Social Security and Pensions

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I resent the premise of this debate. I resent the Government bringing forward an unamendable order on such a significant issue, because that leads to the conclusion, as the hon. Members for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) said, that if we reject the order there will be no increase whatsoever. We should not allow Parliament to be blackmailed in that way. The response is fairly straightforward: on the issue of poverty in this country, there has to come a time when this House rises up. We have heard example after example. We can all give examples from our own constituencies—the heartbreaking stories of how people are suffering at the moment. So we should not accept the Government bringing forward an unamendable order and expecting us either to go through the Lobby like sheep and vote for it, or to abstain.

[Andy McDonald]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this country is facing a crisis that is being visited on the poor, and that to put this House in the position of simply having to accept it is absolutely reprehensible? We should be demanding that this order be taken away and that we get a proper settlement and a proper increase for the people most in need. Surely that is the duty of this Parliament.

[John McDonnell]

I completely concur. I understand those who say that if we vote against this tonight we will be accused of voting against an increase, but far from it—if we vote against it we will be instructing the Government to come back immediately with an alternative that meets the cost of living challenge that working people now face.

It is no good relying on statistics from seven months ago when we know the crisis that people are facing. I find it interesting that the Government can arrive at flexibility when they are saving money but not when they want to assist our constituents. I say that because I was here for the debate on the triple lock. At that time, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has pointed out, we were facing the prospect of an increase of 8% based on the triple lock linked to earnings. Actually, that was pretty damn accurate as to what people would be facing. The Government were fleet of foot. They scrapped the triple lock altogether, suspended its operation and then came forward with this.

Every Member who has spoken so far, on both sides of the House, has said that this will mean a cut in people’s living standards when faced with the prospect of a 7% rate of inflation. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) eloquently set out the rationale for why the Government needed to do more, but I say to him that the Government will not do more unless this House is firm in its view and rejects this order tonight. They will not come back with an emergency package unless we start kicking up a fuss on both sides of the House. That is why they have come to the House with an unamendable order. They were worried that if there was an amendable order, we could have had a majority in this House for doing something better on behalf of our constituents. I find it outrageous that they have tried to put us in this position.

The hon. Member for Amber Valley, who is no longer here, made an extremely interesting speech, as he always does. I do not usually agree with him on much, but he always presents an argument we can understand—or a rationale, anyway. His argument to the Government was that if they are trying to tell us that their social security system is meeting the needs of our people, they should publish the basket of goods, the costings and so on. Well, the Government do not do that, but others do.

Frequent reference has been made tonight to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s analysis of poverty and of what the Government’s measures will do. The figures are startling. Over 8 million working households are in poverty, as are 2.1 million pensioners and 4.3 million of our children. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) made the point that, in the fifth richest country in the world, we have over 4 million children living in poverty. The figure for disabled people is now 3.8 million, which has increased dramatically over the last four or five years as a result of benefit cuts.

I am not willing to sit here tonight and be blackmailed into either voting for this motion or abstaining. I want the opportunity to vote against it and to give an instruction to the Government to go away and do better: to come back with a real proposal that will increase benefits, at least so that they match inflation. After 11 years of austerity, I would expect the Government to be coming up with proposals to start making up some of the ground that has been lost over that time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) said.

I will make one final point. Every time we have one of these debates, we get a Government Minister telling us how wonderful they are because they have created all these new jobs that people can go into. I met a group of unpaid carers this morning, and I said that it looked as though their allowance was going to go from 67% to 69%. Given the hours they work as unpaid carers, even if they are doing 35 hours per week—most of them do triple that at times—they will be paid something like £2 an hour for what they do. Unpaid carers save this country about £130 billion in costs that would otherwise fall on the state. They cannot get other jobs because they are looking after their relatives. They are desperately underfunded and most of them, as a result, are living in poverty. This order will do nothing for them whatsoever.

My commitment to that group of carers I met this morning means that I will not vote for this. I will vote against it, and I will demand better action from this Government. I will demand that Ministers go away and come back tomorrow with a realistic proposal that will tackle poverty in this country and lift at least some of those carers out of the hardship and suffering that they are unfortunately experiencing at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I will make some more progress.

The aim over the two years of the pandemic has been to give fairness to pensioners by protecting the value of the state pension in 2021-22, despite the decline in earnings, and to taxpayers in 2022-23 by suspending the earnings limb of the triple lock because of a statistical anomaly, distorted by the cumulative effects of the economic impacts of coronavirus. Although inflation rose by 0.5% last year, pensions rose by 2.5%, and this year they rose by 3.1%. Over two years, pensions have risen by 5.6%.

The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) made an important point about pension credit take-up. I have been speaking to my colleague the Pensions Minister, who says that take-up increased from 71% in 2017-18 to 77% in 2018-19. However, more work is clearly needed, and we are working very hard to increase awareness.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[David Rutley]

I will, but probably for the last time. I need to make progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

Can the Minister explain why 8% is a statistical anomaly and 7% is not?

[David Rutley]

I do not know what maths the right hon. Gentleman is talking about, but what I have been saying is that we have been working hard—

[John McDonnell]

rose—

[David Rutley]

The right hon. Gentleman has had a chance to make his point, and it was not made particularly well. [Interruption.] I was listening, but I did not understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman was making. The point that I am making is that we are taking important steps to tackle the challenges faced by the country.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) made a couple of points about GMP uprating formulas. That is a separate piece of primary legislation. The right hon. Member for East Ham—the Chair of the Select Committee—also made points about GMP, and particularly about communication-related issues. The Department will supply a written review of those issues shortly. The hon. Member for Westminster North made points about local housing allowance rates. We have increased them by about £1 billion, which has given 1.5 million claimants an average of £600 more housing support in 2020-21, and we are maintaining those significant increases.

It is interesting to note that throughout much of this debate, hardly any Opposition Members mentioned that we are now experiencing a record number of vacancies. Our focus needs to be on getting people into work. There has been talk of poverty. Our approach is absolutely to tackle poverty. Since 2020, 700,000 fewer people are in absolute poverty before housing costs, including 100,000 fewer children and 200,000 fewer pensioners. We need to ensure that we fill those vacancies and end those shortages, and that more people take jobs in hospitality, tech, social care and healthcare.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[David Rutley]

I have already given way once to the right hon. Gentleman.

Employment stands at 32.4 million, up 60,000 in the quarter and up 3.2 million since 2010. The year 2010 is significant, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington knows, because his party had 13 years in power to change how the uprating legislation works, and it did not do a thing.

The draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order increases state pensions and benefits by 3.1% from April 2022. The draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order increases the guaranteed minimum pension by 3%, in line with primary legislation. For those reasons, I commend these orders to the House.

Question put.

Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

The Minister did indeed say that in response to my intervention, but that does not answer the question. The question was: do the Government intend the value of the state pension, over time, at least to keep track with earnings? I was hoping that he would reaffirm that. I do not think that is controversial—it is a policy long held by the Labour Government, the coalition Government and this Government—and I hoped that he would say that that was still their intention, even though in the current year, for reasons that we all understand, the value of the state pension will fall significantly behind the increase in earnings.

As I hope I made clear in my intervention, I think it is entirely reasonable not to increase the state pension by 8% this year; I completely understand the case for not doing that. It looks as though we will get an increase of around 3%, in line with CPI. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who spoke for the SNP, talked about the likely rates of inflation, and, depending on increases in prices and earnings next year, it is quite likely that the state pension will never catch up with earnings unless there is a catch-up initiative of some kind. The Lords amendments would provide such a mechanism. If there is not a catch-up at some point, that would be contrary to the Government’s long-held intention that the state pension should at least keep track with earnings. The fact that—as the Minister has now told the House twice—it will get back in line with the triple lock next year does not solve the problem, because there is a significant backwards move this year. Will there be a catch-up initiative at some point? It looks and sounds as though there will not.

