Disability Benefits and Social Care

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Commons Chamber

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

This has been a helpful discussion about policy, but the best policy is informed by our own experience of what is happening in our own constituencies. I want to put on record what my constituents are experiencing at the moment. In addition to surgeries, we now have an open-door policy four days a week, and in some ways I wish that we had not. Sometimes we want to hide, because we have been inundated with people who have problems with lost benefits.

I also help with disability living allowance appeals. This is not just about legal aid cuts; it is about the cuts overall. We have lost advisers in the area, so I represent people at DLA appeals, and we mainly win. That is not because of my articulateness, as you can tell; it is because once those presiding over the appeal see the people concerned, they can see that they have been wrongly assessed. Another problem is that people’s appeals are taking so long to arrange, once they have lost their benefits. They can wait for up to six months for their appeal, having lost their benefit, which is causing immense problems.

On the work capability test, I opposed the privatisation of the process and the bringing in of Atos, but if we are going to have a private company doing this work, we should at least be able to understand the contract involved. We should at least be given open access to what has been agreed with that company in our name, and be told what level of performance it is supposed to undertake. I am not sure what other Members have found, but when people come to see me, having gone through an Atos assessment, they tell me that they feel degraded, shamed and abused. I raised the point about suicides with the Secretary of State some weeks ago, and I was not exaggerating. Other Members will have experienced this as well. People come into my constituency office and tell me: “I can’t take any more of this. I’ve had enough.” I am really worried by the anecdotal reports of individual suicides, and it behoves the Government to monitor the situation and assess what is happening on the ground.

People have had enough of being called scroungers. We have seen the increase in hate crime towards people with disabilities because of the atmosphere that has been created by the media and by some politicians using loose language on this subject. Those people feel shamed, simply because they are claiming the benefits to which they are entitled. That is the experience in my constituency office at the moment, and it just goes on.

This is carers week. Other London MPs will also tell the House about constituents who have gone on to personal budgets, and that those budgets do not cover the wages of the carers whom we want to care for our people. It is virtually impossible to pay enough to get someone to stay overnight. Most of these arrangements have now been privatised, and people are getting a different carer coming in every day. The relationships with the carers have been broken down by this process.

Respite provision is now critical in my constituency, but what is my local Conservative council doing? It is closing the centres where people used to get respite. This is all part of the modernisation programme. It is closing three centres and modernising one. Of course, two of the centres that are being closed completely are in the most needy area of my constituency; a working-class area. It just goes on.

After the Southern Cross debacle, the company was broken up and some of the residential homes were given back to their original owners. I give this warning now: that arrangement is beginning to break down already, because the management in those individual homes are not competent to manage the process of disaggregation and the long-term planning of care. Why? The local authority role in providing those services has been so undermined and the resources have been cut, even for the management of those individual contracts. We are facing a crisis. A number of people are trapped in this whirlpool of deprivation, and it will be almost impossible to pull them out if we continue with these policies.

I went to the GMB conference last week, spoke to the manufacturing section and met many Remploy workers. They are now absolutely desperate, and they feel completely betrayed. They might not have agreed with the Sayce report, but at least there was a process there that they saw they were working through. That has now been torn up and everything in that report has been reneged upon. They feel absolutely vulnerable, with some saying, “We will not work again.”

In the early 1980s, I sat on the first committee established to remove restrictions against people with disabilities. It was called CORAD— the Committee on Restrictions against Disabled People. I was nominated to sit on it by the TUC. It took us 25 years before we secured anti-discrimination legislation. I congratulate the last Government on achieving that. I was one who wanted to mainstream employment. In fact, I was an ardent advocate of that; over the years, experience taught me that we always need an element of supported employment. That is what Remploy does well. What does it do badly? As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) argued, the management have been abysmal. All the workers are saying is, “Listen to us; we can manage these resources more effectively than the current management, but we also need the support of the Government.” As my hon. Friend said, what happened to the commitments about public procurement that we were promised over the last two years? If it had not been for the individual efforts of people such as my hon. Friend and others, as exemplified today, no procurement would have happened because the Government have done nothing.

Finally, the Government should not think that this issue or these people are going to go away because they are not: these people are mobilising. We now have a disability movement in this country of which we have not seen the equal before. Black Triangle occupied Atos offices in Scotland; members of DPAC—Disabled People Against Cuts—chained themselves in Trafalgar square. These people are not going to go away. They will be in our face—and rightly so. I will support them, including if Remploy workers opt to buy their factories.

Oral Answers to Questions

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

That is of course our approach right across ESA. We do not apply a one-size-fits-all approach. Those with the potential to return to work will receive help to do so, those who will be able to return to work in due course will get support and guidance along that journey, and those who cannot be expected to work will receive long-term unconditional support in the support group. That is absolutely how the Government should seek to work.

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

T7. Members throughout the House, including Ministers, have emphasised the importance of the care that must be taken in dealing with people with mental health problems as they approach their medical and capability assessments, particularly if they lose benefits. Some anecdotal evidence is emerging of suicides taking place among people who have lost benefits. Have the Government explored any of the coroners’ reports of cases in which there has been a reference to the loss of benefits as a contributory factor, and what lessons have been learned?

[Chris Grayling]

We will always examine something like that very carefully indeed when it happens. So far, my experience is that the stories are usually much more complicated, but that does not mean we are not doing the right thing. I passionately believe that we should help such people, particularly those with mental health problems. I have met people who have been out of work for years and years with chronic depression, but whom we are now beginning to help back into work. We have to be careful, and we examine such situations carefully when they arise.

Employment Support

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

I am very happy to give my hon. Friend an undertaking that we will want to work together with individuals in factories that are in wave 2 of the process, because we want to find ways for those organisations to succeed. However, he should be aware that we are indeed able to support disabled people into employment, through the employment services programme, so although he rightly says that it can be difficult for people to make that transition, it is not impossible. With the right support, people can move from segregated factories into mainstream employment.

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

The Minister referred to the £2,500 of transitional funding for the workers, and I note that that is an average figure. If it is to make up the difference between benefits and the wages that the workers would have earned, it will last about six months. If they are still unemployed after that time, will there be further transitional assistance? If not, some of those families will plummet into poverty.

[Maria Miller]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the money I am talking about will be on top of the quite significant provision that we make for redundancy in the process.

CPI/RPI Pensions Uprating

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House notes that the e-petition entitled Public and Private Pension Increases—change from RPI to CPI attracted over 100,000 signatures very quickly, revealing a high level of concern about the Government’s decision to change the indexation for occupational pensions from the Retail Prices Index to the Consumer Price Index, which will mean that many people, both those retired and those yet to retire, will receive less in their pension payments than they were led to expect; and calls on the Government to reintroduce the RPI measure immediately.

The motion is tabled in my name and those of a number of colleagues, and I should like to inform you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I would like to press it to a Division.

This important debate would not be taking place today were it not for the efforts of one individual. This is real democracy in action. Jim Singer is a member of the Public and Commercial Services Union, and he was so angered by the Government’s unilateral decision to switch the methodology of how his pension would be calculated from the usual retail prices index to the consumer prices index that he launched an online petition. Within weeks, that petition had secured more than 100,000 signatures in support. I should like to thank Jim and all those who have signed the petition. I should also like to thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to the request for the debate, on behalf of myself and my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg). Hon. Members might know that she has recently suffered a serious accident, and she is unable to attend the debate today. I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing her a speedy recovery.

Part of the reason that so many people signed the petition so quickly is the anger felt by so many at what they see as a betrayal of the promises that they were given before the election, particularly by the coalition parties. Those parties gave a firm undertaking that they would not interfere in people’s pensions in such a detrimental way. Within weeks of the general election, however, in June 2010, the Chancellor announced in his emergency Budget the replacement of RPI with CPI for the purposes of uprating public sector pensions and the state second pension. That is having a direct impact on 12 million public sector workers and 4 million private sector workers whose scheme rules link upratings with statutory orders. In my constituency, the switch has hit large numbers of pensioners in the British Airways pension scheme, who feel deeply aggrieved. It is not just the broken promise that has angered people; there is also a sense of unfairness that people who have done the right thing—

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

If the hon. Gentleman feels that the proposition is completely unreasonable, will he explain why the Labour party has moved its own pension scheme into CPI on the ground of affordability?

[John McDonnell]

That is also a move that I would not have supported, so I am being consistent in my opposition. I am sure that delegations of Labour party organisers and others will be making representations to the party on the matter.

As I was saying, there is also a sense of unfairness, in that people who have done the right thing, joined a pension scheme and saved through their scheme to protect themselves in their retirement are now seeing their pension undermined and, in some instances, even put at risk. The effects of the shift from RPI to CPI are serious for millions of ordinary people who have pursued a career and invested in a pension with the expectation of a decent pension.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, in the House last week, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb) wrongly implied that the National Pensioners Convention was in favour of the switch from RPI to CPI? Will he join me in calling on the Minister to respond to the NPC’s request to set the record straight, given that the NPC actually favours a quadruple lock for pensions uprating involving CPI, RPI or earnings of 2.5%, whichever is the higher? Does he hope, as I do, that the Minister will take this opportunity to apologise?

[John McDonnell]

I am pleased that the National Pensioners Convention supports the quadruple lock, because that is what I have proposed in the House when we have debated this matter previously. It would come as a bit of a surprise if the NPC were to support the switch to CPI, given that a number of its members handcuffed themselves and blocked the road outside Parliament last week in protest against the measure. That is a form of direct action that I support.

The switch has had an impact on millions of people, as I have said. That is because, historically, the difference between CPI and RPI has been between 0.7% and 0.9 %. When the Government introduced their statutory instrument to force through the change, the Office for Budget Responsibility assessed that the difference would be 1.1%. Since then, in November, the OBR published a working paper that indicated that the gap would widen, and so increased its forecast for the long-run difference between CPI and RPI to 1.4%. What that means in practical terms for people’s pensions is that after 15 years a CPI-indexed pension would be 17.4% lower than an RPI-indexed pension, and after 20 years it would be between 23% to 25% less. That is a significant amount. That was confirmed by the much-cited Hutton report on pensions, which stated:

“This change in the indexation measure, from RPI to CPI, may have reduced the value of benefits to scheme members by around 15% on average. When this change is combined with other reforms to date across the major schemes the value to current members of reformed schemes with CPI indexation is, on average, around 25% less than pre-reform schemes with RPI indexation.”

Many hon. Members will have received representations from people working in different jobs about what the switch means to them. Let me cite some examples to give the House a flavour of why there is such depth of feeling out in the country on this issue. Let us take the case of Jim Singer himself, the creator of the e-petition. Jim has worked for the Department for Work and Pensions as a partnership development manager in the east of Scotland, based in Aberdeen. He has worked for the civil service for 35 years. He has just turned 60, and he will retire on a salary of £29,000.

As a result of the pay policy imposed by his Department and the Government, Jim has had a pay increase of only 3% in the last five years. That has had the effect of reducing the value of his final salary by around 25%, as against RPI inflation over the past five years. Even if his pay had kept pace with the Government’s favoured indicator, CPI, his final salary would have been 13% higher. That in turn means that his pension will start at a level of over £3,000 a year lower than if his pay had kept pace with RPI, and that his lump sum will be cut by over £9,500. So, he will have a £1,600 pension loss and a £4,960 lump sum under CPI. In addition, the switch from RPI to CPI is likely to cost Jim nearly £23,000 in pension over a normal retirement. Jim’s wife, Sheena, worked for British Telecom and has a pension which is also affected by the switch from RPI to CPI. She stands to lose £9,000 over a 20-year retirement.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving us the range of examples. Is it his understanding that it is not his party’s policy to fight the next general election on a promise to revert to RPI?

