzie]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the deal that has been struck is allowing the insurance companies to renege on their commitment to these victims, and, not only that, but perhaps we are seeing a precedent being set for industries who are yet to leave their legacy of industrial victims?

[John Woodcock]

My hon. Friend is right and that does not leave the insurance companies doing sufficient.

Of course time is a factor, and we do not live in an ideal world. Today we will probably not achieve giving these people everything that ought to be given to them, and God knows they have waited far too long already, but we should all thank the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for her tenacity. She has brought her considerable expertise to bear on this. I am sure her former friends and colleagues in the insurance industry think of her as a poacher turned gamekeeper—[Interruption.] Perhaps it is the other way round in this instance. Her expertise and inside knowledge have enabled the way in which the insurance companies work to be exposed in the House today. Some of us will struggle to see the logic of the 3% cut-off. If we stretch this and have a longer period for making the pay-outs over the next decade, even by the parameters the insurance industry has set itself, the figure will still come in at 3%.

We have shown today that we can go further and I really hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will listen to the arguments made in this House and improve what is on offer for the victims of this awful, horrible disease.

Women’s Pensions

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I was delighted to be granted this debate, which is extremely relevant and important to many thousands of households across the country, including in my constituency of Inverclyde. I also thank the Minister for his time today.

In these uncertain times, when it can be difficult to find a good employer, and a good employee pension is even more difficult to find, many could be forgiven, as in the past, for counting on their state pension—an agreement they believe will deliver on their regular contributions. “Thank goodness,” they might think, trusting that all those deductions from their pay over the years will finally secure a reasoned and equal pension in retirement. They could never have foreseen or taken into account the Government’s recent pension reforms, which many believe to be unfair. I am, of course, talking about the reforms to the state pension age, and particularly how those reforms have disproportionately affected women born in the early 1950s.

The Government’s intention was to introduce a single-tier state pension from April 2017, but as the Minister will be aware, in this year’s Budget that date was brought forward to April 2016. I accept that that is good news for thousands of women, but it still excludes the group on which I am focusing. I believe we all welcome the single-tier pension, but there is one major injustice that can be identified within that new system. Implementing the single-tier pension on 6 April 2016 means that there is a group of women born between 6 April 1951 and 5 April 1953 who will not be eligible for the single-tier pension, even though a man born on the same day will qualify, because the pension age will be unequal on implementation day in April 2016.

The Government’s changes to the state pension have consistently hit hard-working women, and now the single-tier pension will let down 700,000 women across the UK. That is simply not good enough, and it is unacceptable to that group of women. For the single-tier pension to be successful and to achieve its designated goal of equality, it should treat women and men of the same age equally. When the Government’s White Paper was originally published, my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) was quick to spot the issue. He identified that, as a result of the 2017 implementation date, 429,000 women will not receive the flat-rate state pension, even though a man of the same age will.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter to the House, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern, as I suspect that he and many others do, that some ladies will have to work to the age of 72, or possibly 73, thereby holding back a job from an 18-year-old, who will be put on jobseeker’s allowance? Is there not a better way of balancing the issue?

[Mr McKenzie]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The age to which such women are being asked to work will affect not only them but younger generations who are looking for jobs. I will expand on how working longer affects longevity, and how the argument about longevity does not apply to all of those women.

It is important to note that 80,000 women born in the early 1950s have already had their state pension arrangements changed by the Pensions Act 2011. Surely the Government cannot continue to claim that the new Pensions Bill is fair. What is the Government’s justification for making a change that is unfair and unjust for hundreds of thousands of hard-working women across the UK?

In my constituency alone more than 600 women born on or after 6 April 1951 and before 6 April 1953 will be deprived of, on average, £884 a year, which I think we can agree is not an insignificant sum to lose out on in these tough financial times. Those women are rightly angry at what they see as the dual adverse impact of an increase in their pension age and their non-eligibility for the single-tier pension. I have met many of the affected women in my constituency, and they have expressed their dismay and disgust at the policy. Possibly the phrase that best describes the fate of those women is “So near, yet so far away.” How would the Minister and his Government colleagues feel if, after planning for their retirement date and making what savings and plans they could, they were told they had to work for longer and would be excluded from the new single-tier pension scheme? I suspect they would agree that it is simply not fair.

