Employment Support

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

I am sorry; the hon. Gentleman needs to listen to what I am saying here. What we have done as a Government is to follow the Labour modernisation plan. We have followed it for the last two years and continued to make sure that in these tough economic times £555 million continued to be available. What we are not doing is wasting money; we are making sure that the money we have is going further.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I notice that the excellent Coventry plant is down for reconsideration. I also notice that the Minister certainly has not consulted me, or any of the other Coventry MPs. Can we have an undertaking that she will consult the Coventry MPs? More important, to help her with her reconsideration we are prepared to give her a tour of that very successful factory, which does work for Jaguar Land Rover and other automobile industries. Is the Minister planning to privatise that plant?

[Maria Miller]

I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. I think I have visited the factory in Coventry. We had a consultation on the process, with many contributions from hon. Members, but obviously I shall be happy to meet Coventry Members at any point in time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will do a little deal with the right hon. Gentleman: I will ensure that any little discrepancies are sorted out, providing that he and his party step forward and publicly welcome the whole idea of the work experience programme and condemn the many unions, such as Unite, GMB, Unison and others, that are backing this ludicrous Right to Work programme. Will the Opposition state that the unions should withdraw their backing? Last week, we held discussions with employers, and they asked that no sanctions be taken unless they say that something has happened to damage the business or cause a problem. We have agreed that in essence, and that is how it will stand.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

2. What steps he plans to take to reduce child poverty by 2015.

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

Across Government, we are investing in a range of programmes to tackle the drivers of child poverty. Universal credit alone will lift 350,000 children out of poverty. The previous Labour Government spent £150 billion on tax credits from 2004-2010, much of which was targeted at families with children, but despite that, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies noted recently, we are still a long way off hitting the targets. There is still much to be done.

[Mr Cunningham]

Is the Secretary of State aware that, according to the IFS, the Government will not reach their statutory target by 2015? Equally importantly, is he aware that of the 35,000 children in Coventry and Warwickshire whose families are on the poverty line and will experience a reduction of £1,400 a year, many are disabled? Will he reconsider his position on that?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Interestingly, the IFS assumed that no changes to future policy would be made and did not account for fundamentals, such as behaviour change, or for education policies such as the early intervention work and some of the education reforms. The IFS did not consider several other policies—for example, the work with disadvantaged two-year-olds, the £180 million bursary fund, the early intervention grant and the fairness premium—which is fair enough, but we believe that they would affect its figures. We are desperately keen to eradicate child poverty, as we originally stated, and we stand by that. We did not enter power not to do that. The hon. Gentleman needs to acknowledge, however, that we also inherited a terrible deficit and huge debt problem. Those things tend to collide, but we are doing our level best—this is what universal credit does—to rectify the situation for the poorest in society.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Jim Cunningham, not necessarily on the subject of work-outs, but on whatever appeals to him.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

May I ask the Minister whether employers can still take a pensions contributions holiday and, if so, how many?

[Steve Webb]

Where employers run defined benefits pension schemes, if they are in deficit and have a recovery plan agreed with the Pensions Regulator, there is no obligation on them to overfund above 100%, and there are Inland Revenue rules that affect surpluses, which are still in place.

Pensioners and Winter Fuel Payments

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

Absolutely, and I shall come on to the whole subject of the fuel poverty strategy that we have adopted. I suspect, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) suggested in an intervention, that the correlation between the rate of the winter fuel payment and the depth and impact of fuel poverty is incredibly weak, if it is there at all. In other words, we have seen the winter fuel payment go up and go down, yet if that was plotted against the terrible problem of excess winter deaths or fuel poverty, I suspect there would be no correlation at all. When money is tight, we should be prioritising how we spend it so that it will do the most good.

As the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) rightly says, fuel bills have shot up. Surely the priority should be stopping people paying a fortune for their fuel when half the heat goes out through poorly insulted walls, windows and lofts. Every year, it is tempting to say that this winter we should put cash into people’s hands because it is cold. Of course that is true, but if we always put off the hard work of insulation, energy efficiency and so on, the situation will be the same the next winter and the one after that. Money spent on energy efficiency will save pensioners and others money every winter, rather than our giving them cash one year, only for the heat to go out through poorly insulated roofs and windows.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The Minister has outlined one facet of the problem, but one of the major facets has not been touched on today, although it has been mentioned in Adjournment debates in Westminster Hall. We really need to look at the cartels among the oil companies and to ask what discussions the Government have had with the oil companies. Equally, the increase in VAT is having an impact.