[John McDonnell]

I scoured the Welfare Reform Bill Committee discussions on that point, and as I understand it, those on the Labour Front Bench made it clear that they were not going to write their manifesto in advance of 2015. The hon. Lady can be assured, however, that I shall be pressing for that policy to be adopted.

Let me press on with Jim’s example. The guide to his pension—the “principal civil service pension scheme, classic”, as it is called—was published by the civil service in 2009. It explained that his pension would be “index-linked”. On page 24, the guide explained that this index-linking meant that

“your pension is guaranteed to increase in line with inflation, as measured by the retail price index”.

When he heard that the Government had changed the index-linking of his pension to CPI, he wrote to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr Maude). He received the following reply:

“In hindsight, because the Minister has the discretion to decide which indicator best reflects the general level of prices, perhaps the booklet should have been drafted differently”.

That gives no satisfaction to Jim, who has lost so much money. He worked for 35 years with a guarantee of RPI, then, within a year of reaching his 60th birthday, the Government reneged on that guarantee. Over his retirement, the switch from RPI to CPI will not just be a minor change to an inflation indicator. For him, the switch will cost thousands.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I believe that the legal position is that the Minister is allowed to take into account prevailing economic circumstances when making his judgments. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that it is important that literature such as that relating to the armed forces pension schemes of 1975 and 2005 should be scrutinised to ensure that nothing within it could give anyone misleading information on which they might base their future pension plans?

[John McDonnell]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Jim did base his future plans with his wife on what he was told was a guarantee—a written guarantee—in the guide itself. That is not just unfortunate, but disgraceful. I agree that others should not be misled in that way in the future, and it should not have happened in the past. Thousands of pounds have been cut from Jim’s own pension. After 35 years of public service, the Government have knowingly cut his pension to pay off a deficit he did not create.

There are so many other Jim Singers. I recently met firefighters who were particularly angry that a firefighter retiring on a full pension will lose £52,000 over 20 years. This comes on top of a three-year pay freeze, after two years of only a 1% increase, which means no real increase in pension or pay for the best part of five years. The real cut in spending power for firefighters is a pre-retirement cut of 20% and a post-retirement cut of 22%. A 40% cut in income is a terrible price to pay for a crisis these people did not create.

I have met so many others, too. A Forestry Commission worker who worked for 24 years is losing £17,000; a jobcentre worker who worked at the Department for Work and Pensions for 26 years is losing £20,000; a tax inspector at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs with 36 years’ employment is losing £45,000. I became angry myself when I encountered examples provided by the Forces Pension Society of some horrendous losses—I do not know whether other Members have seen them. A disabled double amputee, a 28-year-old corporal, will lose £587,000 by the age of 70; a 40-year-old sergeant in the Royal Marines will lose £212,000 by the time he is 85; members of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary will lose literally tens of thousands of pounds. This is simply unacceptable.

Why, then, the change from RPI to CPI? In past discussions of this question, the Minister has been robust in his view that whether or not there was a need for cuts to deal with the deficit, CPI is a “better measure of inflation”. Numerous others have contested the suitability of CPI as an appropriate measure for pensions. The Royal Statistical Society is a particular example, and it provided us with another briefing yesterday. Its vice-president, Jill Leyland stated forcefully in a letter to the chair of the UK Statistics Authority:

“We do not feel that CPI currently serves the purpose of being a sufficiently good measure of price inflation as experienced by households to be used in uprating pensions”.

She went on to warn that its use would

“cause damage to consumer confidence in official statistics if it is perceived that uprating to pensions and other benefits is being governed by an index perceived by many as inappropriate and unfair.”

It was reiterated in the briefing sent to all Members yesterday that it is important for any index to enjoy the confidence of pensioners—and this index does not.

CPI was invented as a tool of macro-economic policy so that inflation rates could be compared across Europe, but because there was no agreement on how to calculate housing costs across European countries, that element was left out. CPI, because of its exclusion of housing costs, such as mortgages, council tax, and vehicle excise duty and TV licences, is criticised for not properly representing the real costs that pensioners face.

On top of that, as Members will know from the previous debate, there is what is described as the formula effect. CPI uses a geometric mean rather than an arithmetic mean, and we have long debates about those different means, so we have all become statisticians on this issue. In its calculations, CPI is supposed to take into account the ability of a person to shop around for cheaper goods. This—falsely in the eyes of many statisticians—assumes a sophisticated knowledge by pensioners of price variations and that consumers are sufficiently mobile to shop around. In reality, many pensioners are not the perfect shoppers of the economic model that CPI puts forward and are not mobile enough or capable of shopping around to secure the lowest price of all the goods in this basket.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for securing this motion. He makes the point that housing is excluded from the CPI. Particularly in London, house prices, rents and housing costs are going up well above the rate of inflation, and continue to do so. For elderly people, it is impossible to shop around: they have no choice; they have to stay where they are in the property they occupy, and they have no control over rents and associated costs. It is a double whammy on them.

[John McDonnell]

That is why—[Interruption.] As the Minister says from a sedentary position, it is mortgage costs, not rents that are excluded. However, the range of other costs that pensioners have to meet are not included—housing-associated costs such as council tax, for example. That is one reason why Age UK undertook detailed research into the real spending patterns of pensioners and arrived at a more realistic assessment in its “silver retail prices index” of what price rises pensioners face. That showed that the impact of increases in basics such as fuel costs and food were hitting pensioners harder than both the RPI and the CPI calculated.

The weaknesses of CPI have been extensively acknowledged. The EUROSTAT—the European Commission’s statistics body, which came up with the original proposals on CPI—is working on a harmonised approach to including housing costs. The Minister acknowledged some of these criticisms in the Welfare Reform Bill Committee and informed us that the Consumer Prices Advisory Committee is undertaking a detailed programme of work to look at ways of including housing costs, but that this would not be concluded in the next “year or two”. In the meantime, pensioners will lose out—significantly.

Despite all the debate about the statistics, we know that the real reason for the move from RPI to CPI is to cut public expenditure. When this matter came before the courts, the Government argued that CPI

“provides a more appropriate measure of benefit and pension recipients’ inflation experiences than RPI and a better representation of the way consumers change their consumption patterns in response to price changes.”

They argued that that was the reason for the shift. Three High Court judges agreed that, on the basis of the facts before them, the Government’s move to CPI was really the result of their desire to force through budget cuts.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one concern about the shift, which will reduce people’s pensions, is that people might opt out of pension schemes? One impact that that might have is to put people even further into poverty, so they will have to apply for state benefits. The shift will therefore not end up as a money-making exercise for the Government.

[John McDonnell]

Yes, I will deal with that point now. The Government’s decision to move from RPI to CPI was taken at an early stage after the election. It was basically a decision to make pensioners in those pension schemes pay for the economic crisis. That was the policy decision that the Government made. Thus, the very people who made no contribution to causing the crisis will now have to pay for it by cuts in their pensions—the one thing they hoped was secure in their lives. I view that as unacceptable by any standards of fairness and equity. As my hon. Friend says, it is incredibly short-term.

We know from surveys of existing contributors to pension schemes that the combination of significantly increased contributions and cuts in pensions payments means that many people are now questioning whether to remain in their pension scheme, while others are wondering whether to join it at all.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and tabling the motion. My Halton constituency is the 27th most deprived, and I know that my hon. Friend has deprivation in his constituency. Is it not constituencies like ours, where people living on low incomes strive all their lives to put some money aside for pensions, that are going to be impacted most by this draconian measure?

[John McDonnell]

Those most in need and those who saved the most will be the mostly greatly affected. My hon. Friend’s constituency, like mine, is a working-class constituency in which many people suffer from deprivation. They will now suffer that deprivation long into their retirement as a result of this measure.

To return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) about the impact on the stability of future schemes, it is quite clear that if fewer people are saving for their retirement, there will be a greater cost to the Exchequer as more people become dependent on means-tested benefits. Similarly, if fewer people are paying into the schemes, it will put those schemes at risk—thus thrusting many more on to state benefits. As I said, this decision is so short-term.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is generous with his time. He refers to people not paying into pension schemes, but does he agree that the Government’s move to auto-enrolment will mean that there will not be that big a drop, as the organisations involved have said? The fact that the schemes will be sustainable will be a part of the bigger picture—one of benefit in the long run.

[John McDonnell]

I support auto-enrolment, which is a good thing. What these pensions do is enable people to have an element of security in the future. The auto-enrolment process will work out over time; unfortunately, a number of these pensions will be caught in that gap as a result of the significant cuts being made.

I know that the cuts are said to be necessary because we have a deficit, but there is a straightforward, fair and equitable alternative, namely to make those who caused the crisis—and who benefited most in the boom years—pay for it.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

The purpose of the change that the Government have made is to make public pensions more sustainable. We have seen what has happened in the private sector when they are not sustainable; many schemes have collapsed completely. Given that much of what Labour Members are saying constitutes an attack on the Government’s position, it would be interesting to know whether the position would be reversed if the Opposition became the Government.

[John McDonnell]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that if I form the next Government, it will be. I ask him to stick with me.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I feel the need to challenge the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that those who created the financial crisis should pay for it. How exactly does he think they would do that? Specifically, why does he think that the real, long-term problem that we have with sustainable pensions is linked to the very recent financial crisis, which I presume is what he is referring to?

[John McDonnell]

I will answer the hon. Lady’s question in a moment, but let me first respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) about private pensions. I think that they are sustainable. The only reason we currently have a private pension crisis—and it has happened in my constituency as well—is that in the 1980s and 1990s private companies took pension holidays and undermined the pension schemes themselves. What we need now is a period of security during which we can rebuild the balances in those schemes. If public support is required, I will back that as well. The last Government established the Pension Protection Fund so that we could bail people out when there was an individual pension scheme crisis.

Let me end—because I have spoken for long enough—by responding to the point made by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). As I said earlier, there is a straightforward, fair and equitable alternative, namely the adoption of something similar to the principle that the polluter should pay. Those who created the crisis, and who gained most from it, should pay for it. Let me suggest two simple measures. First, we should tackle tax avoidance and evasion, which, as we now know, amount to anything between £120 billion and £150 billion a year. This week—I commend the Government on the way in which they dealt with this—just one bank, Barclays, tried to introduce a £500 million tax avoidance scheme, and that is just the tip of the iceberg given what has gone on over the years and what is currently going on.

My second proposal is that the assets of those who benefited most in the boom should be taxed. Professor Greg Philo—I urge Members to look at his work—suggests a 20% wealth tax on the assets of the wealthiest 10%, which amount to £4,000 billion. That would raise £800 billion. Wealth taxes are currently being discussed throughout Europe.