Keeping the value of the state pension going up in line with earnings was a key pillar of the new pensions framework set out in the report by Adair Turner and his fellow commissioners John Hills and Jeannie Drake, published in 2005 and 2006. The settlement’s key elements were that the state pension should keep track with the increase in earnings over time, and auto-enrolment. It was accepted by the Government then and by every Government since.

The importance of that needs to be spelled out. It is not just about being more generous to pensioners and helpful to older people. It is important because it ensures a sound foundation for pension saving, so that people auto-enrolled into pension saving through that successful initiative, which we have all celebrated, are not being encouraged by the state into a bad deal. If the value of the state pension will no longer at least keep track over time with earnings, some people will be better off spending their money now, rather than saving into the pension pot that they are being auto-enrolled into, and later relying on the means-tested safety net of pension credit.

If the state pension slips behind earnings, modest pensions accrued through auto-enrolment will become worthless, because those who claim them in due course will not get above the means-tested threshold and they will still have to depend on pension credit for their income in retirement, and the fact that they have saved into a pension will do them no good at all. That will be a growing problem if the level of the state pension is allowed to slip behind the increase in earnings.

If that does happen, people who are looking forward and saving but are going to end up with fairly modest pensions should instead spend the money at the time they earn it, rather than save it in a pension that, in the end, is not going to take them above the means-tested threshold and so will not give them any additional income. That is why what the Minister is arguing for is such a threat to the success of auto-enrolment. Auto-enrolment will no longer be a sound basis for pension saving if the level of the state pension is allowed to drift below the level of earnings.

People must be able to trust in the state pension under the policies of the Government. They have been able to do so up to now, and now they will not. That raises a pretty fundamental question about the future of the Government’s pensions policy. There is a real danger in allowing, almost by sleight of hand albeit for reasons that we all understand and sympathise with, the state pension to fall permanently behind the increase in earnings and weakening the pension framework that, as far as we all know, is still the basis of the Minister’s policy.

We should not allow that to happen. We need either a measure, and the Minister needs to reassure us that there will be, such as a catch-up initiative to make sure that the state pension over time—not this year, but by next year or the year after—will keep track with the increase in earnings, or the House needs to accept the amendment agreed with a significant majority in the other place, because that keeps the pension framework in place and keeps it effective. There is a real worry if there is a significant falling behind. If there is a 3% increase in the state pension at a time when earnings have gone up by 8%, that will be a one-off 5% fall in the state pension behind the level of earnings. Depending on what happens to earnings growth, which will certainly not carry on at 8%, and on inflation rises next year, that fall could well be locked in for good and the pension framework will have been weakened.

I hope that I have made it clear why this is actually quite important. It is not just about whether we are being generous enough to pensioners. The question is: are we keeping in place a robust and reliable framework for pension saving based on which people can plan with confidence for the future?

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

May I say that we in the Opposition, and I think Members on both sides of the House, take pride in the expertise of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms)? Time and again, as Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, he has warned the House —both sides of the House, at times—about the approach that needs to be taken if we are to have a stable social security and pensions regime. I pay tribute to the work he does.

I am an ardent advocate of the coalition Government’s policy on the triple lock. That seems somewhat ironic, given the history of this policy, but I am. The historical background is that I was a total opponent of Mrs Thatcher’s breaking of the link between pensions and earnings. To be frank, the state pension still has not recovered from breaking that link. I was elected in 1997, and at the end of Conservative rule in 1997 the basic state pension would have been 50% higher in value if Mrs Thatcher had not broken the earnings link in 1980.

From 1997, I prepared alternative Budgets to the new Labour Budgets. Gordon Brown had a sense of humour about that, and when I was on a platform with him recently—when I was the shadow Chancellor—he said, “Actually, he’s always been the shadow Chancellor,” because I was producing alternatives to his Budgets. In every alternative Budget, I put forward the restoration of the link between earnings and pensions. I did so because the breaking of that link had undermined the progress we had seen until then in improving the state pension and lifting pensioners out of poverty. That is why I was a strong supporter of the triple lock when the coalition Government introduced it. Despite a decade of the triple lock, however, the basic state pension would still be 37% higher if the earnings link had been maintained. That means that today a single pensioner on the basic state pension would be £2,662 a year better off, and a pensioner couple would be £4,277 a year better off, if the link had not been broken by Mrs Thatcher all those years ago.

According to figures on pensioner poverty from Age UK, there are 2.1 million pensioners living in poverty in our country at the moment, up from 1.6 million in 2014—a 30% increase. What is interesting about this, and not shocking to some in this House, is that the majority of pensioners living in poverty are women. In addition, pensioners from black and Asian communities are about twice as likely to be living in poverty.

What I find interesting are some of the individual examples we can bring to the House about what this means. I remember that, the last time energy prices rose, I had a constituent who used her bus pass to stay on the bus all day to keep warm. Such stories about the reasons why people were living in such fuel poverty were not uncommon. I remind the House that this year fuel bills are increasing on average by £139 and they are expected to rise again next year, so I predict that we will have more of our pensioner constituents going cold this winter and, if we are not careful, in future winters as well, especially as, as has been said, inflation is now likely to be 4% and some are even predicting 5%.

I just wonder what this row is all about, because I support the amendments. I would have given the 8%, because I do not believe that people should break the principle of a manifesto commitment in such circumstances and I believe the additional top-up would have worked. However, the Altmann amendment is moving towards a 5% increase and the Government will award a 3% increase, so the difference we are talking about—this is the argument—is about £2.75 a week. Even if we went to the full amount of the 8%, there would only be an additional £7 a week between the 3% and the 8%. Are we really having a row in this House about robbing pensioners of £2.75 a week? I just find it unbelievable that we can even contemplate that.

I have seen the range of costings, but I have examined the DWP estimates on the effect of the Altmann amendment. They said it would cost £1.3 billion in ’22-23; that was in comparison with the uprating with prices. I was in the House a few weeks ago. We are arguing about an additional £1.3 billion for pensioners. Actually, a £25 billion corporate tax break was given away by the Chancellor in the Budget. It will be £12.5 billion next year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

I thank all colleagues for their contributions. The factual reality of the situation is that this Government are spending £129 billion on pensioners. That is £105 billion on the state pension and £24 billion extra on the various add-ons for pensioners, including winter fuel; free eye tests; bus passes; free NHS, obviously; pension credit—I could go on in great detail. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) asked whether the triple lock will return. I can assure him that that is the case.

[John McDonnell]

On that point, it is almost as though the state pension is a charitable donation to pensioners. They paid for it, working throughout their lives, through their taxes, their national insurance—their contributions. Some of them served on our behalf in the armed forces. They paid for this; it is not some charitable donation by the Government.

[Guy Opperman]

There is so much that I could reply to; I could genuinely take some considerable time replying to the right hon. Gentleman. Let us start with this. During the last Labour Government, in which time the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who is a former Pensions Minister, another former Pensions Minister who is in the Chamber, and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) were Members, did they in any way link the state pension to earnings? Not on one single occasion over 13 years. It is this Government—the coalition Government and this Conservative Government—who have linked it to earnings.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the state pension. That is paid for by the working taxpayer on an ongoing basis. The working taxpayer is paying more for the state pension, and it is a larger state pension than ever before; £129 billion is spent—[Interruption.] A hundred and twenty-nine billion. He does not want to hear it, because it is the largest state pension there has ever been. Thirteen years of a Labour Government, and what did they do? They never linked it to earnings. I remember the 75p increase in state pension by Gordon Brown. It is astonishing, the hubris that the right hon. Gentleman comes up with.