[Steve Webb]

Obviously, the VAT increase does not affect fuel prices directly as they are on a reduced rate, but the hon. Gentleman is right that competition in the energy sector is a key concern of the Government, whether that is in gas, electricity or oil. Our colleagues at the Department of Energy and Climate Change are in regular and close contact with the competition authorities, but one thing the Government are doing is ensuring that people are aware of their ability to switch and get much better tariffs—that is particularly the case with electricity and gas. Clearly, we can do things for the long term, such as sort out the housing stock, but we can also do things for the short term, such as ensure that people get the best price available. There is huge potential to do a lot more that does not necessarily involve hundreds of millions of pounds of Government spending but would benefit people substantially.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

The average wait at the moment is more than two months for a new application to be processed, and that can lead to non-resident parents unavoidably accruing arrears—a problem that we inherited with the present very difficult system. We have plans to undertake a fundamental reform that will considerably improve this, and lead to a much shorter time for processing claims, which will bring considerable benefits.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Has the Minister had any discussions with the Secretary of State for Education about the future of Sure Start? The Conservatives, before they were elected, gave a solemn commitment to retain Sure Start, yet in Coventry the cost is being passed on to the local authority.

[Maria Miller]

rose—

Social Security

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Thursday 17th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

When we produced the initial impact assessment on the changes, we divided schemes into four groups according to whether they revalued by RPI or CPI and whether they indexed by RPI or CPI. We found that a good deal of revaluation was done in terms of the revaluation order and hence would go to CPI, but that a lot of the indexation was in terms of RPI. We have gone out into the field and talked to those administrating schemes, and we are revising our estimates of the proportion that will respond to this change.

The hon. Lady brings me on to the point that I wanted to make: some schemes have RPI hard-wired—for want of a better phrase—into them. We faced the difficult decision of whether to override that and put CPI in or whether to say, “Rules are rules, scheme promises are scheme promises,” and keep it how it was. We announced at the start of December that we felt that people’s confidence in pensions is important, and therefore that we would not override scheme rules. If someone has joined a private sector occupational scheme that has RPI in the scheme rules, we will not override it. Obviously, each scheme will make its own decision on how to respond if they have the flexibility to do so, but many schemes do not have that, and therefore will not make the change. We will publish updated estimates of the proportions.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I apologise to the Minister and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for coming in late to the Chamber.

Will that also apply to the public sector schemes, because I have had a number of letters about those? Will the Minister clarify that matter for me?

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point, because there is a difference between public and private schemes. The latter very often have the words “retail prices index” or “in line with statutory provisions” in their rules. The rules of public sector pensions did not have the words “retail prices index” in them; statutorily, they simply link to whatever the Government of the day do with state earnings-related pension schemes. Whatever amount or percentage SERPS went up by has always been the legal entitlement for members of public sector schemes, and we have not changed that or the law on it. Obviously, we are defining inflation differently, but the legal entitlement of members of public sector schemes was always whatever happened to SERPS, and we have not changed that.

Housing Benefit

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

To illustrate my hon. Friend’s point, one of the depressing aspects of the changes is that we have not yet had a comprehensive impact assessment; I will discuss that during the course of my remarks. We have had figures about the proposed changes from the Department for Work and Pensions, which confirm that they will hit every part of Britain, and from the smallest flat upwards. A poor pensioner living in a single-bedroom flat in Glasgow will lose £7 a week, and a family in a two-bedroom flat in Liverpool will lose £10 a week. Housing benefit recipients in Yorkshire and Humberside are most likely to lose out from this 30th percentile measure, with 90% of local housing allowance recipients seeing a reduction in their housing benefit.

Little wonder that Shelter’s chief executive, Campbell Robb, explained only yesterday:

“The focus of debate so far has been the cap to housing benefit and the impact on London, but this analysis shows that these cuts will affect hundreds of thousands of people across the country.”