Those two measures would eradicate the structural deficit and significantly reduce the country’s debt, thus enabling us to protect our pensions. The Government’s new measures are due to come into force on 1 April, but there is still time for them to pull back from the brink. I urge them to do so, on behalf of the 100,000 petitioners, but also on behalf of the millions of members of pension schemes who will suffer so much as a result of the switch from RPI to CPI.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Crausby]

I completely accept that. I do not recall any of the political parties demanding that the Government of the day in 1997 restore the link. I am not making my argument on a party political basis; I am trying to make some principled arguments about how Governments should behave towards pensioners in the longer term. I completely accept that when I criticise how the Government deal with pensioners, that reflects on a series of Governments whose actions have resulted in many of my constituents not trusting in pensions at all.

That is why I make the point that the public cannot trust the Government on pensions in the long term any more than they can trust their employers. So many employers took large pension contribution holidays in the good times and then argued when more difficult times arrived that they just could not afford to pay the increased cost, and I am sorry to say that the Government—this Government are proving this—behave in exactly the same way, the only difference being that when the Government renege on a pension deal they call it legal. When Robert Maxwell absconded with the Daily Mirror pension fund he was, properly, castigated as a villain, but when compared with the behaviour of a series of Governments he was a paragon of virtue. Their behaviour is partly accounted for by the fact that, in the main, we have no accumulated pension funds, with one generation of taxpayers paying the previous generation of pensioners. Prime Ministers and Chancellors of the Exchequer find it difficult to resist the temptation to renege on the promises made by the politicians who went before them. Whatever the reason, they should be ashamed of themselves because when they do that they are no better than an employer who just runs off with the pension scheme.

[John McDonnell]

In the representations that I have received, even when there is a pension fund, as with the teachers’ scheme, when they are desperately seeking revaluation and when it seems completely sustainable, members of the pension fund cannot understand the increased contributions and the shift from RPI to CPI. The accusation that is being made goes to the heart of my hon. Friend’s point about trust. These people feel that they have been mis-sold a pension scheme based on the information they were given by successive Governments about what they would receive in the end.

[Mr Crausby]

I think that members of the public have been mis-sold pension schemes over a generation by a series of Governments. It is about time that this House instructed its leadership to behave decently to pensioners. That is why I am trying to make the principled point that one Government should stick by the promises made by previous Governments. To effectively backdate the reduction in an individual’s pension throughout their entire life through this move on RPI and CPI must be completely unacceptable—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Lloyd]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s reminder that percentages can be a wee bit obscure and it is better to talk in absolute numbers. The 5.2% on the basic state pension equates to £5.30 a week. On the particular issue the hon. Gentleman raises about his constituent in the fire service, later on I have a specific question about the basic state pension that I will be putting to the Minister to get some real clarity, not just on percentages but on numbers.

For those on the basic state pension, £5.30 a week is a substantial amount. To raise the state pension by the largest amount ever at this time in the cycle, in such economically challenging times, is a good thing. I would certainly compare it, as a number of my hon. Friends have, with the 75p increase introduced X years ago by the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown).

The second bit of context concerns the restoration of the link to earnings. I know that there was a bit of to-ing and fro-ing earlier about that issue, but as the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby) reminded us, it was cut by Mrs Thatcher in the ’80s. I think it was a mistake then, but all these years later we have restored it. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, the previous Government had 13 years to restore it but did not do so. Whether he likes it or not, I believe he should give us credit for it. The restoration of the link to earnings is very important.

[John McDonnell]

During those 13 years, almost every year I tabled an amendment to the Budget to restore the link with earnings. Members of the hon. Gentleman’s party, and others, did not support it at the time.

[Stephen Lloyd]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me that information. I was not aware of it, but it does not surprise me in the slightest. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been a doughty fighter on this point for many years and it is a great shame that he was not able to persuade those on his Front Bench to act when they were in government. I heard earlier that perhaps all those things will change when he leads the Labour party, so I look forward to that day.

The triple lock, to pick up on what the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) said, is one of those things that are a bit confusing. What the hell does it mean, the triple lock, 2.5%? I understand that it is difficult to explain to people. I find it difficult to understand what it means, because I am not very good with percentages. Where are we coming from with phrases such as “triple lock”?

When my constituents ask what the triple lock really means, I tell them—forgive me; I am not trying to make a huge political point, but this is true in Eastbourne—that the 75p pension issue they were so furious about would not be possible under the triple-lock guarantee. We need to find the language and best way of putting across such points, and this one is very important.

I know that a few people want to speak and that the Minister will have a lot of details to cover, but there is one key issue that I have been mulling over for quite a while. I, like many hon. Members, get a lot of information from different sides of the divide. Some people say that they will lose tens of thousands because of the switch to CPI, whereas those on the other side of the argument say the figures are nowhere near that amount and will be x rather than y. To be honest, I am a bit confused.

As we are having this debate—again, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington for securing it—I want the Minister to answer one specific question, so that it has been asked in the Chamber and is in Hansard. Will he confirm today that combining the triple-lock guarantee, restoring the earnings link and benchmarking by CPI will mean that the basic state pension will, on the best estimates available over a 20-year period, be about £13,000 more than if we had simply retained RPI? I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that unambiguously so that the public can be confident, in one way or another, about what the changes mean. Will they be £13,000 better off? Yes or no?

--- Later in debate ---

[Katy Clark]

I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman about the wider economic impacts the changes are likely to have. Indeed, that was one of the points I was trying to make in last Thursday’s debate on the uprating of social security benefits and pensions. If the collective effect of some of these changes is that some of those on the lowest incomes and on modest incomes have less money in their pockets, that will have ramifications for the economies of constituencies such as his and mine. Unfortunately, my constituency is extremely reliant on the public sector because we still have not recovered from the decades of industrial decline and the closure of traditional industries in areas such as North Ayrshire. We are therefore over-reliant on the public sector and nothing that the Government are currently proposing looks likely to reverse that trend.

I believe the proposal is about cutting public expenditure and I do not accept that it is about the deficit. The Government’s position is that the policy will be a long-term one, not a short-term one for four years or so. At the beginning of this Parliament, the Government’s policy was that they would pay off the deficit within the Parliament, but if we look at the progress that has been made to date and the economic impact that their policies are having, we see that the growth and unemployment figures suggest that we will still be left with that deficit at the end of the Parliament.

I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) regarding opt-outs from public sector schemes. This is an important issue, particularly for those on low incomes. I have been provided with figures by the trade union Unison, as I believe have other Members, about the impact some of the changes will have on its members. These figures have been quoted in the House before and as far as I am aware they are accurate. Unison says that a woman receiving the average local government pension scheme pension for women of £2,600 a year would be £37 worse off this year and that a member—a man or a woman—receiving the average local government pension scheme pension of approximately £4,100 a year would be £58 worse off this year. It gives a further example of a woman on a median woman’s pension in the NHS pension scheme of approximately £3,500, who would be £49 worse off this year. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne indicated, there might be an element of offset so that if there are increases in the basic state pension and in other forms of benefit, some of those people might recover that money in other ways. However, going back to the example that the Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) gave, of someone on a public sector pension in the region of £10,000, I understand from what the Minister said in last week’s debate that such an individual would be unlikely to obtain equivalent sums in other ways and would be worse off as a result of the changes.

I am concerned about opt-outs and I would be grateful if the Minister addressed this issue today or on a later occasion, because there will be long-term consequences of these changes, particularly for public sector schemes. There is great concern, particularly regarding those on low incomes, that we might see far higher levels of people opting out of public sector schemes as a result of this policy. That will be compounded by people’s experiences over recent years with the financial crisis. As we know, there is a complete crisis of confidence in the financial institutions and in the ability of vehicles such as pensions adequately to provide for people or to provide any certainty for future years. That is one reason why changes such as this RPI/CPI change are so unhelpful: it contributes to the erosion of that confidence when people do not know what they are going to end up with. They think, “If they make this change now, perhaps they’ll come back again and try to erode the scheme further in future years.” For people on low incomes, particularly women, this is a big issue, and I would be grateful if the Minister responded to my points. I know that some figures were provided more than a year ago about the likely impact of these policies on opt-out rates and there was great concern that those figures might have been over-enthusiastic.

[John McDonnell]

There have been other surveys since then. The Fire Brigades Union surveyed its members and the results showed there was potential for 30% to opt out of the scheme, which would threaten its viability.

[Katy Clark]

Of course, firefighters are a relatively well-paid group compared with some of the other groups we are talking about. It might well be that 30% of firefighters do not opt out of the scheme but that they are thinking about it at the moment because they are so concerned about some of the changes being proposed. One point to consider with firefighters and others who work in occupations that rely heavily on physical exertion is that they may not have the choice of working for longer. Paramedics and firefighters have very physical jobs and for them working extra years to pay more into their pension pot is often not a realistic option.

Finally, we need to address the issue in a broader context. I was very interested to hear the comments of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin). I thought she was absolutely correct when she talked about the serious situation, with so few people having decent pensions to rely on. That is appalling. Her points about the retail prices index and the consumer prices index in relation to pensioners in particular were incredibly important. We know that housing costs are an issue, but council tax is also an issue for pensioners because they spend a far greater proportion of their income on council tax than others in the community. There is merit, then, in the GMB trade union’s suggestion that we consider what it calls a bespoke pensions index. We should perhaps explore that possibility more to compensate accurately and ensure that people enjoy pensions increases that mean that their living standards are not affected in real terms.

I want to make a broader political point about pensions. Many Government Members support this and speak about it regularly: we should be encouraging people to save for their retirement. We should not be encouraging people to have to rely on the state when they retire because their levels of income are so low that they are eligible for welfare benefits. Although we need a decent basic state pension that everybody can afford to live on, we should live in a society in which people are encouraged to save through occupational pension schemes, regardless of whether they work in the private or public sectors.

I was extremely relieved, therefore, that the Government decided to continue with Labour’s legislation on auto-enrolment, which sets out the framework for doing something about the chronic levels of under-pensioning, particularly in the private sector. However, if we keep changing the basis on which people think they are paying into pensions, we will erode faith in the pensions system. Those thinking about auto-enrolment may take that into account when making their decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing this debate. I recognise his sincerity and the consistency of his position on pensions over some time. I am also sure that his party—perhaps his party leader in particular—will have taken careful note of his desire to form the next Government, although he must forgive me if I do not immediately flock to his standard.

I draw attention to my statements of interests. I am chairman of the all-party group on occupational pensions and a deferred pensioner of the civil service pension scheme. That means, first, that I recognise the important differences between CPI and RPI, although everyone in the House should recognise that this is a fairly nerdy subject to most of the public, and, secondly, that I would personally benefit from the hon. Gentleman’s proposal to form the next Government if the reversion to RPI is the cornerstone of his policy platform. I suspect, however, that the increased costs of his forming the next Government would greatly outweigh any selfish benefit for me.

That takes us to the nub of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. Why the change? What are the consequences? Is his motion the right way forward? I will first tackle the change. The difference between CPI and RPI, and the change made by the Government, reflect the growing costs, particularly of public sector pensions. I can do no better than quote from the Hutton commission’s final report, in which Lord Hutton, a distinguished former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, wrote that

“between 1999-2000 and 2009-10 the…benefits paid from the five largest”

unfunded

“pension schemes increased by 32 per cent. This increase in costs was mainly driven by an increase in the number of pensioners, a result of the expansion of the public service workforce over the last four decades, longer life expectancy and the extension of pension rights for early leavers and women.”

