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.

Welfare Reform Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Byrne]

I do not think I should veer into a debate about immigration this afternoon, because you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would quickly call me to order. I would, however, make the point that, after consistent economic growth, employment went up, the number of people on out-of-work benefits came down and the number of people lifted out of poverty, including pensioners and children, was at a record high. The Government can learn something from that record.

Of course, that has to be put alongside the right legislation to encourage people back to work, which is where I fear the Bill will fall short, for a very simple reason. It fails the basic tests of whether it fosters ambition and whether it reinforces and consolidates our obligations to each other. Fostering ambition and nurturing compassion are the basic tests of welfare reform, and I am afraid the Bill fails both.

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

I oppose the Bill, and given any opportunity I will vote against it.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) said, the Government’s response to every representation that has been made by external organisations or today in the House has been, “These matters will be dealt with in regulations”. Attached to the Bill is a quantity of regulations that we have not seen before with a Bill of such stature. May I suggest that my right hon. Friend link up with the Secretary of State to discuss the procedure to be followed after Committee and before Report, so that the bulk of the regulations are published in time for us and others to consider them before our final debates on the Bill?

[Mr Byrne]

That is an extremely sensible proposal, and perhaps the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), will reflect on it in his winding-up speech. It is important for the other place to be involved in discussions, too, to ensure that the Bill leaves this House in better shape.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I have sat through the debate and listened to the contributions and I will try to address some of the points raised. First, let me say that no one in the House doubts the integrity of the Secretary of State. I commend him for the work he did in opposition in setting up various working parties, touring around and meeting various agencies. He met a particularly influential person in Scotland, Bob Holman—a comrade of ours who knows a lot about poverty and who has expressed his disquiet about the proposals. Also, a number of us have been campaigners for the citizen’s income, which I think the universal credit is a step towards, so I do not doubt the Secretary of State’s good intentions.

However, as we have debated at length over the years, if the universal credit is to work, three conditions need to be met. First, it needs to be set at a level that will lift people out of poverty; otherwise it will inflict universal misery. Secondly, there have to be jobs to go into. Thirdly, those jobs must have decent pay. The problem with the Bill is that it does not ensure that any of those conditions will be met. In that respect, it discredits the whole concept of the universal credit, which I find worrying.

On the first condition, I am worried about the amount being taken out of the social security system. In the comprehensive spending review in October, and before that in the emergency Budget, the Chancellor identified £18 billion that was being taken out of the system. When the Prime Minister was challenged about that, he said:

“We face a choice—make cuts in welfare or cuts elsewhere”.

I believe that is happening—that we are witnessing cuts in welfare. When the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), was asked specifically about the disability living allowance cuts, we were told that the figure of £1 billion of cuts—or savings, depending on how one wants to describe them—had been set before any policy description had been laid out as to how they would be achieved. I think the Prime Minister and the Government did make that choice, because at the same time as the Government were taking £18 billion out of welfare they were reducing corporation taxes by £24 billion. Businesses are now taxed at the lowest level in 40 years, at the expense of the poor.

The debate then starts to degenerate, as it has in the House today, into attacking unemployed claimants as a justification for cuts. I remember the Deputy Prime Minister’s statements about alarm clock Britain, and today we have heard references to shirkers and so on. I have come to the view, and all the Government research under past Governments has demonstrated, that people are desperate to get back to work. Sanctions do exist already, and are implemented if people fail to comply.

Reference has been made to fraud. Let us get it on the record again: £1.5 billion of fraud, £16 billion of benefits unclaimed. Who is ripping off the system? It is not the poor. As was said earlier, £120 billion of tax has not been paid as a result of tax evasion and avoidance.

On the second condition—the existence of jobs to go to—with 2.5 million unemployed, including 1 million youngsters, even if we filled all the 500,000 vacancies, there would still be one in four chasing every vacancy, and it is going to be made worse, as was also said earlier. Another 1.2 million will be put on the dole queue as a result of the cuts.

On decent pay, I have asked others what is happening in their constituencies, but the jobs offered at the moment in my constituency are increasingly casual and increasingly low-paid, and large numbers of my constituents are now working on zero hours contracts, in which they are simply paid for the hours that they are brought in to do, on an irregular basis. According to the most recent survey, published only a month ago and based on Government figures, 1.7 million people are now in involuntary part-time and temporary work, and wages are so low that half the children living in poverty are in families that are in work. Even in the boom period, wages actually fell as a percentage of GDP. Last month, RPI was at 5.1% and wages were at 2.3%, and many in my constituency and elsewhere, especially in the public sector, are facing a pay freeze over the next two years. The reasons for the low pay are fairly straightforward. We now have less than a third of workers in this country covered by collective bargaining agreements, as a result of the weakening of trade union rights.