That is why the Church of Scotland, a body with a long and distinguished tradition of work and witness in deprived communities across Scotland, on Friday wrote to every Scottish Member of Parliament, raising concerns and questions in advance of today’s debate about the impact of the proposed measures on the communities it serves. Today, Shelter in Cornwall raised concerns about the Government’s proposals, saying:

“The reality is that we are going to be facing much more homelessness and more evictions because of this. Cornwall’s low incomes mean that lots of hard working people do have to claim housing benefit.”

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend realise that many people not affected by the cuts are appalled that this Government sought out the poor and needy and attacked them with these cuts?

[Mr Alexander]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I hope that the Secretary of State will take the opportunity to explain to the House and indeed to the country why, in the package of measures contained in the spending review, the Government decided to take more money from the nation’s families than the nation’s banks.

Calls for a rethink on these proposals have also come from the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), whose constituency covers the Isles of Scilly. I hope that he will vote in support of the motion, as he has said:

“The impact on Cornwall is likely to be very severe indeed.”

He also said that the proposals

“will put a lot of families in extreme stress and ministers should think again.”

Concern is rising among those on both sides of the House and across the country, from Cornwall in the south to Shetland in the north. We have to recognise that when we talk about these rushed and ill-considered changes, we are talking about changes that will affect our constituents, no matter what part of the country we represent. The changes will affect many of our constituents, those in and out of work, as well as many of our poorest pensioners. This debate should be informed by that state of mind, rather than by the lurid headlines that Ministers have worked so hard and so shamefully to create in recent days.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I thank my hon. Friend and all those in Burnley, including those in the local authority and other local agencies, who have come together to help make the first stage of the migration from incapacity benefit a reality. I assure him that it is my belief that the money that we have supplied to Burley should be sufficient to see us through to the point when the Work programme starts next year. If there are issues, I will be very happy to talk again, and we will see what can be done about them.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

5. What plans he has to amend the eligibility criteria for winter fuel allowance; and if he will make a statement.

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

In winter 2010, the winter fuel payment will continue to be paid at the higher rate of £250 or £400, according to family circumstances. Decisions about the rates for future winters will be taken as part of the annual Budget cycle, as normal.

[Mr Cunningham]

Will the hon. Gentleman give the same undertaking with regard to the chill winter allowance?

[Steve Webb]

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the cold weather payments. The rate of cold weather payment will be announced on Wednesday in the comprehensive spending review. As the House knows, for the first 11 years of the previous Administration, the cold weather payment was frozen at £8.50 and, although it was increased to £25 for two years in the run-up to the election, the previous Administration made no financial provision at all to keep it at £25.

Capital Gains Tax (Rates)

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robinson]

The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell)—I am so sorry—and other very distinguished honourable dissidents opposite, who are clearly being silenced for some reason or other; I cannot comment on why. I thought the amendment very apropos and exactly to the point in all respects. I am sure that it has not been withdrawn, so quite why it has not been chosen for debate I cannot think. It is a pity, because we could have probed even further the support of the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) for it and for the package as a whole, which he was trying to defend last Wednesday with as much discomfort as is evident amongst the Liberals who have not yet entirely been bought by, or who have not bought into, the so-called coalition policies.

It is very sad. There has been nothing sadder, in my opinion, than the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable), who is now the Business Secretary, coming around to explain why he supports the Budget. One of the two reasons that he gave was essentially that he had been, belatedly—I think his leader got there first—to see the Governor of the Bank of the England, who had assured him that a crisis was imminent, that we were going to be downgraded and that we would be in the same position as Greece, all of which would happen in a matter of days or hours, if he and the Liberal party did not agree to every measure that the coalition subsequently put forward. All of that should have been entirely predictable at any point before or during the election, even as the bond market strengthened and the UK position strengthened during the election, and even as we learned afterwards that the funding requirement is going to be £20 billion to £30 billion less than expected. Apparently, the leadership of the Liberal party fell for the oldest trick in the book, the bankers’ scare, which has gone on for centuries—classically, of course, with Montagu Norman and all the rest in the 1930s taking that party and this country to the brink of collapse.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Has my hon. Friend noticed that the same Governor of the Bank of England who backed the stimulus under the previous Government is now backing the present Government’s policies—to the detriment of the public?

[Mr Robinson]

I note also that when the Governor was still an economist, before he converted to being a banker, he signed the famous letter of 364 economists, which he has now, in a piece of classic recantation, given up on.