That places in context the increases in Government spending and in the amount of taxpayers’ money spent on these pensions because all unfunded pension schemes are currently paid for directly from taxation.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is right that over time there will be a significant difference between the two rates of indexation—the Hutton commission estimated it at approximately 15%—and that that might reduce the pension benefits paid out to people previously accustomed to RPI. It is also worth mentioning, however, why CPI is a more appropriate index for pensions, and on this issue I can do no better than quote the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who said in 2003:

“The long-term credibility of our symmetrical target will be enhanced—as the independent Office for National Statistics reports in its paper published today—by adoption of the internationally recognised measure of inflation, the harmonised consumer prices index. It is more reliable because, taking account of spending by all consumers, this consumer prices index gives a better measure than the old”

retail prices index, because the spending patterns take

“better account of consumers substituting cheaper for more expensive goods.”—[Official Report, 10 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1062-3.]

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington did not say anything about that at the time the statement was made or in subsequent debate, although he might have had stronger feelings on the issue when it became more apparent that this would be applied to pensions.

[John McDonnell]

We need to be clear about what the then Chancellor introduced. He confirmed the measure of CPI for macro-economic policy with regard to comparisons across Europe. At that point, the intention was not to use it for pensions increases themselves, although a number of us said that if it was translated to the uprating of pensions or benefits, we would oppose it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

To be honest, I have no insights on the talks between the previous Labour Government and the unions at the time. However, with regard to what the previous Government said they could or would do, I am reminded of the earlier comments of the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby) about the Labour party’s commitment to reforming or restoring the link between pensions and earnings. I have to ask him and the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) how long a party can have a commitment to doing something without doing it and retaining any credibility. If my wife asked me to do something and I say that I am committed to doing it but some 13 years later I had done nothing about it, it would be hard for her to believe a word I said.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington rightly talked about the importance of trust in the long-term provision of pensions and of sticking to promises, but he was silent on this issue. I suspect that he agrees with me and would have preferred his party to have done something about its commitment rather than just talk about it.

[John McDonnell]

The hon. Gentleman must not have heard me. I was not silent on that issue; in an intervention I said that I supported the commitment. In fact, on an annual basis I proposed the restoration of the link with earnings. Eventually we secured a commitment from the previous Government that they would introduce the link no later than 2012. To be frank, that is what this Government have done to a certain extent. With regard to the GDP figures, the Hutton report sets out clearly the falling costs. On the point about the union negotiations, the hon. Gentleman will know, because the Secretary of State reported it, that in the last negotiations the unions accepted that any costs resulting from increasing longevity would be borne by increasing contributions, but they would not accept the shift from RPI to CPI.

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for confirming his position on the previous Government’s stance, which is what I had assumed it to be.

I have covered in some detail the question of why this change is being made and will now touch briefly on what the consequences will be before concluding with whether the motion is the right way forward. The hon. Gentleman referred to three consequences that cause him concern: first, pensioners will lose out; secondly, workers might leave the schemes; and thirdly, the fact that both those consequences would have a negative impact on social service expenditure.

It is of course true that those pensioners and future pensioners, such as myself, who would benefit from the retention of RPI as the index of inflation will lose out absolutely, but I do not believe that anyone involved will lose out relatively. It is important to realise that very few countries in Europe have defined benefit pension schemes at all. Most of us who will benefit as a result of being members of a public sector defined benefit scheme, such as myself, even if for only a few years, will still be much better off than most workers in the UK and Europe.

Above all, it is important to realise that the people who suffer the most in retirement are those who are not members of any pension scheme at all, those for whom the new pension scheme—the national employment savings trust—is intended to be of great use, and those who depend entirely on the basic state pension. In that context, it is relevant that the Government have done a considerable amount to help those who survive on the basic state pension partly through the triple-lock guarantee: the reversion to the link with earnings, a basic absolute increase of 2.5%, and the link to inflation. That is important and was referred to by Members who spoke earlier, including my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd).

It is important that the change to the basic state pension envisaged by the Government will also be of great benefit to workers and to almost all women who work part time in order to bring up their children and will save considerably on the administrative costs of having two current basic state pension schemes, one of which, the means-tested one, has in my view had a discriminatory impact on those people whom the hon. Member for Bolton North East rightly referred to when he said that some of his constituents with a small amount of savings might be no better off than those with no savings at all. It is important that the Government remove that difference so that we can establish once and for all the principle that those who save will always be better off. I know that that is what the Minister is driving towards and very much hope that we will be able to achieve that goal, that we can state it with confidence and that our constituents will be able to believe it before the end of this Parliament.

I do not believe that the consequences of the changes will be as drastic as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington claimed they would be. I reject the argument that the change is principally about contributing to the Government’s efforts to bring down the budget deficit. In fact, I do not think that it will make any difference to the budget deficit in the short term. I also reject the idea that our most vulnerable workers will suffer, because the most vulnerable workers are those who are not on defined benefit schemes and survive purely on the basic state pension. I applaud the fact that the Government have been generous to those of my constituents who are on that scheme. Instead, I believe that the long-term savings to be had from the change will hugely benefit all our constituents. First, they will reduce the amount of interest currently paid on our vast mountain of debt—£120 million a day—which is money that could much better be spent on education, health and other good causes.

Secondly, if those businesses that have defined benefit schemes are able to change the index from RPI to CPI, they will increase their chances of surviving, growing and providing jobs for our constituents, and that is important, because many smaller businesses that have been going for about 100 years in my constituency are engineering companies that do not have great, specific investment skills, and the money that they are spending to top up their defined benefit pension scheme is being spent often at the cost of growing their business, of establishing more investment in their factories and of providing more jobs for my constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

I was alluding to the FBU’s response to the judgment. I apologise if I have misled the Minister in that regard.

It is worth noting that significant changes to public sector pensions were negotiated with the trade union side by the previous Labour Government. Those changes recognised some of the issues that have been highlighted about people living longer, which is genuinely a good thing, and about affordability. The trade unions demonstrated a genuine desire to reach an accommodation that was fair and just. The response to the switch to CPI that I am hearing says that it is an enforced settlement that is not fair or just.

[John McDonnell]

In order that nobody misleads the House whatsoever, let me quote from the judgment. Judge Elias said:

“There can be no doubt that the immediate driving force behind the change from RPI to CPI was the need to secure cuts in the welfare budget.”

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, as I did not have the judgment to hand. I am sure that the Minister will have taken note. [Hon. Members: “That was a dissenting judge.”] Even so, it is a fairly radical criticism of the justification for this change, and the Government would do well to take note of it from such a learned source.

The TUC’s general secretary, Brendan Barber, has said of the general pensions crisis:

“The real pension crisis in the UK is the retreat by employers from providing pensions in the private sector”—

that point has been acknowledged by Government Members—

“and the big unexpected looming bill for tax-payers is the cost of means-tested benefits for the millions let down by their employers.”

That is another reference to the issue of false economy, which the whole House should take into consideration. There are risks in implementing this strategy. If we try to balance the books now on the basis of future payouts to pensioners, we may well be storing up costs for the future as people decide to opt out of pensions altogether. That would mean that when they retired they qualified for means-tested benefits, so the cost to the Exchequer would be higher.

In the private sector, large numbers of pensioners are already starting to feel the pinch from these moves.

[John McDonnell]

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again, but as hon. Members said from a sedentary position, “That was a dissenting judge”, let me quote a second judge, who said that he accepted the submission of Mr Beloff QC for the Police Negotiating Board claimants on the basis that, on any fair reading of the evidence, the need for deficit reduction was the driver and that the other merits of CPI were essentially deployed in order publicly to justify the switch.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful for that point of clarification. By my arithmetic, that makes two judges out of three, which is a majority.

That strengthens the argument that the Government should at least be honest that this measure is not designed around fairness but is placing the cost of deficit reduction, or cuts in public expenditure—whatever terminology one uses—on to public sector pensioners instead of looking for an alternative. As my hon. Friends have said, there is a simple alternative. The case for more cuts to pensions and public services has now been lost on the back of evidence that growth in our economy has been falling for two years and unemployment continues to rise. The Chancellor himself has indicated that we are borrowing £158 billion more than he originally anticipated. We need to offer people security in their jobs and in their retirement.

The case put forward by Conservative Members, in particular—notably yesterday in a Westminster Hall debate—for rolling back workers’ rights, as well as slashing pensions, was this week shown the red card by the Bank of England in an evidence session in a House Committee. No less a person than Sir Mervyn King said that making it easier for companies to sack staff would make no difference to his economic forecasts. Instead, we need to get the economy growing. We should be creating jobs to boost the economy, giving people job and pension security. From the perspective of the economy, the bonus—I am not referring to bankers’ bonuses, because I do not think that those should be paid—is that that is more likely to cut the deficit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby) indicated, many pensioners use that money directly in the local economy. Reducing pensions has an immediate negative effect in local economies and the national economy. To argue otherwise is disingenuous and, indeed, nonsense. Cutting jobs and pensions will damage the economy now and in the future. What is worse, it will increase the deficit.

Like elsewhere in national policy, my view is that the Government have it wrong on this issue. We should be investing in housing and public transport. We should be looking at the issues that Labour has set out in its five-point plan for jobs and growth. Given the news this week about tax avoidance and evasion, I think that we should be taking measures on that issue. I welcome the fact that the Government have closed one particular loophole, so that Barclays and others will have to pay their fair share of tax and not be able to dodge it. However, the Government are penalising pensioners before even asking about the millions that Vodafone is refusing to pay in taxes on the profits that it made from activities in this country. That is an absolute disgrace.

In conclusion, the House should support the motion and send the message to the Government that their priorities are at best mixed up and at worst explicitly wrong. We should value the pensions that take care of our ageing population, and we should not put people off saving for their future.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I am grateful to all who have contributed to the debate. I think that it has been incredibly constructive, and a credit to the House.

The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) displayed her experience of these matters, but I do not agree with her. She criticised the CPI, but argued that it was about the best we have. Not even the Government accept that—they are undertaking a review of the CPI in order to install the housing costs that we have argued should be included in it. Within two years, or perhaps one, they will produce their report, and the system will change again. In the meantime, however, people will lose out as a result of the removal of the RPI link. I believe that although the hon. Lady was clear in her defence of the CPI for the moment, she acknowledged the need for change at a later date.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby) hit the nail on the head: this is a matter of trust. People were told that if they contributed to a pension scheme, they would receive a certain defined benefit. It is no good the Minister’s saying that they should have looked at the scheme rules, because in leaflet after leaflet and in scheme after scheme, they were told that they would be protected by the RPI. It is almost like a dodgy car salesman saying “You didn’t look at the hire purchase agreement in sufficient detail.” My hon. Friend mentioned Maxwell, and that resonates in this context.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) mentioned the calculations that would need to be verified. As was explained earlier, according to one calculation someone with a £10,000 pension would lose out, because he or she would not even gain as a result of the other measures.

There are two issues. We expect the changes in the state pension to improve matters, but that improvement should not be at the cost of people’s employment pensions. It is not acceptable to wrap the two together as if they would be of some benefit to people with employment pensions, because those people will lose out whatever happens. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) rightly pointed out, the long-term prospect is that some people will give up on their pension schemes and will not contribute, and as a result the viability of some pension schemes will be at risk.

Today’s debate smacks of the debate that took place many years ago about the link with earnings. People now regret the breaking of that link, because it led to the erosion of the state pension over the years. Unless the Government’s decision is reversed, the same despair and anger will be expressed in 20 years’ time.