The factual reality is that there was never a situation where the Labour Government did anything like the coalition and Conservative Governments did. I asked the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), who represents the Opposition, to come up with a figure. You can search Hansard for as long as you like, Madam Deputy Speaker; answer came there none. There was not a single figure. The factual reality is that the Opposition have no idea how they would approach this, they have not come up with an individual figure, and they are not able to do anything—

Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 8th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]]

The Bill will bring relief to thousands of investors who were let down not just by a failed company but by a failed system. That is why we need a Bill that will address the failures of regulation, governance and auditing, but this Bill does none of that. The Government are yet again bailing out victims of an under-regulated finance system that is regularly ripping off smaller investors. I have to say that Government Ministers are guilty of gross negligence for standing by while this happens time and again.

LCF was offering customers mini-bonds. The FCA said:

“There is no legal definition of a ‘mini-bond’”,

but it did nothing to stop the mis-selling. The FCA saw no issue with LCF’s operations, yet in March 2019 HMRC found that products advertised as ISAs by LCF did not meet the rules. In addition, the FCA was advising that investments would be protected by the financial services compensation scheme; the High Court judged that they were not. The FCA was asleep at the wheel.

The then chief executive of the FCA, who is now the Governor of the Bank of England, sat on his haunches and did nothing. Some 18 months ago, I called on the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), to delay Mr Bailey’s appointment as Governor, given the concerns.

I am pleased that the Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report actually identifies some of the problems. She described the FCA’s supervision of LCF as “wholly deficient” and said that there were “significant gaps and weaknesses” in the FCA’s practices. She said that staff were

“not…trained sufficiently to analyse a firm’s financial information to detect indicators of fraud or other serious irregularity.”

LCF’s founder was Simon Hume-Kendall, a former chairman of the Tunbridge Wells Conservatives and a party donor. It has been reported that the investors’ cash in LCF has been used to buy horses, a helicopter and lifetime memberships to private Mayfair clubs. Perhaps the Minister could update us on the ongoing inquiries into the activities of this gentleman and LCF.

As has been said, this is not a one-off. There are so many other examples, including Blackmore, Basset & Gold and Chilango. Perhaps the Minister can tell us when further Bills will be introduced to compensate the investors in those schemes who lost so much money. I welcome the Bill—of course I do—but it is now time for the Government to bring forward serious legislation to stop crimes like this happening in the first place and to protect our constituents from these spivs.

Autumn Statement Distributional Analysis, Universal Credit and ESA

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes with concern the £3.4 billion reductions to the work allowance element of universal credit and the £1.4 billion reductions to employment and support allowance; calls on the Government to reverse those reductions; and further calls on the Government to reintroduce detailed distributional analysis for the Autumn Statement and all further Financial Statements, as was done between 2010 and 2015.

On a solemn note, I wish to send my condolences to the family and friends of Debbie Jolly. Some Members may have known Debbie, who was a disability campaigner. Over the years, she provided briefings for many Members of the House of Commons and, through Disabled People Against Cuts, was involved in many of the various lobbies of Parliament. She passed away last week, and I would like to send our condolences to her family and all her friends. We all hoped she would survive long enough at least to see this debate. I pay tribute to her for the work she did.

I want to explain the genesis of the motion that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have tabled for today’s debate. As we all know, the autumn statement is a week today. Traditionally, we would have held an Opposition day debate and used it to have a wide-ranging debate, second-guessing and commenting on what we predicted would be contained in the autumn statement.

This year, we want to try something different. We want to break radically with that tradition, because next week could be the last chance to head off what is shaping up to be quite a harmful disaster for many low earners and many vulnerable people in our society. For our debates today, we have taken two significant issues that are contained in the Budget plans announced earlier this year by the Chancellor’s predecessor, and which the new Chancellor has the ability and opportunity to intervene upon and, we hope, reverse. The first is the plan to cut the work allowance element of universal credit and employment and support allowance, and for the later debate we have chosen the issue of funding social care.

We believe that the Chancellor, by withdrawing the proposed cuts to ESA and universal credit, would dramatically beneficially impact upon the lives of many, many of our fellow citizens, who are, yes, low earners, but many of whom, through their disability, are also often the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. We want to see today and, yes, over the next week, whether we can assemble across the House a coalition of pressure that can decisively influence the Chancellor to think again.

I welcome the Back-Bench debate that has been secured for tomorrow, which I believe will contribute to forming that coalition; I certainly believe and hope that we can succeed in doing so. So the appeal to hon. Members today and in the coming week is to do all we can to prevail upon the Chancellor to halt the policy of cuts to universal credit and ESA contained in the Budget introduced by the former Chancellor, which are planned to come into effect on 1 April.

Before I come to the grounds for making this appeal to the Chancellor, it is important to understand the origins of the proposals, and this goes to the heart of the autumn statement process. I believe their origins lie in the mistake by the last Chancellor of imposing a fiscal framework on his colleagues that was simply impractical, given the economic circumstances that we were facing, and certainly what we are about to face. If the fiscal framework is wrongly set and, importantly, if it is so inflexible that it cannot reflect the realities and challenges of the economy, decisions on both tax and spending equally fail to reflect the economic realities and meet the new economic priorities. I believe that in this instance, the fiscal framework imposed by the former Chancellor was so inflexible, and unworkable in the end, that it totally failed to meet the economic targets he set for it. It is also vital to understand that the former Chancellor’s fiscal framework imposed on his colleagues’ Departments unrealistic constraints that are undermining their ability to achieve their own policy goals.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

The reality is that the fiscal framework did see a significant reduction in the annual deficit. That is a good thing for this country. I have not seen anything from Labour Members to suggest that they would have been able to do anything like that.

[John McDonnell]

The hon. Gentleman clearly has not been listening. We introduced a fiscal credibility target, which would have built in the flexibility that we need—and actually, which his colleagues would have benefited from as they sought to deliver the goals set out in the manifesto upon which they were elected. That is the critical problem—that this fiscal target has become unworkable. Next week, most probably, we will see that not only will it be reset, but large elements of it will be scrapped; and some of those political disputes within the Government will be seen to have been completely unnecessary if only the Chancellor, at that stage, had listened not just to us, but to some of his own colleagues.

On the Government’s own economic metrics, the fiscal framework has failed. I remind the hon. Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) that the former Chancellor’s target was to eliminate the deficit by 2015. The deficit remained at over £45 billion in the first six months of this financial year. I remind the House that his target was to reduce the debt. The debt now stands at £1.7 trillion and has increased over the past six years, according to the latest estimate, by £740 billion. I believe that the biggest failure was to ignore the needs of the real economy and use the fiscal framework to constrain investment. The failure to invest on the scale needed to modernise our economy resulted in stagnating productivity.

In the face of all the evidence that the fiscal framework was not working and not achieving its target, the decision to set a target for the framework not just to eliminate the deficit, but to produce a multibillion-pound surplus by 2019-20 demonstrated to many of us how far the former Chancellor’s politics was overriding sound economics. The result of his setting targets even more removed from reality was that he imposed on his own colleagues the task of scrambling round to find a scale of cuts that, in many instances, undermined what chance they had to implement the policies on which they were elected and their long-standing ambitions, some of which could have secured cross-party support.