My fear is that, under these proposals, universal credit will fail, because none of the elements are in place to make it a success—a decent level of universal credit, the existence of jobs, or decent pay in those jobs. I think we will be left with the harsh residue of all the complaints and problems that have been described today: the sanctions—the loss of benefit for up to three years if a person refuses to co-operate in seeking work; cuts in housing benefit; the linkage of the housing allowance to CPI, which will inevitably result in cuts; the housing benefit caps; and the room unoccupied scheme, which I think is scandalous. All those factors will discredit a decent proposal, and that is why the Bill is not supportable today.

I want to use my last few seconds to say how appalled I am by the brutalisation of claimants by the privatised companies that have taken over the assessments and the administration of benefits. The brutal treatment of my constituents is a harshness that denigrates the entirety of the work of the House and the Government.

Social Security

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 17th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

In opening the debate the Minister accepted that in 15 years out of 20, CPI uprating is less than RPI uprating. My point is that those serving in Afghanistan have been contributing to their pensions on the understanding that their pensions, when in payment, would be uprated in line with RPI. Now the Government are saying, “No, they won’t; they’ll be uprated by a smaller amount,” and that is a very worrying development. In view of the sympathy that the Minister has expressed for people in that position, the Government must give further thought to this matter—why war widows, who have had the person most special to them taken away, deserve to have the support that they would otherwise have been able to depend on cut as well.

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

May I, through my right hon. Friend, give the Minister an opportunity to respond to a question? Is it not clear that as we identify anomalies like this—and they are bound to arise—it is important for the Government to introduce corrective measures fairly quickly?

[Stephen Timms]

Yes, there are some serious problems here, and I hope we will hear responses to them. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he has done on this subject, and I hope that the Government will think again.

The Welfare Reform Bill, which was published this morning, touches on a number of the points that the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order also touches on. One of the Government’s original proposals, which Opposition Members strongly opposed, was to cut housing benefit by 10% for people in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance for one year. We were all absolutely delighted this morning to hear the Secretary of State say that the Government have reconsidered their position and will not implement that draconian cut. We understand from newspaper reports that the change was brought about as a result of pressure from the leader of the Pensions Minister’s party. The Minister himself may well have had a hand in bringing about that change. If so, I—and many of us—would want to join in congratulating him on his success against the views of the members of the other coalition party, particularly, perhaps, the views of those serving in the Treasury.

As the Minister is on a bit of roll, may I suggest that he go further in changing the Government’s proposals? Under the existing system, most out-of-work benefits are subject to savings limits—currently £16,000, but the Government intend to extend that threshold to in-work benefits as part of the universal credit, and I notice that that threshold is not uprated in the order before us. Under the proposed limit, in future anyone in work who would be entitled to tax credits but has savings of more than £6,000 will have their payment reduced. Those who have savings of more than £16,000 will lose their entitlement to tax credits altogether.

According to calculations by the Social Market Foundation, 400,000 families with children, who are now in receipt of tax credits, would be punished for having £16,000 in the bank by losing all their tax credits. For example, anyone saving up for a deposit to buy a home would suddenly find that they had lost all their tax credits as a punishment for having £16,000 in the bank. Such families would have been doing the right thing, working and saving their money, perhaps to put down a deposit on a house. For many such families, putting down a deposit will be made not only difficult but impossible. The Opposition cannot possibly support the proposed change, and I cannot imagine that many Government Members would want to see such an extraordinary assault on family savings either. I hope that we shall see another initiative by Liberal Democrat Ministers—we saw the benefits of such an initiative this morning—to persuade the Government to abandon that policy as well.

I hope the Government will also scrap the proposal to remove eligibility for the mobility component of disability living allowance for those in residential care. The order does uprate disability living allowance, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran), who is on the Front Bench today, has been making powerful arguments to the Government about the iniquity of removing that benefit from people simply because they are in residential care. I hope the Government will think again about that, and I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), who is responsible for that part of the policy, is on the Government Front Bench today.