The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) spoke eloquently about the need for sustainability, and he was exactly right. We must ensure that pension schemes are sustainable. Most contributory schemes are, and we must ensure that state-funded schemes are as well. That means ensuring that contributions are made, both through tax—a fair taxation system means tackling evasion and avoidance, so that there is a sufficient amount in the Exchequer—and from scheme members themselves. The unions have made it clear that if the costs increase because of the increasing longevity of their members, they will be willing to pay more, but not to subsidise the Treasury.

My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) presented his assessment of the Government’s decision in his usual honest and extremely thoughtful manner. He said it was about placing the burden of the deficit and the economic crisis on the pensioner rather than on the tax avoider and tax evader, and I entirely agree with him.

The hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) was entertaining as always, and irrelevant as always. [Interruption.] I do not wish to be too cruel to him, but the fact is that we are not debating the Labour party’s pension fund. That is a debate for another day and, possibly, another Back Bencher’s application.

We are debating a serious matter. As we have pointed out time and again, firefighters will lose between £25,000 and £50,000 as a result of these changes, and the Forces Pension Society has emphasised that some former military personnel who were injured in action will lose up to £200,000. As the Minister said, the Secretary of State has the right to set any indexation level in law, but I think there is a moral obligation to abide by the commitment given over decades that the link should be with RPI, because the link with CPI will undermine the pensions that people are paid.

The issue of retrospection was raised. People feel that they are having their pensions cut retrospectively.

There will be a debate about what is the appropriate index. My view is that CPI is not the right index. I urge the Government to introduce the reforms to CPI as rapidly as possible. Pensioners face the threat of losing significant sums of money. They must not do so.

The judgment in the courts was very clear. The objective of—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he is supposed to be speaking for only a few minutes, but he has now been speaking for about eight minutes. I will therefore be very grateful if he completes his remarks.

[John McDonnell]

This is an important debate, but I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The judges made their view very clear. The Government’s motivation is to do with deficit reduction and cuts, not which inflation measure should be adopted. The Government are placing the burden of the cuts on pensioners. Pensioners will never forgive them for that.

Question put.

Welfare Reform Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb]

I reiterate the point that my Front Benchers have made: there are not many people in my constituency earning £35,000 a year before tax who are in receipt of housing benefit. That is the crucial difference. The average wage in my constituency is £23,000.

People say, “Are we in touch with the general public?” When I was appointed to the Bill Committee on this proposal, I held three public meetings in my constituency, and one message came through loud and clear: “Why on earth are you going to put in a cap of £26,000?” I think that the cap can be justified, because the Government are taking into account the needs of people throughout the country, not just those in my constituency and those in a low-wage economy such as Wales—a low-wage economy, dare I say it, that has suffered badly from continued Labour party rule for the past 80 years.

The big issue is that we are bringing forward a proposal. If the Opposition were serious, they would also bring forward costed proposals, but we do not have that. We have platitudes and excuses to try for tactical purposes to defend the party position. Ultimately, in this measure, we are proposing a benefits cap, trying to ensure that people see that work does pay and protecting the disabled and people who are in work, and this proposal, in the absence of anything else from the Opposition, is a proposal that we should support.

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

May I just make it clear that I oppose a benefit cap in principle? This policy has been borne out of prejudice and political expediency, rather than reason. In every recession there are scapegoats, and it is usually the poor, who become a political football for political game-playing and advantage. I am not morally willing to involve myself in that debasing political game.

We all have to bring our own experiences of our constituents to this debate, which has exposed differences in their lifestyles, and at times it has been apparent that we do live in different worlds. I do not begrudge Members and their constituents who are in good, well-paid employment, a secure home that they can afford and a decent environment, but that is not the experience of many of my constituents, or of many constituents throughout the country.

I have lived in my constituency for about 35 years, and I live in statistically the most deprived ward in the borough. The vast majority of people whom I see around me desperately want to do what is needed to ensure that their families have a good quality of life. They pay back into the community in many ways, they work long hours often in insecure employment and their pay, in many instances, is low and often below the London living wage.

The risk is unemployment, which over recent years in my constituency has increased by 52%, and over the past year by 7%, so there will be times when many of my constituents will not be able to find work. They struggle, above all else, just to provide a decent roof over their family’s heads, and that is because we face the worst housing crisis since the second world war. Housing supply has not kept up with housing demand, council houses that were sold off in the 1980s and ’90s have not been replaced by successive Governments, and there has been an expansion in buy-to-let, higher-rent-charging landlords, who provide many of my constituents with squalid housing conditions and overcrowding—Rachmanite landlords, who are building up lucrative property empires.

[Robert Flello]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if a tenant complains, those landlords kick them out?

[John McDonnell]

Some Members will have seen recent television programmes that relate to my constituents and to Rachmanite landlords. It has not happened overnight; I blame what has happened over the past 30 years. So what is the logic of the cap for my constituents. Is it an incentive to secure work? The vast majority need no incentive; they are desperate for work. Yes, there is a small minority who will always refuse to seek work, but there are already sanctions for that, introduced by this and the last Government. I already have constituents turning up at my surgery who have been automatically suspended from benefits for three months for the slightest infringement, and they include many who suffer mental health problems or who simply cannot work through the system themselves.

Remploy

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2011 Westminster Hall

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

The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) said that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) changed the tone of the debate. He did, because he made me bloody—sorry; pardon me, Chair—furious about the discussion. I have worked on this issue since I served on the first Committee on Restrictions against Disabled People when I worked for the TUC in the 1980s. That committee tackled discrimination against people with disabilities. I have met Remploy workers since that time. I have met no Remploy worker who is ashamed of working for Remploy and who feels that he or she is receiving charity. I have met no Remploy worker who has lower ambitions than anyone else in the rest of society. Most of the workers I have met are proud of working for the company, proud of earning a living and proud of supporting their families. It is a disgrace to try to depict them in any other way, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne implied.

The debate around supported employment that I have been involved in over the past 30 years is based on two issues. One concerns the integrationist debate. When I served on CORAD, I was a forceful integrationist, both in terms of employment and education. I was concerned about separate provision. Over time, one becomes a pragmatist. In reality, without the Remploy factories, as we have seen from the redundancies, large numbers of people would be unemployed. The redundancies prove that point: 80% of the 3,000 who have been made redundant in the past three years are now unemployed. They did not find alternative employment, despite all the commitments to identify alternative employment, training and support. As far as I am concerned, there will always be a role for supported employment in some form.

The second issue concerns how we sustain such employment and asks whether supported employment should stand on its own feet, be profit-making and require no support from the state. That will never do. It will always require, at some stage, a subsidy through direct income from the state or through public procurement. That is the reality. Otherwise, it means putting 2,500 people on the dole. Members here today have made very explicit what will happen in their constituencies. With 2.5 million people on the dole, those people will never see work in the lost decade that we face. We must face up to that.

[Mr Joe Benton in the Chair]

Where do we go from here? We simply listen to the workers themselves. It is no use saying that these are hoary old arguments of a decade ago. They are old arguments, because no one listened then about the appalling management that was going on. There have been 40 consultants crawling over the business during the past few years. We think that anything between £5 million and £15 million has been used to employ consultants to come up with ideas, but no one has listened to the workers. Phil Davies and Les Woodward have done a fantastic job on behalf of the GMB, as has Jennie Formby on behalf of Unite. They have worked with Remploy workers to bring forward their alternative strategy, which identified a range of issues that Members have raised this afternoon: cut management costs, increase localised marketing, end centralisation, get consultants off people’s backs and let Remploy members make their companies as profitable as they possibly can. That is all they are asking for; it is called worker involvement and worker control. The Government say they may look at mutualisation and co-operatives. I quite like the idea of a co-operative approach, but I do not want it to be used as an excuse for cutting people adrift from public subsidy or the commitment of existing European legislation to encourage public procurement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) has demonstrated what can be done at local level by touring public agencies and ensuring that contracts are won. It is that simple; it is about listening to Remploy workers, and not patronising them but working with them and getting off their backs.

I am fearful. This debate is not about the theories behind integration and separation; it is a fight for 54 factories that are about to close unless we have a change of attitude from the Government. The Government response to the Sayce report was to go at that report, which effectively means cutting those factories adrift, and if they cannot stand on their own two feet, they wither on the vine. That is the reality of this debate.

I conclude with a quote from a Remploy worker—such quotes are moving statements from people and human lives that have been put at risk. Kevin Davies has cerebral palsy and has worked at a production plant in Baglan for 21 years. He says:

“I have a role to play and I enjoy being here…I am working with nice people and there is an end product to my work. It has given me a quality of life and independence…Without Remploy I would be stuck in the house. Without it, where would I be?”

He would be unemployed and stuck at home like many of our constituents who are experiencing unemployment as a result of the redundancies so far. This is a fight for those factories, and if the workers want to fight with whatever means possible—industrial action; occupation—and we cannot persuade the Government to reconsider, I will be joining them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman asks a very detailed question. He knows that we have not yet made the decision about the way forward. A significant amount of money is available to support disabled people. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne talked about the Access to Work programme, which he rightly said is exceptionally effective. The Sayce report clearly says that if decisions are made about the prioritisation of the available money, more money—significant amounts of money—could be yielded to support Access to Work. That could well be the sort of support that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Swansea West would want.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Maria Miller]

Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me if I make some progress? He and others have raised a lot of points, and I want to be able to deal with them.

The chairman’s annual report confirms that, last year, on average, half Remploy’s factory employees had little or no work to do and that the operating results for the factories have been significantly out of line with the modernisation plan. The perception that Remploy has turned work away is, I am afraid, simply unfounded. Some bids have been unsuccessful because they do not have the required capability or capacity in the factories, and sometimes Remploy has been outbid on price.

The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley talked about the order books being strong. The simple truth is that, even at full capacity, the factories are still making large losses, which demonstrates that the business model is wrong. That is why I asked Liz Sayce to review not only Remploy, but the specialist disability employment programmes that we have available.

The annual report also confirmed that Remploy employment services have been able to secure 20,000 job outcomes in the past year at a one-off unit cost of £3,300 per job. We should absolutely applaud that. Remploy employment services have been making great headway for many thousands of disabled people. I should like that to be recognised in this debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne talked about alternative support for disabled people, particularly Access to Work. I absolutely understand his support for that programme, which has great potential if we have the funding available to support it. We should all be pleased that there are opportunities in all our constituencies for Remploy employment services to help disabled people into employment through the work that it does with organisations such as Asda, BT, Marks and Spencer, Sainsbury’s, Tesco, McDonald’s, the Royal Mail and the NHS. That has been its achievement over the past 12 months; indeed, results of a similar magnitude are predicted for the next 12 months.

I shall talk briefly about some of the specific points raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) asked whether I would consider the consortium of trade unions plan. Absolutely. I will look at all the plans that have been put to us. I am particularly interested in the trade unions’ approach. The Secretary of State and I have made it very clear that we would be delighted for the trade unions to propose ways that they want to work with us to free the factories from Government control and to ensure that they can have a successful future. We will always be open to thoughts being given to us on that front.

The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) talked about the involvement of the workers in the Ashington factory in his constituency. It is absolutely to be commended that the workers in that factory are involved in building a success of the business. There are 27 people in the Ashington factory, but I remind him that there are more than 10,000 disabled people in his constituency. I want to ensure that more of those people get the sort of support that they need, so that we can ensure that they are not only in employment, but reaching their potential in life.