That was no more evident than at the Department for Work and Pensions. For the Treasury to demand cuts to universal credit that would take, on average, £2,100 out of the incomes of people who were doing all that was asked of them—working all they could to come off benefits, bringing up their families, contributing to society—flew in the face of all that the universal credit system was meant to be about. The same can be said of the cuts of nearly £30 a week to employment and support allowance. That is an extremely significant cut to the incomes of disabled people who are also doing all that has been asked of them—seeking work to lift them off benefits, and overcoming their disabilities and conditions.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

On the ESA cut, does my right hon. Friend recall that at the time it was being taken through the House, we were assured that the Government would introduce an ambitious plan to reduce—indeed, to halve—the disability employment gap by 2020? Does he share my dismay that that goal has been abandoned completely?

[John McDonnell]

I recall my right hon. Friend advising the Government of the unreality of their proposals at the time. What worried us all was that, on the one hand, benefits were being reduced, but the support was not being put in place by which those people could gain work and supplement their incomes.

I understood the motivation of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) when he resigned. The overriding demands of the Treasury were undermining the policy goals he was seeking to implement. He rightly objected to a further burden being placed on the social security budget, especially at a time when new, long-planned systems were at the early stages of introduction. I understood then his sense of frustration, and I understand now why he and many of his hon. Friends have called on the new Chancellor to look again at the burden that is being placed on the welfare budget and the threat, above all else, that it poses to the successful roll-out of universal credit and the policy of supporting disabled people into work.

The planned cuts are more than a threat to the implementation of policies long advocated and cherished by many Government Members. More importantly, they are a threat to the livelihoods, living standards and quality of life of millions of low earners and some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in our communities. The Government have sought to judge themselves on their own set of economic metrics: eliminating the deficit, reducing the debt and adhering to a cap on welfare spending. On all their own metrics, they have failed. However, there is an alternative and very basic set of metrics on which a Government should be judged—whether they ensure that their population is adequately fed, decently housed and kept warm in winter, and has sufficient income through employment or a support safety net to have a decent quality of life.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend is laying out a powerful case for the need to make some very different decisions next week in the interest of all our futures. There is clearly a combined moral and economic rationale for an urgent focus on disability employment. The 30% disability employment gap makes that even more important. Does my right hon. Friend agree that people with disabilities and their families deserve so much more from the Government, who should be on their side, rather than pursuing a strategy characterised by cuts to ESA, the tragic failure of work capability assessments and no strategy for fairness?

[John McDonnell]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. There is a week in which we can overturn at least an element of that brutality. This week, we need to seize upon the chance as best we can, across parties, to deliver change.

From our privileged position in this House, I firmly believe that before we consider cuts to basic support for low earners and disabled people, we have a moral duty, as my hon. Friend said, to fully appreciate the plight of many of our fellow citizens and the impact that any changes that are forced upon them could have. There are some basic facts that we need to face up to—basic facts that depict the harsh reality of the lives of so many members of our community. Nearly 4 million of our children are living in poverty. The scandal is that two thirds of them live in families where someone is working. Thanks to low wages, zero-hours contracts and forced or bogus self-employment, which has been exposed today, the promise that work will lift people out of poverty is a broken one for many.

If a basic responsibility of the Government is to ensure that their population is adequately fed and housed, they are failing. A million emergency food parcels were given out by food banks last year to families who did not have sufficient income to feed themselves. The latest reports confirm that the numbers are rising. This year, 200,000 children in our country will be dependent on a food bank to get a decent meal at Christmas. One survey reported that more than 20% of parents had regularly not eaten so that their children could eat. Others report the frequent choice between eating and heating. This is 2016.

On the duty of the Government to ensure that people are adequately housed, they are failing again. Rough sleeping has doubled in recent years. The equivalent of 100 households a day are evicted from rented homes—a near-record 40,000 in the year to date. Some 1.2 million households are stuck on council housing waiting lists. In my constituency tonight, there will be families sleeping in beds in sheds that have been rented to them.

As for the Government’s responsibility for disabled people, as the UN report concisely summed it up, the Government have—and I quote—systematically or gravely violated the rights of disabled people. Independent research suggested that Government efforts to push people off claiming disability benefits have been associated with more than 500 people committing suicide in three years.

Three years ago, I led a debate following the presentation of the War on Welfare petition, which highlighted the call for an overall impact assessment of the Government’s policies on disabled people. I cited the immense human suffering caused by the brutal implementation of the work capability assessment and the latest round of cuts to benefits and care services. I cited examples of people who had tragically taken their own lives in despair following the WCA and the penalisation through sanctions. We now know that those suicides were not isolated examples, but that there have been hundreds.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Of course, there is a double whammy, because people who are suffering and being punished in that way are not likely to get access to good mental health services or NHS services, because those are being cut and wound down across the country as well.

[John McDonnell]

I have listened carefully to the Prime Minister’s responses to a number of questions about cuts to mental health services at Prime Minister’s Question Time. I hope that her commitment to social justice will result in the reversing of some of those cuts, particularly to mental health walk-in services, which were raised at the Prime Minister’s questions session before last.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

The shadow Chancellor mentioned what happened three years ago. He will probably remember, as I do, that the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), who was the Labour party’s spokesman at the time, pledged that Labour would be “tougher than the Tories” on benefits.

Bringing things more up to date, many people in the ESA work-related activity group have told me that the current support package—a visit to the jobcentre once every six months—is completely inadequate. Does the shadow Chancellor agree that that shows a system that urgently needs reform?

[John McDonnell]

I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. There needs to be more support, and that was promised but has not been delivered. At the same time, benefits have been taken away, so as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) said, there has been a double whammy in the impact on disabled people. That demoralises people who are under pressure, losing benefits and not getting support, which pushes them into an even worse position.

I have raised this issue before, but we now have better figures than we had two or three years ago. We now know that between 2011 and 2014, more than 2,000 people who were assessed in a work capability assessment as being capable of work died before they could even take up that work. Surely we have to learn the lessons from that evidence, and surely one lesson is that if we impose further cuts on people who are already struggling, not only will we increase the deprivation and suffering that they endure, but many of them will see no light at the end of the tunnel and will simply despair.

The WOW debate was intended simply to ensure that any impact of decisions on benefits was properly assessed. We called for a cumulative impact assessment to be published, and we asked for a detailed impact assessment of every policy to be published for the House before a final decision was made. In a supposed post-truth environment, I still believe that evidence-based policy making is worth aiming for. That is why it is critical that the Government also restore the distributional analysis of their proposals, and ensure that it is intelligible and usable.

Before scrapping that analysis entirely, the Chancellor’s predecessor took to publishing figures that disguised the real impact of his policies. That accusation is not mine but that of one of his old colleagues, the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the former Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey. If the Treasury is to restore public trust, it must not just let the House know when it will publish the distributional analysis, but ensure that the figures are published clearly and without any attempts to massage or spin them. Only in that way will we be able to test the fairness and equity of policy proposals.

In my view and that of many Members, when the cuts were first introduced they reflected a grotesque unfairness, because at the same time the Government were cutting taxes for some of the wealthiest in our country and for large corporations. [Interruption.] Capital gains tax, inheritance tax—how many more examples do we need? That was a strange priority to many Members on both sides of the House. As the Resolution Foundation has pointed out, reversing just some of those tax cuts could render the cuts to benefits unnecessary. The last Chancellor also had a penchant for absorbing budget gaps at various times.