The Government are signalling today that they intend a permanent shift from RPI to CPI as the inflation measure for uprating benefits and pensions. The Opposition do not support that. It is not right to continue to reduce the incomes of pensioners, widows and those on low incomes long after the deficit has gone. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the Minister says that we will not vote against the order, but that is because it uprates the basic state pension next year by RPI. Therefore, it does not do what the Government have told us they want to do in perpetuity. The order overrides the policy that he set out today, and no Labour Member would object to uprating the basic state pension by RPI, as that was always the practice under the previous Government—and quite right, too. As the Minister rightly pointed out, pension credit, which has done an enormous amount to reduce pensioner poverty in the UK since its introduction, will also be uprated accordingly, and we support that as well.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I will not apologise for breaking the consensus—although I was about to apologise to the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), who welcomed the consensus across the House. I oppose the order, and will seek to vote against it. I do not accept that the installation of CPI will be of benefit in either the long term or the short term. I am grateful that the Government have not introduced it for the basic state pension at least for this year, but its installation across all the other benefits will result in detriment. To take £6 billion out of the payments to the poorest in our society is unacceptable. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) said that the order is indivisible, so by not voting for it we would prevent other overall increases from going ahead. However, it is not beyond the wit of any Government to introduce another order within hours—or at least days—that could amend what is in this order to enable us to get some justice for pensioners.

I am reticent about criticising the Minister. I think that I have moved a Budget amendment on restoring the link with earnings every year for the past 13 years, and I think that we walked through the Lobby together on an annual basis in that endeavour. I am grateful, therefore, for the restoration of the link with earnings. I know that it was in the Labour party’s most recent manifesto to restore the link in due course. I just wish that we had done it earlier, because that would have demonstrated our overall commitment to tackling pensioner poverty. However, I know how much the previous Government did to tackle pensioner poverty. Many people, particularly pensioners and many on benefits, are now living lives so much better than they would have been had it not been for the previous Government’s policies.

I was a critic of the extension of the means-testing system. I thought that it was a disincentive to saving and costly to administer. Nevertheless, I welcome what the previous Government did. I still think, however, that in a civilised society it is a mark of shame that reflects on all of us that there are still 2 million pensioners living in poverty, given that we are the fifth richest country in the world. It behoves all parties to tackle this issue. The question has been asked time and time again: how should we do it? For me the answer is straightforward, and expresses an argument that we have been putting forward since the foundation of the Labour party—fairer taxation and redistribution of wealth.

I have listened to the debate on moving from RPI to CPI. We can all marshal different battalions on the field of this debate—quotes from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Office for National Statistics, and so on. Most Members will have received through the post this week an assessment of the Government’s welfare reform policies by the Social Policy Association. I concur with the chapter in the report by Alan Walker of the University of Sheffield, who states:

“The Government claims that the CPI represents low income groups’ expenditure better than RPI but there is no convincing evidence to support this claim and according to IFS (2010) it is the RPI that provides a ‘superior’ coverage of goods and services.”

To some extent, we can dance angels on the head of a pin on this subject. As someone who has studied some statistics in the past, I have gone into the debates on the difference between the geometric mean and the arithmetic mean. From that, I conclude that CPI is 0.5% minimum off the calculation compared with RPI. However, there are concerns that the use of CPI will result in a reduction. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) asked, if that was not the case, why would the Government need to try to protect pensions this year? As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South said, the reduction from 4.6% to 3.1% is nearly one third of people’s overall increase. That is significant, so I am pleased that the Government are protecting the increase for this year, but the pensioners in my constituency will be worried about the introduction of CPI for future years.

I remain unconvinced about housing costs, partly because of some of the arguments that have been presented about the 7% of people—that still represents a sizeable number not to be taken into account—who will be affected, who do have housing costs. As my right hon. Friend said, there is an ageing profile of people who are taking on mortgages later in life, so housing costs will become a more significant factor.

In addition, one of the burdens that many pensioners feel in particular is increased council tax. I do not believe that that element is covered by the CPI calculation as it was with RPI.

The hon. Member for Sittingbourne—

[Gordon Henderson]

And Sheppey.

[John McDonnell]

I would not want to miss out Sheppey. Let us take the common-sense approach of the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) and ask, “What do pensioners feel like at the moment?” I think that they feel that they are under significant pressure as a result of inflation. The researchers’ evidence shows that inflationary pressures hit pensioners harder than the average household.

I am concerned about the shift, which I oppose. It is a momentous shift: it represents one third off an increase. I say to the Minister that this should have been properly debated before the election if it was to be a long-term shift. I can understand, though I do not believe, the argument that when the Government came to power they opened the books and found that they had to introduce emergency measures. However, that is not being argued. It is being argued that this proposal, per se, is the beneficial or right thing to do. If that were the case, it should have been outlined before the election with examples of the implications for pensions and benefits overall. To make this change at this time casts doubt on the motivation for the change from RPI to CPI. We should have been more honest in the debate before the election.

As for the knock-on effects on occupational pensions, I chair the PCS trade union parliamentary group, and we have circulated fairly detailed evidence of the implications for public sector workers. It looks as though, on average, there will be a loss of between £500 and £700 a year. The cumulative effect of that in the long term is significant, and I am grateful that other Members have read its implications into the record.