The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East raised a number of incredibly important points. He and I have had long and, for me, useful discussions about his experience in this area. His main point was the importance of ensuring more local control and autonomy for the factories. He is very much echoing the Sayce review in saying that, if we are to drive effectiveness and have a successful network of factories in the future, it might be useful to consider enabling people such as the manager whom he talked about to have more autonomy. Again, there are 19 people at the factory in his constituency, where more than 15,000 disabled people live. I want to ensure that more help is available for them to be able to succeed in their lives and secure jobs that they can do.

The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) talked about the fact that it pays to care. Again, he and I are as one on that. He talked about the importance of ensuring that people who are subject to changes in their jobs are looked after. For the record, some 1,809 redundancies were put in place by the previous Administration. The figures seem to have got jumbled up over time, so I thought it would be useful for hon. Members to have the facts. Some 1,611 of those people were disabled. Indeed, when we consider the facts and figures, we can see that just under 40% of those individuals took early retirement. Some 252 people took modernisation terms and continue to be in employment elsewhere. Of those people who took the support on offer, some 70% found work. The problem was that not enough people took that offer of support. That is the learning from the previous modernisation plans that were put in place.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was very critical of the previous Administration in his comments. I would not be so critical. I think that they were trying to do the right thing.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister be clear about the future before she finishes? She says that she accepts the Sayce report. The Sayce report says that Remploy enterprises will be given six months to prepare a business plan and then 24 months to implement it, by which time all subsidy will be withdrawn. So there will be no subsidy within two years of the implementation of a business plan. Is that what the Government are saying?

[Maria Miller]

No, that is not what the Government are saying. The Government are still consulting on the Sayce review, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware. I have said that we are minded to accept these things, and as we move forward, we might or might not accept proposals in that report. We may accept them piecemeal or in their entirety. That is yet to be decided, so he will have to bear with me—as I am sure that he is willing to do—for a little while longer, so that we go through the proper processes with all these things.

The hon. Member for Swansea West—I see that he is not in his place—talked about there perhaps being problems with recruitment. Yes, indeed, because of the austerity that we are under at the moment, controls on new Government recruitment are in place. Owing to its non-departmental public body status, Remploy is covered by those controls, but I absolutely assure hon. Members in the Chamber today that since the austerity measures came into force, Remploy has successfully applied for exemptions through this process, where requests have been approved, to ensure that we can continue commercial operations. There are absolute safeguards in place to ensure that the business can continue in the way that it needs to.

The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley mentioned expensive consultants. She and I have a joint dread of the idea of having expensive consultants in place. I assure her that since austerity measures have been introduced, Remploy has not used consultants. I cannot speak for the previous Administration, but that is something that we feel very strongly about.

The hon. Member for Wrexham talked about when financial information will be available. As I have already made clear, no decision has been made on the recommendations of the Sayce review to date, so it would not be appropriate or possible for me at this stage to release financial information on a decision that is yet to be taken. We have to ensure that we adhere to the right proprieties. He would expect us to do that as a Government, and I assure him that, as soon as decisions are made, the appropriate information will be forthcoming for anybody who is interested in that detail.

The Remploy pension scheme has been mentioned. To assure individuals who may be concerned about comments that have been made about that, the Government have promised to protect fully the accrued benefits of pension scheme members in the event that the pension scheme were to close following the implementation of the Sayce review recommendations. It is an unfortunate fact that we have identified a £104.6 million deficit in the valuation of the pension scheme, which we inherited. A deficit repayment plan has been put in place, which is important because we want to ensure that both employees and pension scheme trustees are confident in the propriety of the finances of the scheme. Payments of £7.4 million, £25.8 million and £21.5 million have already been made into the scheme, which shows the commitment that this Government have, in tough economic times, to ensuring that we stand by our obligations and our commitments to Remploy staff.

I want to ensure that the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley who secured the debate has a few minutes at the end to sum up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady has raised the issue of bonuses before. I think I can remember either writing to her or perhaps replying in detail. It is vital that any business is run in a proper way. As an incoming Government, 18 months ago we took over a set of commitments that the previous Administration had put in place. That included many things including not only the modernisation plan, but the issue of bonuses for senior managers at Remploy. The performance incentive payments in the annual report—the statement made this year—relate back to 2009-10. The executive directors are contractually entitled to those payments, but, unfortunately, those contracts predate this Administration. The hon. Lady may know that there are legal issues that we have to be aware of. The Department has no power to limit bonuses, but from 2010-11 all Remploy’s executive team and senior managers have agreed to cap their bonuses in line with the senior civil service bonus cap. That was a particular request made by the Secretary of State, so that we can ensure that there is some—[Interruption.]

[John McDonnell]

Are they getting a bonus? Even though they are failing, are they getting a bonus?

[Maria Miller]

As the hon. Gentleman has just heard me say, his Government put those contracts in place. [Interruption.] Sorry, Mr Benton, I was not giving way.

Benefits Uprating

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Commons Chamber

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

Many of my constituents may well have welcomed the increase, but they cannot because they are no longer receiving their benefit, particularly as a result of the extremely bizarre assessments of their disability by Atos—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for having to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I do not know what has come over the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). He is normally the very model of restraint, good manners and kindness to all things human and animal, and I am sure that he will recover his poise, but I want to hear the hon. Gentleman’s question; if he wants to start it again, he can.

[John McDonnell]

Many of my constituents would have welcomed the increase but they cannot because they are no longer receiving their benefit, particularly as a result of the Atos assessments of disability living allowance. In addition to that, having lost, or not gained, their benefit, they are waiting long periods for their appeals. Will the Minister look at the length of time that people are waiting for their appeals and the number of appeals that have been postponed as a result of lack of staff?

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Gentleman is bringing together several different issues. It is entirely the case that at the time of the election the previous Government had given Atos a contract for the work capability assessment for ESA—not DLA—and we have gone through with the Harrington process, independent reviews and recommendations for change, all implemented by the Government. Good progress is being made on making the system fit for purpose, but getting the decision right first time is better than speeding up the appeals process, and we are doing that more and more because we are reforming the system.

Welfare Reform Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move amendment 53, page 52, line 21, leave out clause 69.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 39, page 52, line 22, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

‘(1) Section 138(1)(b) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (discretionary payments out of Social Fund) may be repealed, if the Secretary of State—

(a) publishes a detailed proposal for a replacement scheme, or schemes, based on wide consultation with relevant stakeholders;

(b) ensures that such a scheme, or schemes, will provide financial protection for applicants in an emergency or crisis, with the eligibility criteria for applicants specified in regulations;

(c) demonstrates the feasibility of such a scheme, or schemes, through a pilot or pathfinder process; and

(d) demonstrates how an independent appeals mechanism will be implemented.’.

Amendment 40, page 52, line 24, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

‘(2) In consequence of the provision in subsection (1), the office of the social fund commissioner may be abolished.’.

Amendment 54, page 128, line 28, leave out Schedule 8.

[John McDonnell]

Amendment 53 relates to the abolition of the social fund and addresses a number of the concerns that Members raised on Second Reading and in Committee.

The Government propose to abolish key elements of the social fund—the community care grants and the crisis loans—and to replace them with support through local authorities. The social fund, particularly the crisis loan, is critical to many Members in representing their constituents. That is the case not only in my constituency but across the country. These mechanisms support people in desperate need and at key times in their lives, and they are safety nets when people are facing essential expenditure that they cannot meet. My concern is that many organisations have made representations to the Government, Committee members and Members of the House urging that the social fund should not be abolished without robust and effective alternatives put in its place. The proposal should certainly be fully explored and tested before any change is made.

Social funds have been critical. The numbers of recipients of social funds and of applications demonstrate their importance. In 2009-10, there were 640,000 applications for community care grants, 3.64 million for crisis loans and 1.69 million for budgeting loans. Some 263,000 CCGs were awarded, 2.7 million crisis loans were awarded, and 1.2 million budgeting loans were awarded, so the expenditure was significant. They have a significant impact on individuals’ lives and in tackling poverty across the country. Some £139 million was spent on CCGs, £109 million net was spent on crisis loans, and £482 million gross on budgeting loans. This is therefore a large-scale activity that is vital to the most vulnerable and poorest members of our society. Even at this level of expenditure, however, the Public Accounts Committee concluded, having investigated CCGs, that only 32% of legitimate demand was being met.

I am extremely pleased that the Department for Work and Pensions is retaining budgeting loans and advance loans for alignment payments. However, I and many Members and voluntary organisations working in this field are unclear about what will replace the crisis loans and the CCGs. I am gravely concerned about the proposals to transfer responsibility to local authorities, which will be expected to design their own schemes for emergency support. Those responsibilities are being transferred at a time when local authority budgets are being cut. My understanding is that the funding will not be ring-fenced. In their consultation, the Government suggested that local authorities could also meet some of the demands with payments in kind—food parcels and second-hand furniture were mentioned as examples. I am also concerned that without clear guidance councils might be able unilaterally to introduce and force new conditions on those applying for emergency support.

I tabled the amendment because of the real danger that we will now be faced with numerous schemes being developed by local authorities, and that vulnerable people will lose this essential support. I am concerned that if the funding to local authorities is not ring-fenced, it will be diverted to other priorities.

Let me give the example of what happened to the playbuilder grant in my area. I chair the local play association, which I also helped to set up. When the ring fence was lifted, the Government initially sought to withdraw elements of the second year of the scheme. I am grateful that the Secretary of State for Education reinstated them and returned significant amounts to local authorities, which was a real breakthrough. However, because the money was not ring-fenced, much of it unfortunately appears to have been diverted into other areas of council expenditure, rather than going to improve play for children. That is just one example, from the most recent period, of funds that were not ring-fenced being allocated to local authorities and then spent for purposes other than those that the Government had intended. The Minister has agreed that allocations will be based on social fund spending, which will be regularly reviewed and the data updated. However, my concern is that if money is not ring-fenced in the first stages, it will be creamed off in the early years to be spent elsewhere.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

We in Scotland have had four years’ experience of the removal of ring-fencing, supposedly to free up local authorities. I would be interested to hear my hon. Friend’s comments on our experience. Now that the ring fence has been removed, it is difficult to track what is happening to funds such as the supporting people fund, which give people valuable low-level support.

[John McDonnell]

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me: I forgot about the experience in Scotland. What she describes is a classic example of what could happen. I am quite fearful, because I have been a councillor and I know about the pressures on local authorities when they expend their resources. If there are no clear guidelines or statutory duties placed on the authorities, elements of expenditure that the Government might have allocated with the best of intentions might not be spent in the way that the Government would want.

I am fearful that if people lose access to the scale of emergency support they currently draw on, their alternative will be to go to higher-cost lenders such as loan sharks, thereby falling into greater debt. Even in advance of the reforms, we have already had a number of pawnbrokers opening up in the town centre in my area, with the local citizens advice bureau reporting increased evidence of the use of loans from loan sharks. A number of organisations have expressed their concern that having numerous different local schemes could mean that we end up with—I do not like this phrase—a postcode lottery of access to life’s necessities, as a result of the loans not being distributed coherently and consistently. I am also concerned that local authorities seem not to have been given any guidelines or directives about establishing an appeals mechanism. Unless an appeals mechanism is set up, claimants will not have the security of being able to challenge decisions made locally.