There is a real opportunity next week for the Chancellor to live up to the Prime Minister’s spoken commitment to tackle social injustice. We believe that the Chancellor will reset the fiscal framework in next week’s autumn statement. He has already adjusted it. That will allow him the flexibility he needs to reverse the cuts. I appeal to hon. Members throughout the House to help us lift the threat of further cuts from families and disabled people. We have a week to achieve that, and we can start today by supporting the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend is of course right. There is always a dynamic effect of changes in taxation. I will come on to the question of the distributional analysis, because when we look at it we see that it is rather different from what the shadow Chancellor suggested.

[John McDonnell]

May I remind the Minister of what the Institute for Fiscal Studies said about the Government’s changes? It stated that the long-run effect of tax and benefit changes in last year’s autumn statement, which were translated into the Budget, would be percentage losses around 25 times larger for those in the bottom decile than for those in the top decile.

DWP Data

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend will know from her background as a doctor in her constituency that people have different needs, and individual cases are very complex. She is right to say that we can make no assumptions just by looking at data; it is about putting people first and understanding their needs.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Just over a year ago, 130,000 people signed a petition and there was a debate in the House calling for a cumulative impact assessment by the Government of the welfare changes on people with disabilities. These data are just one element of that. The House decided without opposition that the Government should undertake that exercise. Are they giving any consideration to conducting a cumulative impact assessment?

[Priti Patel]

The last Labour Government never published a cumulative impact statement, and our focus right now is on publishing this set of data, as we have committed to do.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

I think the hon. Gentleman was momentarily distracted, because I have welcomed both his first and third points. We welcome the fact that rents are being reduced, but he needs to recognise the impact that the changes will have. As I am sure he will be aware, housing associations do not share his rather sanguine view of what the changes will mean, particularly for new house building at a time when we all recognise the need for substantial new socially rented housing, which is not being delivered at the moment.

The Bill does not provide a definition of “full employment”. In line with recent research and the previous Labour Government’s definition, our amendment will set the full employment target at 80% of the working-age population. To pick up on a point rightly made in an intervention by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), in our view the annual report on progress to full employment must also set out progress on the target to halve the disability employment gap.

We will support policies that make work pay and increase opportunity, but where the Government are wrong we will not hesitate to say so. The Conservative party promised in its manifesto that it would

“work to eliminate child poverty”.

It is now absolutely clear that it did not mean it: the Bill abandons any pretence that it did. Instead of eliminating the scandal of child poverty, the Bill attempts to eliminate the term. Labour in government was committed to reducing the appalling levels of child poverty left behind by the Thatcher and Major Governments, and we did so. We introduced the Child Poverty Act 2010, with cross-party support, including from the Secretary of State when he was in opposition and the Conservative party. It contained clear targets to reduce absolute and relative poverty, persistent poverty and material deprivation.

We have known for some time about the debate in the Conservative party about the validity of the relative poverty measure, but now it is not just changing the definition. It is interested not in stopping child poverty, only in stopping people talking about it. It is exactly the same with food banks: the Tories want to stop people discussing them. Clause 6(9) tells us that we should not refer any more to the Child Poverty Act and that instead it is to be known as the life chances Act, but there are fewer life chances for a child growing up in poverty, and poverty needs to be reduced.

Getting rid of the targets and measures leaves the Government with no commitment to tackle child poverty at all, just a requirement to publish a mix of loosely connected statistics. Instead of removing child poverty, the Bill seeks simply to remove it from the lexicon.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is, like me, a London MP. The driver of child poverty in my constituency is a combination of low pay and high private rents. When the cap was introduced, the Prime Minister advocated—there was an element of logic in this—the idea that it would reduce rents in the private rented sector. That has failed in my area and right across London; rents have increased significantly. Have the Government produced any evidence to prove that the cap reduced rents in the private sector at all?

[Stephen Timms]

I certainly have not seen such evidence. We have just seen the impact assessment, and the figures are in there, so we will have to see what information they provide. I am worried about the proposal—it was made in the Budget, but it is not in the Bill—of a cash freeze in local housing allowance for the next four years, irrespective of what is happening to rents in London and elsewhere.

The child poverty changes are a shameful attempt to brush under the carpet what should be right at the forefront of Ministers’ minds as they make policy and manage the economy. It is, I am afraid, the final nail in the coffin for compassionate conservatism.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I make this clear: I would swim through vomit to vote against the Bill, and listening to some of the nauseating speeches tonight, I think we might have to.

Poverty in my constituency is not a lifestyle choice; it is imposed on people. We hear lots about how high the welfare bill is, but let us understand why that is the case. The housing benefit bill is so high because for generations we have failed to build council houses, we have failed to control rents and we have done nothing about the 300,000 properties that stand empty in this country. Tax credits are so high because pay is so low. The reason pay is so low is that employers have exploited workers and we have removed the trade union rights that enabled people to be protected at work. Fewer than a third of our workers are now covered by collective bargaining agreements. Unemployment is so high because we have failed to invest in our economy, and we have allowed the deindustrialisation of the north, Scotland and elsewhere. That is why the welfare bill is so high, and the Bill does as all other welfare reform Bills in recent years have done and blames the poor for their own poverty, not the system.

On Friday I brought together at a poverty seminar welfare advice agencies, local churches and religious groups to talk about why people in my constituency are poor. They are poor because rents are so high. People struggle to keep a roof over their heads. The welfare cap in the Bill will remove £63 a week from those families who are simply trying to keep a decent home over their children’s heads.

The second reason people are poor is low pay. People in my constituency depend on tax credits to live. Parents choose whether they or their children eat, and the Bill will take £6 a week from every one of those families. The other reason for poverty in my constituency is that people have disabilities—they struggle to work but cannot do it. The Bill will take £30 a week from people with disabilities who are in the work support group and desperately trying to get work. Those are the reasons for poverty in my constituency, and I find it appalling that we sit here—in, to be frank, relative wealth—and are willing to vote for increased poverty for people back in our constituencies.

Some of the benefit cuts will be appalling. One measure not in the Bill but being sneaked through by the Government is a 30% cut in support allowances for asylum-seeker children. We are about to ensure that we push some of the poorest children in our society into further poverty.

We need an honest discussion about the reasons for that poverty and how we can invest to ensure that we lift people out of poverty. It is about some of the things that have been mentioned tonight, such as lifting wages. To come along and describe a derisory increase in the minimum wage as a living wage—we know that a living wage in this country is at least £10 an hour—is a disgrace to English rhetoric if nothing else. It is also rubbing it into the faces of the poor.

Tonight we have seen yet another way in which we blame the individual for the failings of our society. We need a proper debate about how we go forward investing in housing, lifting wages, restoring trade union rights and ensuring that we get people back to work and do not have high pockets of deprivation in areas such as mine and around the country.

Tonight the debate has not served the House of Commons well, but I say to Labour Members that people out there do not understand reasoned amendments; they want to know whether we voted for or against the Bill. Tonight I will vote against it.

Jobseeker’s Allowance (Sanctions)

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

I appreciate that, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is why we are having this debate today. It is not me who is—

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, what the Minister has said is that an answer that was given to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) two years ago—

[Stephen Timms]

A year and a half ago.

[John McDonnell]

An answer that was given a year and a half ago was misleading. If that is the case, would it not have been appropriate for the Minister who gave that misleading answer to come to the House at the first opportunity, as is the convention, to correct the information? As far as I am aware, there has been no correction whatever. I ask you to take this matter up, Mr Deputy Speaker, as a point of procedure with the relevant Department.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

What we need to do is to get to the end of the debate. The point is well made and it has been taken on board.