These women, most of whom left school at 15, have been paying into the system year after year after year. They have made the necessary savings and plans for their retirement, and above all they have spent a lifetime working hard, paying taxes, keeping a home, caring for their families and, naturally, looking forward to their retirement. With all of that, they hoped and expected to receive their state pension at the age they had come to expect. Those women will now be forced to wait longer to retire, and they will miss out on the new £144 a week single-tier pension for the rest of their lives; indeed, they will now receive about £127 a week. Once again, does the Minister find that fair?

Although the coalition Government are fond of quoting a figure of some £4 billion as the overall cost of including these women, the Department for Work and Pensions published an estimate showing that the true cost is closer to £220 million. In his evidence to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, the Minister agreed that those women will be financially worse off than a man of the same age. He also stated that 90% of those women would fare better because women live longer. It is a weak point for the Government to claim that those women may recoup the money they lose out on because women live longer. Life expectancy differs vastly across the country. Life expectancy from boundary to boundary in my constituency varies hugely—by as much as 10 years—which means the policy is extremely unfair and unequal for the women I represent.

Women born in Inverclyde in the 1950s have worked in some of the toughest industries our country has ever seen. Mills, sugar refineries and shipyards are extremely heavy industries that have had a huge impact on the health of women in my constituency, resulting in a much shorter life expectancy than in other parts of the UK. Even late in their employment life many worked in the electronics industries, which are perceived by some to be less demanding and hazardous than the industries of the past. The electronics industries, however, still exact a health toll on my constituents and reduce the longevity of the women who transferred their skills from the mills, sugar refineries and shipyards to the sunrise electronics industries of the 1980s and 1990s. Those women might have worked alongside chemicals, for example, that we have now discovered eat holes in the ozone layer and are thus banned from use even in aerosols. We are yet to acknowledge, accept or see the effects on their health.

The industries of the ’80s have yet to produce their health casualties, but the evidence thus far paints a bleak future for many hard-working women in my constituency. We need only ask the women who are fighting past employers for recognition of responsibility for cancer clusters to know that, for many, catching up on their pensions will not be an option. If that level of inequality in working conditions and life expectancy exists within a community the size of Inverclyde, it beggars belief to imagine the differences facing larger communities throughout the United Kingdom.

Let me tell Members about Mrs Angela Hurrell, who lives in my constituency. Angela was born on 26 March 1953. Her retirement plans have changed drastically, as she will not reach pensionable age until 6 March 2016—four weeks before the introduction of the single-tier pension. Angela will now work until she is 62 years and 11 months old, and she will receive the old pension figure of approximately £127 a week. She will be £884 a year worse off than a woman born just 10 days later. For her, it is truly a case of so near, yet so far away.

Let me also highlight the case of Angela’s friend, Mrs Maureen Hamill, who is also a constituent. Maureen is a hard-working self-employed local business woman. She was born on 27 March 1953, and her retirement plans, like Angela’s, have changed drastically. Maureen is on her feet all day and works long hours. She does not have the luxury of reducing her working hours, which means that if she is unable to work, her business closes. Despite all that, Maureen will also be excluded from the single-tier pension. Again, she seems to have been born too early, to be retiring too late and to be £884 a year worse off. We can see a pattern forming: so near, yet so far away. I hope the Minister will agree that that does not sound like the fairer system his Government promised.

Angela and Maureen are no different from the hundreds of thousands of other women from across the country whom I could have mentioned. As with many women close to retirement age, every pound is important to them in these difficult financial times. They are but two examples of ordinary, hard-working women in my constituency who deserve to be treated fairly. They simply ask to receive the same improved pension a man the same age will receive.

The inclusion of the women I have talked about would allow the Government to fulfil one of their goals: a universal new state pension built on fairness and equality. I accept they have improved the Pensions Bill, but if the parameters have been changed once to include thousands of women, why can they not be changed again, so that we can end the inequality for the women I have talked about? I urge the Minister and the Government to think about the examples of Angela and Maureen and about the 700,000 women across the UK who share their circumstances. I hope the Government will reconsider. Let it not be so near, yet so far away for these 700,000 women.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

That is what I meant—I was gesturing, but that will not be in Hansard. It could be argued that the person retires and everyone else moves up a step, and the young unemployed person comes in at the bottom; but what has been lost is the productivity, skills and experience of the older worker. If that worker has not been adding anything to the firm, then fine—get rid of them—but they are. That is the point. On average—not in every case—older workers are, by definition, the most experienced; they are often very productive and less likely to take time off sick than slightly younger people. They contribute a huge amount. The evidence from around the world—not from Government research but from work by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others—is that pensioning them off does not benefit younger workers. There is not a battle between the generations; in many ways they are complementary, because the older, experienced worker can mentor, and use their skills to bring on, younger workers.