All those considerations point to the fact that events could have been predicted and should have been accommodated. We should not have reached the situation in which we had the Business Secretary proudly telling the House—I still cannot believe this every time I read it:

“Those factors drove the economy in terms of demand”—

the factors being monetary policy and devaluation of the pound—

“and they will continue to do so.”

So, we are to have monetary easing and a continued devaluation of the pound. I do not think that either is remotely likely. He went on:

“There is a reason for believing that that is what will happen: the Governor of the Bank of England called for this Budget and has now got it, and he has every reason to understand the need for monetary policy to support recovery.”—[Official Report, 23 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 316.]

Well, over to you, Mervyn, and good luck!

It really is absurd. It is one thing to hand over control of the money supply and monetary policy to the Governor. We did that back in 1997, and I think that was a good move. My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) nods, and I know that he was in agreement with that move. However, it is quite another thing to say, “Look, we are giving up on fiscal policy too; you can have the whole of the economy.” When we did what we did, we joked amongst ourselves that we had got rid of one half of economic policy—notably the monetary side—to the Governor and that it would only be a matter of time before he laid claim to and was given the whole of it. Joke though that was, it has come to pass under this Government. That is sad and regrettable. The Work and Pensions Secretary is sincere in what he wants to do, but he has had to absorb many cuts, which will make his job much more difficult, as was brilliantly exposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who spoke for the Opposition.

However, it is not just that. The only two sure things about the Budget is that it will increase unemployment and reduce growth. That we can predict, because the Office for Budget Responsibility has told us. Beyond that, the Government refuse to give any distributional analysis. Beyond the second year, we do not know what will happen, except that the OBR has pencilled in some figures for growth that it says are hazardous in the extreme.

The Budget is an enormous gamble at the great cost of the working people in this country. It is a gamble based on the assumption that the Governor will increase quantitative easing when he said he would not. Perhaps in some magical way he will take other powers to deal with the fiscal constraints imposed by the Budget, because he can do nothing else. He cannot reduce interest rates much more, unless he wants to reduce them from 0.5% to 0%, or unless he starts shelling money out, which is hardly credible. He said he would not do any of those things, so the truth is that we face a situation in which the future of the country is being gambled.

Apart from the good intentions of, and the megalomania that seems to be developing in, the Bank, that gamble rests on three factors: an increase in inventories, meaning an increase in output; an increase in investment; and an increase in private sector activity. Who really believes in their heart that any of those factors can be counted on, especially given that the Government have made the investment route highly unlikely by reducing capital allowances? They are served at the moment by a Financial Secretary who told the Committee that considered the previous Finance Bill that they would reduce such allowances—on nearly all counts, and they have been as good as if not better than their word. He could see no reason why investment should not be reduced to the cost of amortisation in manufacturing or industrial enterprises. If that is the negative, neutral view of the need for increased investment and output that infuses the Budget, and in particular the crucial elements highlighted by the OBR—it says that there is a need for greater investment and output, and to rebalance exports—we are in for a big let down on that gamble.

Let us take one other example—Sheffield Forgemasters. Anybody who has dealt with the Government knows that it is virtually impossible to get money out of a shareholder executive. It is like getting money out of a stone, but the firm reached a conditional agreement. That would have made an enormous contribution to the rebalancing of the economy, including in respect of import substitution, and now those products will come in from Japan, because the arrangement was cancelled. I am afraid that in their tone and their measures, the Government are making recovery immensely more difficult and, far from recovery, we face a further period of prolonged deflation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

The coalition Government are sympathetic to the idea of giving people greater choice over annuities. We already have a commitment to scrapping the rule that forces people to annuitise at 75. We also want to look at how people can achieve better value for money from the annuities that they buy, and possibly also have earlier access to accrued pension funds. We take the view that it is their money, not the Government’s money.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

T10. Has the Minister had any discussions with the Treasury regarding the pay-out for Equitable Life, bearing in mind that when they were in opposition, that crowd over there on the Government Benches hounded us week in and week out about a pay-out? Now can they deliver?

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Gentleman will know that Sir John Chadwick will produce his report in July. I understand from discussions with the Treasury that a compensation package will be produced on the basis of that, and legislation to bring that forward was included in the Queen’s Speech.