[Esther McVey]

I do not have my glasses on at the moment. It is John McDonnell on the Opposition Benches, is it not? [Interruption.] It is. I thought that perhaps the hon. Gentleman was standing up to pass comment on something else, now that it is Christmas—the time when people should be able to stand up and apologise—or, as he said he would in front of the House, to invite me for a cup of tea—

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Esther McVey]

Hang on a second. Let me finish what I am saying. For what he was reported to have either said or repeated, I say for every woman I know who has been affected by violence; for every woman I know who has actually lived by violence, I believe that what—

[John McDonnell]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] Order, everybody! Let us have a little bit of Christmas spirit. The Minister must give way when there is a point of order.

[John McDonnell]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Allegations have been made here that have been responded to previously. If the right hon. Lady is raising matters in relation to me, I am quite happy to respond to them if she gives way.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

We are not going to get into that. It is Christmas, and this is the final debate before the recess, so we ought to take on board where we are and be careful about the comments that are made.

[Esther McVey]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Gentleman said that he would make a phone call to speak to me about this matter, I await the phone call—

[John McDonnell]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If you check the record, you will see that a point of order was raised by another Member, not the Minister, and I offered that Member the opportunity to come for a cup of tea with me on the advice of Madam Deputy Speaker. I offered no phone calls to the Minister, whom I would not wish to meet and who was awarded the Scrooge of the year award in her own constituency last week.

Remploy Workers

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to raise the very important issue, both in Wrexham and across the country, of the re-employment of redundant Remploy workers. Until 2012, we had a Remploy factory in Wrexham. Although the numbers employed at Wrexham Remploy had declined over a number of years, about 43 people worked there by 2012. They were manufacturing, in particular, office furniture, which was then sold.

There had been a previous proposal to close the Remploy factory by the Labour Government in 2008, but there was a very strong local reaction. It was resisted. There were campaigns, marches and a weekly street stall in Wrexham town centre to support our Remploy factory and the Remploy workers. As a result of that hard-fought campaign, in which Councillor David Bithell played a very important part, the decision was reversed and the factory remained open. Effort was put in to securing more work for the factory, and the production of office furniture continued. One of the great lost opportunities was the lack of procurement opportunities in relation to local government and the Ministry of Defence. That has meant that, unfortunately, the factories that were open in 2008 have now largely closed.

When the Government came to power with the agenda of reducing the money spent supporting disabled people, I had fears that the decision would be revisited. It was not long before my fears proved to be justified. In March 2012, the Government announced that they would close the Remploy factory in Wrexham and make the staff redundant.

The Wrexham Remploy factory was a very special place. During the 2008 campaign and, indeed, in the years leading up to it, I had begun to know the Remploy workers in Wrexham very well. Most of them had worked there for many years, and there was a tremendous atmosphere of mutual support. There was no resistance at all to anyone securing employment anywhere else in the mainstream job market, but for particular individuals, there was strong value in working with other people who were disabled and who had challenges in trying to secure work in the mainstream market.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I apologise because I have to leave the Chamber to chair a meeting. I recall my hon. Friend’s engagement with the Remploy workers, via their trade unions, in his local factory. Can he confirm that, throughout the process, under the last Government and this one, the workers at that factory, through their unions, were willing to engage in any forms of restructuring, were looking at alternative opportunities for income generation in particular, and were willing to engage in a discussion about changing working practices? They were willing to do that all through the period, in a constructive and committed way, in order to ensure not only that the factory remained open, but that it fulfilled its original purposes.

[Ian Lucas]

Indeed. That was very much the case. Such was the commitment to the factory that it seemed to me, certainly in Wrexham, that people were willing to consider any proposal at all. The workers and the unions looked at any way at all of keeping the factory open. The history of the Wrexham factory, which I will come to, is that exactly that happened. There was a very strong effort to keep the factory open.

[Ian Lucas]

It was cruel and unnecessary. The Government very often fall over themselves to pass on difficult problems to the Welsh Government. In this case, the Welsh Government came forward and suggested that the Remploy budget be devolved, but the UK Government refused. There was an absolute dedication on their part to close the factories. They were determined that they were going to close them, and despite what the Minister has indicated previously, I am convinced that that was part of a cost-cutting exercise on the part of the Government. They have a stated commitment not to reduce the budget, but I will come on to the figures that show that the money the Government are spending on disabled people is decreasing.

I have made the argument repeatedly to the Secretary of State and to the then Minister for the disabled, who is now the Minister for Employment, that there was a group of people who wanted to continue to work in Remploy factories, doing gainful, positive work, and working for the most part with other disabled people. That argument was consistently ignored and the factory closed, despite a further and intense campaign to keep it open. Efforts were made in Wrexham to secure private investment to keep the factory open, and additional support, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) mentioned, was suggested by the Welsh Government. However, the UK Government were not prepared to consider allowing the Remploy site in Wrexham to be used and, as a result, it was very shortly thereafter sold off for housing development, which two and a half years on is proceeding in Wrexham town.

There was a private sector effort to keep the factory open. A business called Enterprising Employment, which worked with the Welsh Government for a period, employed about a dozen former Remploy workers for a time, but it was unable to continue and those workers were ultimately made redundant and lost their jobs.

We therefore have a picture of the people who worked for Remploy, many of whom had worked for many years on the site, being made redundant. The site in central Wrexham was sold off for housing development. I make no criticism of the fact that the site is now being used—thankfully, in a positive way—but it would have been much better if those people who were working there continued to work there.

The Government’s rationale for closing the Remploy factories was that they wanted to spend the budget of the Department for Work and Pensions more efficiently, so two and a half years on from the publication of the Government’s response to the Sayce review, back in March 2012, is an appropriate time to look at the Government’s record on those vulnerable people. What is their record?

[John McDonnell]

Before my hon. Friend moves on from the Sayce review, it is worth putting one point on the record. The Government have prayed in aid the Sayce review all through the process. The Sayce review said that there should be a proper process of consultation—that was envisaged to be six months so that people could engage in a proper dialogue about their futures, but we got 90 days. That was one of the earliest grievances and it betrayed the Government’s intent, which was to make cuts rather than to protect those individuals.

[Ian Lucas]

There was never any doubt about the Government’s intent. There was never any real effort to keep the factories open. The intent was to close them. What has been the consequence? We know from an answer to a parliamentary question given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on 15 October 2014 that, nationally, 1,507 people are, to use the Government’s euphemism,

“choosing to work with our personal case workers to find another job”—

that means they are unemployed—and 774 are in work. From the Government’s figures, we know that, nationally, twice as many former Remploy workers, who used to be gainfully employed, are without work than have work.

I am speaking about the matter today because, 10 days ago, I went to visit the Remploy employment agency in Wrexham and met the staff who are working to try to place disabled individuals in work. That is a dedicated service for finding work for disabled people in the town. The staff who work there are impressive and committed to their work. I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not criticising their work, because they are working hard to place disabled individuals with jobs in today’s job market—I commend them for their efforts, but they have a tough job.

On my visit to Wrexham, I met three men whom I have known for a number of years, who were in the agency and who previously worked in the Remploy factory. They had all worked at Wrexham Remploy for many years, and they were still sitting together because they had known each other for a long time. They had been part of the campaign to keep the factory open, with all the marches, the street stalls, the efforts and the camaraderie that that entailed. When the 2012 campaign was in force, the Government’s response to that camaraderie was to have a very limited period of consultation, make no real effort to engage in keeping the factory open and reject the Welsh Government’s proposal to devolve the budget. The result was that individuals who had been employed became unemployed. I listened to the accounts of the difficulties that those three gentlemen had encountered in securing work. Some of them had secured work for some time, and some had not, even though they had had dedicated support for their efforts to find work. I applied for this debate to report on the efforts that they have been making and to hold the Government and Ministers to account for the failure that their own statistics show.