[Mr McKenzie]

I thank the Minister for his detailed response, but I cannot help but think that his argument about elderly workers not retiring to release jobs to younger workers implies that employers should hold on to employees as long as possible, even when they are near retirement age and want to retire.

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Gentleman is putting words into my mouth. I am saying that older workers, on average, are very productive. Clearly there comes a point when our productivity declines, as we get much older. We should bear in mind that the 700,000 women who are the subject of the debate are in their early 60s. I think that many of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents would be offended at the suggestion that they are not productive, valuable members of the work force. We do not say that employers should be forced to go on employing them if they want to stop working, but the evidence from the IFS has debunked what has been called the lump of labour fallacy—the idea that there is a lump of labour to be done, and so it is possible to knock out an older worker and slot in a younger one. That neglects the valuable contribution of older workers.

Clearly there is a limit. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the age of 72 or 73, although the statute book takes us only to 68 at the moment, so I am not sure where he got that from.

Pensions Bill

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

I will focus my comments on issues raised with me by women from my constituency who were born in the early 1950s and who perceive an injustice in the changes proposed for state pensions. We are all well aware—especially at this time—of the great importance the public place on pensions, as evidenced by the reactions we have seen to any proposed changes. Perhaps we need a requirement that any changes to pensions should give as much notice as possible to those affected, so that they can plan for and address those changes. We can, therefore, appreciate the apprehension displayed by people up and down the country when further changes to pensions were announced, including the intention to introduce a single-tier state pension for future pensioners from April 2017. I support the single-tier pension, but seek to highlight what I believe is an unfair outcome for one group of our constituents.

The problem with implementing the single-tier pension on 6 April 2017 is that a group of women born in the early 1950s will not be eligible for it. Around 700,000 women born between April 1951 and July 1953 will miss out. They will be deprived of many hundreds of pounds a year on average—money they could well do with in these austere times. Women born in this period are, quite rightly, angry at what they see as a dual adverse impact of the increase in their pension age and their non-eligibility for the single-tier pension. They will be forced to wait longer to retire, and will miss out on the new £144 pension. Instead, they will receive around £127 a week. Even the DWP’s own research concluded that that

“could have a significant impact on the state pension received over the course of a lifetime, in comparison to a man with an identical national insurance contributions”.

It is so obviously unfair that women born between 6 April and 5 July 1953 have been particularly disadvantaged by the changes to the state pension. Not only have they had a second increase in state pension age imposed on them—this time at very short notice—they will now not receive the improved pension.

The campaigner Louise Fox, born on 23 June 1953, says:

“In principle, I welcome the move to a flat-rate pension because it will bring to an end the poor state pension deal that most women get, but we have been left on the sidelines.”

She goes on to say that the Government could do a number of things such as allow women in that group who retire before April 2017 either to switch to the new single-tier pension after that date, or to delay taking their pension until 6 April 2017 and then enrol in the new single-tier pension scheme.

[Steve Webb]

I understand the confusion because we did originally propose to introduce these measures in 2017. Since then, however, we have brought forward the start date to 2016, meaning that the constituent to whom the hon. Gentleman refers will get the single-tier pension if she was born in June 1953.

[Mr McKenzie]

I thank the Minister for that information. Louise Fox is not my constituent, but she will find that intervention very welcome.

One further worry is that April 2017 is still not set in stone as the date for the start of the new system, and we have been told that it has now changed. Women in this disadvantaged group want to know why they have to wait until age 66 to claim their pension, and some cite losses of £30,000. They ask, “Can this really be true? Why have we been so penalised? Why are the Government treating us so badly? What have we done to deserve this?”

The Government claim that they must be “absolutely transparent” about who will lose out, yet they failed to make clear the full consequences of the planned reforms. The Work and Pensions Committee undertook pre-legislative scrutiny of the Government’s proposals, and heard from many women born between 1951 and 1953 who believed that they would suffer. There was concern about some 85,000 women born between 6 April and 5 July 1953 whose state pension age increased a second time under the Pensions Act 2011, and who will just miss out on eligibility for the single-tier pension if implemented in April 2017, although that has now changed.

In evidence to the Committee, Professor Jay Ginn argued that because women in that group were having their state pension age increased and were typically heading for relatively low state pensions, it would not be unreasonable for them to receive the single-tier pension when it is introduced.