I would therefore urge the Government not to abolish or wind down the social fund without giving an absolutely clear commitment about what will replace it. If emergency support is to be localised, we need strong, unambiguous and extremely clear statutory duties placed on local authorities to support vulnerable people, and for those duties to be attached specifically to such funding. I urge the Government to think again about ring-fencing, so that the money cannot be diverted away from the poor. The social fund commissioner proposed that the Government consider establishing national criteria for the schemes to be drawn up by local authorities, to ensure consistency in the use of local discretion. It would still be possible to reflect local circumstances, but national parameters would be set on the use of that discretion. I am also concerned that the devolution of emergency support services might create high administrative costs—this has been mentioned by a number of organisations, including Age UK and the Disability Alliance—which might divert funds away from provision for the poorest.

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with interest. Would he like to comment on the observation made in the evidence that we received on the Public Bill Committee that the distribution of such loans nationally is very uneven in any event, despite a national body administering them? On that basis, would there not be some merit in distributing funds to local authorities on a needs basis?

[John McDonnell]

I appreciate that argument, but there is a difference between having a national system and having a complete free-for-all at the local level. There is a midway point, which would involve the Government setting clear criteria and guidelines, backed up with statutory force, so that when the changes are introduced locally, funds are not diverted but go to people who need them, and local authorities do not face high administrative costs. What I am searching for is Government action to reach a compromise and achieve a balance between national distribution and local distribution, thereby avoiding a free-for-all.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s generosity in giving way, but I would query what he is describing. Would it not go against the ethos of the Localism Bill, which is about trusting authorities with the responsibility to do what is right for their areas, and trusting the electorate to keep them in check so that they do just that?

[John McDonnell]

I understand, and, coming from a local government background—both as a councillor and as a local government officer—I very much support the localist agenda of freeing up local authorities to do as much as they can to reflect the direct wishes of the local electorate. However, we are talking about people in severe poverty, and one of the overall duties of government at every level is to ensure that people in our communities are not put at risk as a result of that poverty. Therefore, there is a danger in the localist agenda, which I support, of allowing a free-for-all. Without establishing national standards and monitoring, we could have a number of local authorities failing to fulfil their responsibilities as we would wish. Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the local electorate should hold those authorities to account, we have unfortunately had numerous examples—I speak as an advocate of local government—of that mechanism for keeping local authorities in check not being effective, particularly on the detail of administering such schemes. I am sure that we can all cite examples of that on a cross-party basis, no matter who has been in control.

I am not talking about just my individual concerns. Virtually every organisation dealing with the poor in this country has expressed its concerns about this element of the legislation. My local citizens advice bureau has provided me with numerous examples—which I will not take the House through—of the benefits of both social loans, particularly crisis loans, and community care grants. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Heather Brown, director of the Hillingdon CAB, and all her team for their hard work. They have emphasised the need to explore all the implications locally and nationally before the Government leap into a new system.

Shelter and Crisis, the housing charities, have undertaken their own assessments of the process. Crisis surveyed 250 of its housing advisers. Numerous Members across all parties work closely with Crisis, and we have the greatest of respect for its work. That survey showed that 69% of clients used crisis loans for rent in advance, with 87% using them to help furnish their properties. In its briefing, which many Members will have seen, Crisis quotes one person as saying that unless we have a system that is at least as effective as the social fund, the effect on efforts to get people to move into independent accommodation would be “catastrophic”. Anxieties have been expressed across the board about the fact that we have not yet had that assurance.

I am concerned about the lack of analysis in the Government’s proposals of people’s needs. There is also a lack of detail on how the proposals will work. My worry is that poor and vulnerable people will be put at risk as a result. It therefore behoves us as a House in discussing this Bill, as well as the Government, to come forward rapidly with detailed proposals that have statutory backing, in order to assure our constituents and all those working in the field that we will have a system to provide emergency support to people who are poor and vulnerable, but not one in which local decision making risks diverting those resources away from where they are needed. It is on that basis that I have tabled this amendment for discussion. I hope that, as a result of this debate, we will at least gain a clear understanding of how the Government are going to address these issues—and address them fairly urgently—given that they are causing considerable concern.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on the way in which he has introduced this group of amendments. His amendments and those tabled in my name cover much the same ground. Like him, I am deeply concerned that the Government propose to remove the discretionary element of the social fund without giving us a great deal more clarity about how the poorest and most vulnerable will be protected, about the adequacy of the replacement system, about the protection of vulnerable people without a local connection—a matter to which I shall return in a moment—and about the lack of a proper system of review. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the numbers involved are significant, with 640,000 applications for community care grants and 3.6 million applications for crisis loans. We are not talking about a modest amount of money, and those figures represent a great deal of need. He also suggested that they represent only the tip of the iceberg of need. Of course we accept that there cannot be unlimited capacity to meet need, and it is clear that, were more resources to be made available, more need would come out and be met.

I want to pick up on a point that my hon. Friend made in response to an intervention. Despite the numbers of people who apply for and receive loans and grants under the discretionary grant, and the fact that when local government takes on this responsibility it will be accountable, in the spirit of localism, to its electors, we must recognise that the characteristics of people who seek assistance from the social fund do not make them a cohort of people that is likely to influence local politicians on a significant scale. This will tie into comments that I will make in a moment about what we should do with people with no local connection.

All the evidence that I and my hon. Friends have received from our law centres, citizens advice bureaux and other organisations shows that the claimants of discretionary social fund elements are very likely to be highly mobile people in a crisis that frequently severs their connections to the local community. They are not likely to be over-represented among those on the electoral register, or to wield a significant amount of local clout. They would not always need to do that; a good, responsive local authority will map and respond to their needs without it, but the reality is that, in a competition for scarce resources, that will not always be true of all local authorities.

We are completing the stages of the Welfare Reform Bill today, having been asked to make decisions on a number of important elements, which we discussed on Monday and are debating today, without having been given a great deal of substance or detail about how those elements will work. The Government called for evidence on the discretionary element of the social fund in February, but the consultation did not close until we were in the middle of the Bill’s Committee stage. That worries me. Yet again, the Government seem to be pushing ahead with their proposals even though we have not had a proper opportunity to reflect on the breadth of views and opinions of people with experience of and expertise in the subject.

The Minister might care to report to the House on what the responses to the consultation actually said. It would be nice if she assured us that all the responses would be placed in the Library. I think I can guess, however, that their overwhelming tone will be one of deep disquiet, and that they will be urging the Government to think again, which is consistent with the principles outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. As he said, almost all the organisations with expertise and specialist knowledge in the operation of the social fund have told the Government of their worries. Let us take note of who they are. They include: Age UK; the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services; Barnardo’s; the Child Poverty Action Group; Citizens Advice; Community Links; Crisis; Disability Alliance; Family Action; the Family Fund; the Family Rights Group; Gingerbread; Homeless Link; the National Housing Federation; Oxfam; Platform 51; the Prison Reform Trust; Save the Children; Scope; and St Mungo’s. I am sure that there are others.

Those organisations are the big society in action. In many cases, they provide complementary services to the social fund, and they are expressing their concerns about the Government’s proposals and about their capacity to deliver to the people who will need their services when the changes are introduced. If the Government are serious, as I have always thought they were, about the idea of the big society and about a partnership with voluntary and community organisations, surely the first principle must be to listen to what those organisations are saying. Let us take an example from that list. Oxfam has said:

“The Social Fund provides vital support for people in times of crisis. The government proposes to devolve much of this money to local authorities, but without any statutory duty on them to provide an equivalent system of protection. This runs the risk of driving people to use high-cost lenders, reducing their chances of managing their debts successfully. This is particularly important as Universal Credit constitutes a radical reform, and it is almost certain that its introduction will suffer from teething troubles. These are likely to cause significant need for emergency payments like crisis loans, just as they are abolished. The Social Fund needs to play an important role in protecting people during this transition, which further supports the need for a delay to the change.”

The Committee also heard directly from people who know more about the social fund in all its strengths and weaknesses—we know that there are some weaknesses in the operation of the existing scheme—than anyone else. They included Sir Richard Tilt from the Social Security Advisory Committee, who said:

“Community care grants are the bit I am most concerned about—£141 million. By the time that you have dished that out to 100 plus local authorities, there will not be a great amount of money at local level, and I think, as it is not ring-fenced, it is likely to disappear into other things.”

He also said:

“My view on all this is that we have a UK social security system and that, for the past 25 years, the discretionary social fund has been the ultimate, final safety net for the poorest and most vulnerable…I would argue for a UK safety net underneath it.”––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 24 March 2011; c. 82-3.]

Professor Kempson told the Committee, in respect of the role of local authorities:

“Some will provide a better service than we have now”.

I do not think that that is in doubt. There is excellent practice in local government. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, I also came to the House after serving in local government and I am a great advocate of it. Professor Kempson said:

“Some will provide a better service than we have now; many will provide a worse service; and some, I fear, will provide almost no service.”

She also said:

“As I read it, there will be no ring-fencing, and I cannot even see that there is any proposal as yet to build in any form of accountability by local authorities. That is the very least that is needed.”––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 24 March 2011; c. 82-3.]

We know that the social fund has many flaws and has been subjected to scathing criticism from the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office and others. I completely accept that those criticisms need to be taken seriously. The issue before the House today, however, is whether the Government’s proposal risks making things worse by entirely removing that essential safety net without addressing the genuine concerns of the present system. The Minister made it absolutely clear to the Committee that

“there is no expectation that local authorities will replicate the current scheme.”––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 3 May 2011; c. 731.]

She is nodding at that. She made it clear that, when the discretionary social fund is removed, local authorities will provide a service equivalent to the present one. She said that this was not devolution to local government, but something fundamentally different.

Central to that is the fact that the Government do not expect local authorities to manage loan schemes, as happens now with the crisis loan scheme, and that as loan repayments were topping up the available resource through the current crisis loans, the capacity to provide an equivalent level of service through emergency funding is now severely restricted. The figure I was given was 84%, although the Minister told us in Committee that it was 50%—and I am happy to accept her correction. None the less, the cash sum as an annual figure starting from now that will be devolved to local authorities does not tell us much about the funding that will available for the equivalent level of crisis service once the scheme gets under way because that 50% repayment will very quickly fundamentally erode the value of the service. As we have heard, the likelihood is that it will drive people into the arms of the cowboy and high-interest lenders as well as into debt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Buck]

I will do a deal with the hon. Gentleman. If he supports our amendment, I will accept his point. There is some truth in what he says: there is some excellent practice out there and plenty of innovation in the local government sector, but it is not consistent across the piece. The amendment effectively says, “Do not abolish the discretionary social fund without piloting or without allowing a proper ability for local authorities across the piece to demonstrate that they have the capacity to do what needs to be done”. The hon. Gentleman might well have enough confidence in that, but it cannot be guaranteed. At the moment, there is absolutely no assurance that a consistent level of innovation, expertise and commitment is available in some, let alone most local authorities.

[John McDonnell]

In my constituency we have done just that. A furniture fund has been set up by a voluntary organisation that is partly contracted by different agencies, but it has taken us 10 years to get to that. Now, because of people’s change in circumstances as a result of loss of benefits, we are setting up an arrangement for food parcels, which are being distributed by religious organisations. It is, however, extremely difficult, and it takes a long time to set this sort of thing up. My anxiety is that in the rush to legislate on this matter, none of the preparatory work has been done and there are considerable costs in setting these things up, particularly in the early years.