The employment market in Wrexham is now intensely competitive. We are fortunate to have a diverse economy, with people working in manufacturing, retail, and the service sector. However, agency work dominates the market, especially for those who are unemployed, and access to new jobs is often subject to rigorous gatekeeping by employment agencies. The result is that former Remploy workers are, as they told me, at an immediate disadvantage in the job market because of their disability, and the agencies have no interest in accommodating the needs of the disabled. Agencies look for the most physically able staff, and often reject disabled staff either before they are taken on or shortly thereafter. Even when jobs are available, they are subject to the vagaries of reduced-hours contracts that are often terminated at short notice, which play havoc with the arrangements that the Government impose through the local jobcentre.

The overall consequence is that, during the past year in Wrexham, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics, median weekly earnings have fallen by 7.4%. Even for those who are in work, life is getting tougher under this Government. The Government present the 774 former Remploy workers who are in work as successes, but those individuals are worse off as a result of their current jobs and income. They also have to deal with the obstacle course that the Government have imposed on individuals in the employment market.

When people lose work, securing access to benefits is a lengthy process and there are often delays in paying benefits to which people are entitled. The majority of applicants to the local food bank are awaiting payment of benefits. In Wrexham, 2,864 people have been forced to use the food bank in the six months from April to September 2014, a figure that has increased by 40% in the past year. When I spoke to former Remploy workers, they told me that they were applying for jobs they knew they had no chance of securing in order to comply with requirements imposed by the Department for Work and Pensions and the jobcentre. If they do not do so, they will be subject to benefit sanctions.

That is the reality for Remploy workers who were sacked by this Government more than two years ago. For many years, they had gainful employment doing productive work. The excellent briefing provided by the House of Commons Library tells us that a coalition Government in 1944, led by a Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister who were worthy of the offices they held, legislated to set up Remploy. The current Government, by their actions and approach, have let down some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and they should be ashamed. As a taxpayer, I pay my taxes to support vulnerable people in Wrexham and across the country. We are talking about worthy individuals who deserve support and who want to work. They now face intense competition in a difficult job market, in which it is difficult for them, with their disabilities, to compete. The Government’s decision to take away their opportunity to work for Remploy, a dedicated business for which they had worked for many years, was a cruel step that took away their opportunities, their camaraderie and their strength.

The Government promised to help former Remploy workers, but the Government’s own figures show that those promises have not been kept, because two out of three of those workers are unemployed. That is the responsibility of the Secretary of State, the Minister and the Government. They need to look at those disabled workers and act. Why have the Government failed to secure re-employment for so many former Remploy workers? What obligation is there on job agencies to accommodate the needs of disabled workers? What percentage of individuals placed in work by employment agencies are disabled? What proportion of former Remploy workers are employed on reduced-hours contracts? What proportion of former Remploy workers are being paid less than they were when they were employed by Remploy? How much did the Government receive for the sale of the Stansty road site in Wrexham, which is now being used for development?

This is a sorry tale of a Government who, in their commitment to reducing budgets, made people redundant, put people out of work and broke the spirit of a proud work force who had worked together for many years. I believe in Governments who support the most vulnerable in society, and I hope we will shortly have a Government who meet that fundamental obligation, an obligation that any worthy Government would maintain. This is a dreadful tale that the people of Wrexham will remember when they vote next May. I hold the Government responsible for the dreadful actions they have pursued throughout this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Havard, for calling me to speak. I apologise in advance, because I will have to leave this debate early to chair another meeting. I wanted to say a few words before I go.

It is important that people understand the architecture that Remploy fitted into. Way back, after I had come off the shop floor and been to university, I started working for the National Union of Mineworkers. Then I went on to the TUC. One of my roles with the NUM was to work within the social insurance department, and then within the TUC I worked in the social welfare department. In those roles, I dealt with disability, largely because of the expertise I gained in my NUM days of dealing with ex-miners who had suffered both industrial injuries and industrial illnesses.

The architecture of support for people with disabilities was, of course, that if someone could not work, we would put in place, under the measures introduced by the Attlee Government, sufficient welfare benefits to ensure that they did not go into poverty. The workmen’s compensation supplementation scheme dealt with industrial injuries. To a certain extent, it was a no-fault scheme. For those who could work, there were rehabilitation services to get them back into their industry. If that was not possible, the rehabilitation services got them into other sectors.

Within the architecture of support for people with disabilities, we also had a 3% quota, whereby companies were required to take on 3% of their work force from among people with disabilities. That target was never fully achieved, but at least it was something we could rely upon in our negotiations with employers to get disabled people into work.

In addition, there was always a recognition within that architecture that some people would need to work within a supported work environment, in some cases for just a limited period and in some cases permanently. That is the role Remploy fulfilled.

Mention has been made of the introduction of Remploy under the Churchill and Attlee Administrations. It was specifically for those people who had a disability. Many of them were soldiers coming back from the second world war, but Remploy’s existence was also a recognition of industrial injuries. A large number of people who went into the Remploy factories were not ex-soldiers but ex-miners. In some ways, the factories were located in particular areas to cater for that need.

In the early 1980s, the TUC put me on the first committee that tried to end discrimination against disabled people. There was a discussion about the architecture of practices to end discrimination and ensure integration. There was also a recognition that there needed to be an improvement on the quota system for getting people back into work. However, there was always an acceptance that there would need to be a supportive work environment at some stage, even if it was only for a limited period of time during which people could be supported to get back into work. There was also a recognition that some people would perhaps never be able to get back into the work stream, but they still wanted the dignity of work, and the dignity earning a decent income to support their families. Again, that is the role Remploy fulfilled.

When there was a discussion about Remploy under the previous Government, there was a recognition that there had to be financial support for a period of time. Many people and organisations, the trade unions in particular, accepted that there had to be a tightening of the finances of the Remploy administration. Like many Members, I can remember that, when we met trade union delegations, we argued about the top-heavy management of Remploy. The unions came up with reforms that could be undertaken to save the Remploy factories and to operate them in a different way, with much more worker involvement in their management, in some ways moving towards a co-operative model. Although I was anxious about some of the decisions that were being made about individual Remploy factories, I thought at least that we had a process of engagement with the work force under the previous Government that would maintain at least an element of a supportive working environment for people who needed it.

When the Sayce report came out, I was extremely concerned about its conclusions. However, as my hon. Friends have already said, at least we were given the prospect of a process of engagement: six-months of discussions would take place; the options would be discussed; and the work force would have the opportunity to bring forward their own ideas. The reason we seized upon the suggestion of a six-month period, at least as a period of dialogue, was that many of us said that, if there was a rush to closure, there would be the prospect of a large number of people never working again. Unfortunately, all our predictions have come true.

We need to listen to the people on the ground. There is a quote from Jerry Nelson, the GMB national officer, in the House of Commons Library pack that has been produced for the debate. As a union, the GMB has kept in touch with its former members, and we should remember that quite a few of them took redundancy before the process of final closures had even started. In the GMB’s annual report, Jerry Nelson says:

“It is now one year since the final day of the Remploy factory closures. Over 2,700 disabled workers had their lives destroyed by this government’s callous and thoughtless attack on the disabled workers, who relied on their employment to maintain their sense of independence, working in an environment of protected equality. The factories were a sheltered environment and for many of these workers it was their only connection with life outside of their own homes.”

He went on to say that the GMB had kept in touch with many of its former members, and many of them were now sitting at home feeling “depressed and isolated”.