Those women must pay national insurance for several extra years and will receive their state pension later than women for whom the state pension age was 60 and they will receive a lower pension than men and women whose state pension age is a few years later. That is a double-whammy for women born at the wrong time. The stated intention of single-tier pension proposals was to reduce gender inequality in state pensions, but it will be magnified.

As men were allowed to receive winter fuel payments at women’s state pension age, it would not be unreasonable for that relatively small group of women to receive the single-tier pension when it is introduced. Age UK has suggested that that they could be given the option of being treated equally with men of the same date of birth. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, was in favour of ensuring that women caught in the transitional group are protected.

Department for Work and Pensions analysis has shown that most women in the group—85%—would receive more in lifetime state pension and other benefits under the current system than they would receive if their state pension age was 65 and they received the single-tier pension. Obviously, its argument was centred on a long life expectancy, and it ignored the fact that the situation would be different for those who died relatively shortly after retirement. Life expectancy can vary by 10 years from one side of my constituency to the other. We can realistically assume that many of those who die early are among those who were least well paid during their working lives.

A group of women in Inverclyde who are affected by the changes come to see me regularly. They are angry that they will lose out because they will reach pensionable age prior to the proposed date. One such constituent, Mrs Christine Houston of Port Glasgow, told me she was made redundant and experienced economic hardship as demand for her company fell. She managed to find a part-time job but works unsocial hours. Her benefits, which act as a safety net to allow her to live, have been cut, and now she will be unfairly affected by the Government’s pension reforms. Despite having started work at 16 and having paid her share of taxes ever since, she has no idea how she will plan for her retirement as a direct result of the Government’s actions. Another lady, Mrs McKay, also of Port Glasgow, will lose out when the single-tier pension is introduced. She believes the Government are discriminating against her. At least 600 women in my constituency will be affected by that double-whammy. Two wrongs do not make a right.

My opinion has always been that the measures are unfair for two reasons. First, they give no chance for those people to prepare for their retirement and adjust to changes in the state pension age. As I have said, as much warning as possible should be given before any change in pension age. Secondly, the measures disproportionately affect a group of people—women in their late 50s—who are among the least well equipped to bear the brunt of the Government’s failed economic policy. A woman in her mid-50s will have average pensions earnings of just over £9,000, but, on average, a 56-year-old man has more than £52,000.

The women hit by the changes are the backbone of the UK. They are mums who took time off work to bring up children, daughters who helped their parents as they got older, and grans who help their children to have a work and family life by providing child care for grandchildren. Frankly, the measure is a disgrace, and the Government should have regard to that group of women, who have done nothing wrong except to be born in the early ’50s. I call on the Government to play fairly and reasonably with those women. I hope that there is a consensus in Committee and that we can find a way of righting that injustice for those women.

Housing Benefit (Under-occupancy Penalty)

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

I welcome this debate. Unjust, unfair and unnecessary are the words to describe this tax. Households in my constituency will suffer dramatically as a direct result of the introduction of this tax. Indeed, families throughout Scotland and the United Kingdom will suffer the consequences of this tax. In Scotland, we are told that a total of 94,000 tenants living in the social rented sector are considered to be under-occupying their homes. We are told that a total of 75,000-plus tenants are under-occupying by only one bedroom.

With still unacceptable levels of unemployment and soaring energy and fuel prices, this measure brings nothing but further bad news for the struggling households across Scotland and the UK. Specialist bodies, including Citizens Advice and Shelter, have already warned that 40,000 households in Scotland alone are likely to run up arrears, with research suggesting that up to 10,000 households could face homelessness. That is on top of tackling the homeless problem we already have in Scotland. The prospect of homelessness is a reflection of the direction in which the Government are taking the country.

The bedroom tax is neither a cost-cutting exercise by the Government nor about introducing fair reform to the welfare state; it is nothing more than a tax on the poor and the most vulnerable in communities across the country. Of the 94,000-plus Scots who will be affected by the tax, it is estimated that about 23,000 have a disabled household member, with up to 16,000 households already having some form of aid or necessary adaption in place.

Constituents have approached me as they have become aware of how this unfair tax will affect their quality of life. I will give one example, although I could give many others. One lady came to me who previously had shared a home with her daughter. Her daughter has moved on, however, having found employment in another part of the country. The lady has a two-bedroom apartment, but now has one spare room. She has lived in the apartment for more than 20 years. She feels safe there and has good neighbours, but is now scared she will have to move and feels unsettled and frightened at the prospect of being moved across the constituency.