[Ms Buck]

That is an excellent point. As we have said so many times in debating this Bill, one does not necessarily disagree with some elements in principle—localism and the involvement of local government in shaping the response to local needs, for example—but these local projects take a long time and require investment to set up and they tend to come and go. In north Paddington, one of the most deprived communities in the country, two credit unions were set up over the last 15 years—with regeneration funding in both cases—but they have both collapsed. I do not want some of our most desperate and vulnerable people to be forced into reliance on a set of services that come and go, that might not be available and that might well collapse. I think credit unions are marvellous; I would like to see them flourish in all parts of the country, but they are much more vulnerable than people sometimes allow.

[John McDonnell]

Many of us have been through the same exercise that my hon. Friend described to establish credit unions, so the last thing we need at the moment is anything that destabilises our local credit unions. Loading this sort of responsibility on to them could undermine not only individual credit unions, but the whole sector.

[Ms Buck]

That is absolutely right. We need to carry on growing the local expertise and the local voluntary and community organisations, including credit unions, which need to come up with innovative and practical responses to help deal with our social problems. However, they are not a replacement, but a complement, and they have to be approached with a great deal of care.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I too was thinking about some of the speeches earlier this week; responsibility and empowering people are vital.

Amendment 39 misses the point when it proposes a pilot scheme to determine the feasibility of whatever scheme would replace the discretionary social fund. It would be impossible to run a pilot scheme for each local authority. We could run only a single pilot scheme, which would lead to our stifling any ideas local authorities might have about how to improve their local area. I hope that my experience of local authorities is no different from that of the hon. Member for Westminster North. They really understand their responsibilities to the most vulnerable groups in society and rather than deprioritising them, which is the inference from her comments, they are very much a priority. Those groups may not have a strong voice at the ballot box, but most councillors I meet are very motivated about getting the right support to them.

[John McDonnell]

I do not want to get drawn into discussions about blue Labour, and I understand the hon. Lady’s anxiety about almost flying against the localism agenda, but there is a mid-way point. Even if the Government are not looking at laying down criteria or guidelines, is there no thought that central Government could convene local authorities to explore best practice before the proposals are implemented?

[Maria Miller]

There have already been conversations with local government, and as I think Opposition Front Benchers hinted at, there was a broad welcome for the proposals. We shall certainly be working with local authorities to make sure that what happens is exactly what the hon. Gentleman was talking about; the spread of best practice will be critical.

The amendment seems to have taken no notice of the national provision of payments on account that DWP will provide under clause 98. Budgeting advances—the replacement scheme for social fund budgeting loans—will be very similar to budgeting loans, which have been hugely successful and largely self-financing. Budgeting advances will be targeted at those who are least likely to be able to access mainstream lending. That will help to ensure that vulnerable people are not driven to illegal lenders, which is rightly of concern to Opposition Members.

Short-term advances—the replacement scheme for interim payments and crisis loan alignment—will ensure that people who face financial need as a result of problems with their benefit claims will, if they are eligible, be able to access financial assistance through interest-free advances of their benefit. The grounds for eligibility will be set out clearly in regulations.

Another element of the amendment is a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a proposal for a replacement scheme, based on wide consultation with stakeholders. We are already taking that approach in our discussions about replacement schemes. We will soon publish our response document to our call for evidence, which was based on wide consultation with lobby groups and local authorities. There will be a large amount of information and evidence for Members to consider.

The amendment requires local authorities to set up an independent appeals mechanism, but as I have already said, local authorities will be able to set up an internal review mechanism if they think it appropriate. Furthermore, the local government ombudsman offers a fair and impartial service for people who are dissatisfied with a decision made by their local authority.

In conclusion, the national scheme of payments on account and the local provision, as delivered by local authorities and the devolved Administrations, will provide well-considered replacements for the discretionary social fund, and will make sure that we are supporting more effectively than is currently the case the vulnerable individuals we have discussed today. With those reassurances, I hope Members feel it appropriate to withdraw their amendments, and we can press forward with the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bridget Phillipson]

I agree entirely. It is vital that people feel that appropriate safeguards are in place with a national scheme and a national appeals system so that when things go wrong, as they sometimes do, there is an appropriate means of redress and decisions can be looked at again.

My concern with the Government’s proposals is that we will end up with massive variation between councils and between different parts of the United Kingdom, which will disadvantage people in certain areas. Some councils might choose a system that works very effectively and addresses the needs of vulnerable groups, but others might not do that so well. That is why the Government must be very clear about the standards that they will demand of local authorities, but they are not being clear.

Women fleeing domestic violence are often forced out of their local area in order to seek safety, so what safeguards can we expect when a woman is forced to move to an area where the local council might decide that she is ineligible for support? In the urban areas of the north-east, where large local authorities cover small geographical areas, it is not a great distance from Gateshead to Sunderland, but might the local authority in Sunderland, for example, take the view that the woman should seek support from her local authority in Gateshead? I sincerely hope that it would not take such a view, as that could hold up the process when the woman desperately needs financial help. This is not a factor at present because the scheme is a national one, but devolving responsibility to local councils will create a raft of potential problems for those councils and risk placing some very vulnerable people at risk of harm.

It is simply not good enough for the Government to hope that local councils will be able to manage this complex change. With a budget that is not ring-fenced and the potential for a reduced level of funding from recovered grants, it is inevitable that some local councils will not want to take people without a clear and established local connection, which I believe will be particularly damaging for women fleeing domestic violence if this is not done properly. That is why it is imperative that the Government set out detailed proposals, as amendment 39 makes clear, including eligibility criteria and an independent appeals mechanism. Without further clarity and detail, there is a real likelihood that some of the most vulnerable people in our communities will be unable to access financial support when they need it most.

[John McDonnell]

I will not delay the House any further because I think that colleagues from all Opposition parties have demonstrated why they are not convinced by the Government’s proposals, and why every charity and housing group in the country is not convinced either. Members’ surgeries will fill up as people can no longer receive grants and loans, so it is inevitable that we will return to the issue at a later date to reform the Government’s reforms. I will not push for two Divisions on this group and, on the basis of supporting amendment 39, beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 39, page 52, line 22, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

‘(1) Section 138(1)(b) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (discretionary payments out of Social Fund) may be repealed, if the Secretary of State—

(a) publishes a detailed proposal for a replacement scheme, or schemes, based on wide consultation with relevant stakeholders;

(b) ensures that such a scheme, or schemes, will provide financial protection for applicants in an emergency or crisis, with the eligibility criteria for applicants specified in regulations;

(c) demonstrates the feasibility of such a scheme, or schemes, through a pilot or pathfinder process; and

(d) demonstrates how an independent appeals mechanism will be implemented.’.—(Ms Buck.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I have been given no indication by the Treasury Bench or any Department that there is to be a statement this evening. I am sure that the Treasury Bench will have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

[John McDonnell]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have just finished the Report stage of the Welfare Reform Bill, but we have failed yet again to reach major parts of the Bill, particularly amendments on the cap on benefits, which I totally oppose and think are a disturbing element of the Bill. As the Leader of the House is here, may I say to him through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we are exhibiting to the general public that the House is not working if we are not reaching major parts of such an important Bill. I would hope that the Government would consider pausing, as they did with the NHS Bill, and thinking again in the light of today’s debate.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The programme motion—

Welfare Reform Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am not sure whether the hon. Lady was in the Chamber a moment ago when I answered question on child care from the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne), but the former seems to be forgetting the fact that there is no job search obligation for the lone parent of a child who is below school age. A job search requirement is made only when a child is at school, and the requirement is for a willingness to accept a reasonable job offer that fits around school hours. No draconian measure is waiting to hit a lone parent as their child grows older. Our system is pretty supportive, and we have been absolutely clear that child care costs will continue to be paid through universal credit.

The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) must also understand that our nation’s resources are finite. We cannot just turn on the financial taps because we feel like it. We must take pragmatic decisions on what the nation can and cannot afford. We set out very clearly in our announcement last year that there is a £2 billion envelope to fund child care. Parliamentarians now need to agree how best to spend that money.

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

As the Minister knows, I have supported the universal credit system for some while, but each of the proposed amendments address vulnerable people—people on free school meals, people living in near poverty or poverty, children with disabilities, and people who are sick and who incur health costs. Those real anxieties about the introduction of the new system need to be assuaged. When the Minister responds on those issues, could he at least give us some sort of time scale on which they will be addressed, so that those people can have more certainty in the run-up to the introduction of the new system?

[Chris Grayling]

The answer is that we will do it as quickly as we possibly can. We are not in the business of delaying these things. We are doing the consultation on child care now, and I hope that we will reach a resolution in a relatively short space of time. However, I want to take the time to get it right. I do not want to rush through under an artificial timetable something that is not necessary right now. We are still two and a half years away from the introduction of new claims for universal credit. We have got time to get these things right and we are trying to work with a fixed envelope of money for child care—we will talk about some of the other issues shortly. We want to take the time to look at the real costs of child care, the requirements and how we can best deploy the £2 billion available.

[John McDonnell]

I am not trying to catch the Minister out—I am trying to secure clarity on each of these issues. What is an indicative time scale for addressing those anxieties, so that people can have some prospect of being able to calculate their futures in those areas?

[Chris Grayling]

I will endeavour to answer that. On the child care issue, we are in consultation at the moment. I would hope that we will get all the responses that we are going to get by the summer and be able to take decisions quickly after that. That would be my first answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Welfare Reform Bill (Instruction)

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome the proposed instruction to the Committee, on the same basis that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) welcomes it. A wider debate on life chances will assist in the tackling of child poverty. I also agree with him on early years provision, although, frankly, we disagree on the method of funding.

I support the concept of commissions, which was begun by previous Governments. The last one in particular sought to establish a number of standing commissions, and I am glad this Government are doing likewise. I welcome the idea of a standing commission of experts who are free to comment at will—critically at times, but on the basis of objective analysis. That helps the Government, whichever party is in power.

In its representations, Save the Children raised three anxieties on the commission, and I would welcome a Government response to them—I am sure they will respond positively. First, Save the Children says that it is concerned that the commission could have its powers watered down, particularly in relation to commissioning research and consulting relevant experts and groups. It would be worth while reassuring Save the Children that that will not occur.

Secondly, Save the Children says that the commission has an important role to play in maintaining the profile of child poverty as an issue. Therefore, it is essential that the commission’s ability to advise and inform the public debate on child poverty remains within its broader remit. Once again, it would be worth while Ministers giving that assurance to Save the Children. Will there be full publication and openness and transparency? Will the commission have the ability to publish independently, without Government interference?

Thirdly, on life chances and social mobility, Save the Children would like us to examine and explore the Government’s thinking on the expertise they will seek to bring on to the commission. Once again, the Government could reassure the poverty lobby on that. If the proposals are amended in that way, the commission will undertake a worthwhile exercise, be open and transparent, and contribute to and heighten the profile of the wider debate on child poverty.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) about the Government’s solutions to the problem, because some Government policies are driving more children into poverty, but at least we can agree that we need a commission that will provide research and independent advice so that we can have an informed debate. On that basis, I welcome the instruction.