Many of us hear a similar story time and again when we meet the ex-Remploy workers. Many of us who have tried to keep in touch with them during this very difficult period know what a struggle they have gone through, and we also know the efforts they have made, using the advice and assistance they have received, to try to find alternative work.

The press release about Remploy that came out from the Department for Work and Pensions states:

“Since last year, over 80% of ex-Remploy workers have found jobs or are receiving specialist employment support and training to help them find one.”

People found that element of spin unacceptable, because if we drill down into the figures, as my hon. Friends have done, we find that the bulk of ex-Remploy employees are desperately seeking employment and that most have not found it.

I can get extremely angry about what has gone on but I try not to, because getting angry is not constructive. Instead, I say that we need to learn the lessons about what happened at Remploy, including the lessons about the harm that the process has done to so many individuals and their families, and their local economies and communities. Individuals and whole communities have been depressed as a result of the decisions made by this Government. With a new Minister taking responsibility—the previous ones dealt with it scandalously—it is time now to stand back and think again.

With regard to the need for continued support, we were given a time limit of 18 months. That must continue. It needs to be properly funded, at the same level as now, and perhaps with additional resources applied. At some stage, a Government—if not this one, perhaps the next one—will have to start thinking about reinventing supported work environments such as those Remploy provided. It provided such a constructive role to people who will never be able to enter into the mainstream. I say that because increasing numbers of soldiers are coming back from combat zones, just as they did after the second world war. They will want support to get back into work. In addition, large numbers of people out there with disabilities just want the opportunity of the dignity of work and of supporting their families. That is what Remploy gave them.

Having come through this absolutely disgraceful period of callous behaviour towards people with disabilities and having learned, a year on, about so many being unemployed, and about the effect it has had on so many people’s lives, there needs to be some humility on the part of Government about their policies for the future and the continued support that is needed. They need to look again at the need for supported work environments for people with disabilities, which are necessary if we are to tackle their needs.

As I have said, people can get very angry about this. I am at that stage now where I have moved beyond anger. I just want the Government and Ministers to start listening to the people who have gone through this and learn some lessons.

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Reform (Disabled People)

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

May I say what a terrific speech we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes)? It presaged the contribution she will make in the House.

Of course Lord Freud’s statement was a disgrace, but I am more worried about what he is doing than about what he is saying. I opposed his appointment under the previous Government, and I did so under this one. The appointment of a venture capitalist to advise on welfare benefits is bizarre.

Let me raise an issue about disabled war pensioners. In July 2012 the Prime Minister visited Camp Bastion. The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) quoted The Guardian. Let me balance things up by quoting The Sun:

“Wounded war heroes are to keep their disability benefits for life after the PM stepped in to halt a bid to cut them. Worried veterans—including soldiers who lost limbs in battle—had been facing humiliating re-tests that could have seen them stripped of crucial cash. But David Cameron has now slapped down the MoD bureaucrats and ruled that anyone left disabled by military service must be exempt from benefit cuts.”

In the article, the Prime Minister was quoted as saying:

“I made a promise to our forces that they will get special treatment, and I intend to stick to it.”

The Royal British Legion was quoted:

“We applaud the Prime Minister and”

the Work and Pensions Secretary

“for standing up for our wounded heroes.”

Mo Stewart, a disabled veteran and disability researcher, contacted the Cabinet Office to confirm that that was the case. The Cabinet Office said that

“the Cabinet has just agreed that War Pensioners can retain access to DLA as an acknowledgment of their service to the nation”.

At the Conservative party conference, the Prime Minister stood up and, in a warm speech, congratulated our veterans from various wars since the second world war. The problem was that, at the very same time, 80,000 veterans received a letter warning them that their access to DLA was about to be withdrawn, completely contrary to the statement made in July 2012 at Camp Bastion.

The defence personnel secretariat was in utter confusion. Its briefing said that disabled war pensioners would have access to the more generous constant care allowance, which is a supplement added to the basic pension. That was misleading and completely incorrect. It disregarded the fact that war pensioners need to demonstrate an 80% disability to access the constant care allowance. The recipients of the new armed forces compensation scheme need to demonstrate a 50% permanent disability.

There are 166,000 disabled war pensioners. Half of them—80,000—are beyond the age of 70 and will therefore retain access to disability living allowance, but the remainder will have to go through the same process as everyone else, despite the promises and assurances given by the Prime Minister and reinforced by the Secretary of State. As has been pointed out time and again by Opposition Members, that means they will endure six to 12-month waits for the assessment on PIP, the non-delivery of benefits and the cutting of benefits. Is that what the Prime Minister wanted when he congratulated disabled war veterans and honoured them for the sacrifices they have made in the interests of this country and to defend this country’s interests? I do not think it was. Either, like Lord Freud, the Prime Minister mis-spoke, or—others have accused him of this—this is a betrayal, which would be unacceptable.

DWP: Performance

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The motion refers largely to the work capability assessment and the personal independence payment, but it also refers to the disarray in other benefit programmes. I want to concentrate on the independent living fund, which the Government are proceeding to abolish.

On Saturday a group of people with severe disabilities turned up with their carers and in their wheelchairs and chained themselves together in Westminster abbey gardens in protest against the Government’s proposal to proceed with the abolition of the independent living fund. The protest was organised by a group called DPAC—Disabled People Against Cuts. They wanted to remain there for a couple of weeks to try to engage with parliamentarians and others on this issue, but unfortunately 200 police arrived and evicted them from the site, with the support of the Dean of Westminster. I wonder what happened to the sermon on the mount.

I thought that there was cross-party support for the independent living fund—that it was one of the benefits that worked. The idea was to fund carers and others who enabled people with severe disabilities to ensure that they were no longer trapped in residential homes but could live independently in their own homes and participate in wider society, and that as a result of that support some could go to work and earn their income. I thought we had cross-party agreement that it was one part of the welfare system that was working effectively, but the Government have proceeded to abolish it.

Responsibility is now being transferred to local authorities. The Government are arguing that the Care Act 2014 will enable local authorities to provide a similar level of service, but that is not the case for many of the people who already experience the services offered by local authorities. There has been a cut of £3 billion in expenditure by local authorities on social care for people with disabilities. We have already seen significant cutbacks on levels of care. People who are severely disabled are now anxious that as the money transferred to local authorities is not being ring-fenced, local authorities will cut support for people with disabilities, and that support will not be protected in future.

That is causing concern and desperation among people with disabilities and their carers—so much so that they took the Government to court because of the lack of consultation on the proposals and the lack of consideration of the equalities implications. They won in court, but only a few months ago the Government decided nevertheless to proceed with the abolition of the independent living fund. I believe that will be challenged again by a number of claimants. I hope that this time around the Government will not contest that challenge and that we can come back, discuss the policy and arrive at a consensus again about how we can support the most severely disabled people in our country. We need to do exactly what the ILF was funded to do: to provide care and support so that disability can be overcome at least in the sense that people with disabilities are able to participate in wider society.

The policy is causing extreme consternation not just among disabled people but among their families. We know what will happen: local authority cuts will fall on the individuals and care will fall on to the families themselves—I have to say that in my constituency many of those people are ageing parents—and eventually, because of the abolition of the independent living fund, people will be forced back into residential establishments. At the end of the day, that will prove even more costly than the 17,500 people who are currently receiving the benefit.

I appeal to the House and to the Government to think again on this one. It is one benefit that we all thought we had got right. In the 1980s I served on the Committee on Restrictions against Disabled People. It was the first committee to try to ensure the integration of disabled people in this country. We thought that the independent living fund was the benefit that could succeed. Everyone agreed at that time, and they should agree now.