My constituent asked me, “Where can I go?” Down-sizing is not an option for her, because in my constituency there is not much one-bedroom accommodation. It is so limited, in fact, that she would be in her 80s before she would be offered one-bedroom accommodation, if she was lucky. Indeed, there is a lack of family accommodation in my constituency, too, so we really need to address the lack of housing and the building of new housing in and around Inverclyde. She wonders, if she were to move to the private sector, whether she would end up in a house of multiple occupancy, where we see that the private sector’s reference to efficiency involves merely pushing people into rooms with shared facilities.

By introducing this tax, the Government will do nothing more than cement their unfair and unjust attack on those who need our help the most. I support today’s motion, which calls on them to abandon this unfair, unjust and unnecessary tax, and I add my voice to the list of many here and beyond this place calling on the Government urgently to change course before these reforms hit our constituents hard. I also call on the Scottish Government to act to alleviate the burden of the tax on the people of Scotland. Across Scotland, local authorities already suffering as a direct result of severe cuts to their budgets will find it impossible to minimise the impact of the bedroom tax on many of our constituents and communities.

[Mr MacNeil]

Is not one of the most important things that local councils could do perhaps to reclassify bedrooms that could be used for other purposes and are no longer bedrooms?

[Mr McKenzie]

That is an option, but as I have said, the difficulty in my constituency is that we have limited accommodation, and the reclassification of bedrooms is not an option there.

I have been working with many agencies in my constituency that have been offering advice to those who think they will be affected by the tax. We have been holding events and information evenings, and people are frightened that they will fall foul of this tax and lose their homes. The Scottish Government could provide more guidance and help to local authorities about how to cope with the impact we know is coming. The bedroom tax is not a Westminster attack on Scotland alone. As we have heard, it is an attack on many constituencies across the UK, and I join others in calling on the Government to abandon this unjust, unfair and very unnecessary tax.

Atos Work Capability Assessments

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on securing this important debate. There is a huge groundswell of discontent about Atos and the work capability assessment. It is deplorable that our sick and disabled constituents are experiencing immense hardship after being deprived of benefits having endured an Atos WCA. We all recall last year’s television programmes exposing the way people are treated across the country by Atos, and I have heard from a number of my constituents who have been badly treated—treated without care, compassion or understanding.

[Ian Mearns]

I am sure that, as a Scot, my hon. Friend will share my concern about the fact that Atos will now be carrying out the personal independence payment assessments as well. The Government have already determined the outcome of those assessments. The Minister for disabled people, the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), told this House that by October 2015 560,000 claimants will have had their assessments, and 160,000 will get a reduced award, 170,000 will get no award, and 230,000 will get the same support. How can we know the assessments are valid when we have had such a prediction?

[Mr McKenzie]

I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. The accuracy of assessments is essential, as I will go on to discuss later.

Let me outline briefly some of the cases that have been brought to my surgeries, on the back of a recurring issue now being referred to by my constituents as the “Lazarus letter”. This is a letter they receive instructing them to make their way to Glasgow for assessment and containing many connotations about what will befall their benefits. A constituent who suffers from severe cerebral palsy and could not travel was refused a home visit and told to go to Glasgow to be tested. Another constituent who was recovering after being seriously injured in an accident was advised to attend an Atos assessment in Glasgow. Both those constituents could not possibly travel because they were in so much pain, and I had to get involved and ask for a home assessment for them. It does not end there because they then had their benefits cut or stopped because Atos sent the assessment forms to the wrong address. If it cannot get the address right, what chance does it have with assessments?

Clearly many of my constituents have not been treated with the fairness and decency they deserve. Although I realise that we need to see whether people can work, we need a system that is humane and fair, not one that causes fear and loathing. It is time the Government realised that they are driving many sick and disabled people into poverty. What does the Minister think of Citizens Advice’s detailed year-long study “Right first time?” on the controversial work capability assessment run by Atos, which has revealed evidence of widespread inaccuracies in the medical reports that help to determine whether individuals are eligible for sickness benefits? Citizens Advice also tracked a group of people through the process of claiming employment and support allowance and looked at how their claims were handled. The report’s conclusions are stark: 37 individuals were tracked and had their reports examined, with serious levels of inaccuracy revealed in up to 43% of the reports. That level is significant enough to have an impact on the claimant’s eligibility for benefits—surely our sick and disabled deserve better than this.

The low rate of accuracy is worrying because the reports are used in deciding entitlement to other benefits. Is it not better to have an accurate, fair and just system of medical assessment, one that claimants know will treat them fairly and with the humanity they deserve, rather than a system that is, frankly, unfit for purpose and that uses a company, Atos, that instils fear and loathing in people, resulting in a system where people are continually appealing against decisions? We have already heard that the success rate against the decisions is about 60%.

[Pamela Nash]

Although the Department has made much of the fact that Atos does not actually make the decisions, with that being done by decision makers in the job centres, I have never seen evidence of the decision makers taking account of any evidence apart from the Atos assessment and the questionnaire, unless the case goes through appeal or reconsideration. Does my hon. Friend agree that decision makers should in every assessment be seeking the opinion of the person’s GP and of other professionals who are offering the person care at that time?

[Mr McKenzie]

I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend on that point. It is ridiculous to have people making an assessment based on a tick-list that looks like it should be used for an MOT on a car.

We need to ensure that the people who are going through the system are treated well, justly and fairly. The British Medical Association has called for the work capability assessment to end immediately and be replaced with a system that does not cause harm to some of the most vulnerable people in society. I call on the Government to change course and look again at this process.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Iain McKenzie Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

The Chancellor intends to take a further £6.7 billion from benefits and tax credits over the next four years by capping the increase in them at 1%. That is a real-terms cut and an additional squeeze on families, because of the Chancellor’s failure to create growth in our economy, and the delivery instead of a double-dip recession. The Government told us that they would bring down borrowing, but they are now borrowing an £212 billion more than planned. The Chancellor claims that he is cracking down on a benefits culture, but hard-working lower and middle-income working families are those hit hardest by the Bill. Many working families need tax credits and benefits to top up their incomes, as without them work really would not pay. Just 23% of the savings come from jobseeker’s allowance, employment and support allowance, and income support—the principal out-of-work benefits. The rest comes from tax credits such as maternity pay, sick pay and housing benefit, all of which are claimed by working people.

Some 60% of people affected by the changes to tax credits and benefits are in work, and one-earner working families could lose as much as £534 per year at a time when more than 6 million people in working households are already in poverty. Levels of long-term unemployment are worryingly high, because the Government have failed to kick-start the economy and their Work programme has failed. Even excluding the 60% of working people affected by the changes, this is hardly the time to start picking on the unemployed. The Government are always prepared to talk about skivers when unemployment is high and they are worried about costs, but never want to do so when job vacancies are relatively numerous and unemployment is low. Surely, if the Government wanted to inconvenience so-called skivers, this is not the time to target them, when large numbers of people are without work and reliant on benefits.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reform will make it more difficult to kick-start the economy? It will remove millions if not billions of pounds from communities up and down the UK, making it harder for people to spend and therefore kick-start the economy.

[Mr McKenzie]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. The Bill will take many millions out of local economies and have a double kick on the downturn.

Incredibly, the Government take from struggling households and give to millionaires. As I have said, at the same time as the Government are giving tax cuts to millionaires—as we have heard, some cuts are in the region of more than £2,000 per week—the Bill effectively means a permanent reduction in benefits, which could have a devastating effect when a proper safety net is desperately needed by millions of the most vulnerable people in Britain.

It is highly likely that this regressive change will lead to an increase in poverty, especially for those who are already facing a perfect storm of cuts to public services and rising prices. Clearly, the Bill is an attack on hard-working families, who are paying the price for the Government’s economic failure. It is without doubt an attack on striving families. In my Inverclyde constituency, 6,300 families receive working tax credit. They are being asked to pay the price for the Government’s failure, while millionaires—believe it or not—get a tax cut.

In Inverclyde, the number of unemployment claimants means that 15 people chase every vacancy. The Government would suggest they use the Work programme. Where can I start with that? My constituents never hear from the Government where they can start work. The Work programme has delivered less than 1% in my area, which is a disgraceful and pitiful success rate.

The best way to reduce the cost of welfare is to get people back into work. The truth is that the Government’s failure on the economy is pushing the dole bill through the roof. That is why Labour propose real jobs for those who have been out of work for two years or more. Scotland stands to gain most from the introduction of the compulsory jobs guarantee. Long-term unemployment has been rising faster in Scotland than in any other part of the UK.

I shall conclude, because other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. The welfare bill is going up under this Government—it is a staggering £13.6 billion higher than forecast—because they are failing to get Britain back to work. The Government need to practise fairness, but the Bill fails on fairness and on the economic tests, which is why I will support the amendment.