My right hon. Friend quoted the Hutton report. I take those concerns seriously—a 15% cut, and possibly a consequential cut of up to 25% in the long term. I firmly believe that those are accrued rights—we have had that debate on the civil service compensation scheme—and that people have planned their lives on the basis of what they thought they could expect as a pension in the long term. To undermine those accrued rights is not only wrong and immoral but legally dubious, and there may be challenges to that effect.

The effects spread far beyond that. The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Mr Randall) and I have constituents who work at Heathrow airport for British Airways and are members of the British Airways pension scheme. They work for a former nationalised industry, so their pensions shadow what happens in the public sector. We have had letters demonstrating the potential consequences in terms of cuts in their pensions in the long term. Again, the problem came upon them relatively suddenly, and should have been properly explained and discussed before the general election.

My concern now is that the change will have an immediate detrimental effect over the next few years. Like most London Members, and many others, I deal in my constituency surgery with people living in poverty and on the margins of dignity. Any cut, in the short or long term, in their pensions or benefits will push some of them over the edge into virtual destitution. That is why I am anxious about anything that will decrease their incomes. On that basis, I cannot support this order. I understand why some of my hon. Friends do not wish to participate in a vote, but I want to put my opposition on record, because the change will have an impact on my constituents. It will also add to poverty and deprivation in our society—something that any Government should tackle.

We should, collectively, be ashamed of the way in which we have treated pensioners over decades. Our pension is now 16% of average earnings, whereas in France it is 60% and in the Netherlands 82%. Over time and incrementally, we have allowed our pensioners to lose their right to a decent pension, and therefore to a decent quality of life. This order will add to that incremental undermining of the quality of life of my constituents, and on that basis I will seek a Division on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

We are doing it this year for pretty much every benefit in the entire uprating order, which runs to many pages. The ones we are not doing it for are the basic pension and the pension credit. We are not doing it for the basic pension because the budget we inherited provided for a larger increase and we did not want to pay a smaller increase than was planned. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks we should have done so, I will take that advice, but he probably welcomes the fact that we did not follow it.

The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), indicated that unfortunately she could not be in the Chamber for the wind-ups. She asked why we had chosen a different figure for the pension credit. As I think I explained in my opening remarks, as we were putting the basic state pension up by about £4.50 a week, we did not want the increase in pension credit to be less than that, because the poorest pensioners would not have the full benefit of the pension rise. That was the basis for the increase in pension credit.

The right hon. Member for East Ham asked about the impact assessment on occupational pensions, and I am happy to say a few words about that. In December, we published an impact assessment suggesting a £76 billion impact from the reduction in revaluation and indexation. To respond to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), one way of looking at that is to see £76 billion less in pensions, but another way is to see a £76 billion boost for British business. We are trying to reduce the regulatory burden on British business, so an advantage of the change—albeit not the purpose—is that major British firms will make a saving, and they and their pension funds will be in a stronger position as a result. Many pension schemes and companies have welcomed the change for that reason.

We discovered an error. We made a mistake, for which I apologise. As soon as we found it, we decided to give the House a revised estimate. In addition, we were asked by the Regulatory Policy Committee to revise the way we calculate net present values; I know that the right hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in such matters, and if he is not careful I shall tell him what it was. To draw the threads together, we reissued the figures last week, ahead of this debate, with an £83 billion estimate. That is a further interim estimate. We then undertook field research, as I mentioned, to ask companies how they will respond to CPI/RPI. We have early results; it would be premature to say what the impact will be, but early indications are that fewer pension funds will take advantage of CPI than we had thought. Such things are complex and there could be factors that move them in the other direction, but my sense is that the final version of the figures is more likely to be lower than the one we have already published, but we thought we should give the latest estimate as soon as we had it.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the important issue of accrued rights. It is a fundamental point and it relates to my pre-election remarks about a pension promise made being a pension promise kept. What is the accrued right of someone in a public sector pension scheme, or any pension scheme? The first point is that everything accrued to date—all the revaluations to date, based on RPI—stand; we are not going back and saying that all the revaluations to date have to be reworked according to CPI. The provision is prospective, not retrospective.

The question then is what future expectation people legitimately have. If they are in a company scheme that has RPI in the rules, we actively chose not to override that. If that was their expectation, because it was in the rules, that is what they will get. However, people in the public sector are members of a scheme whose rules are tied by statute to what we do to SERPS. That is the accrued right they have always had, and we are not changing it. We shall go on indexing their pensions in line with what we do to SERPS each year. That was the pension promise they were made; that is the pension promise we are keeping. We are indexing SERPS by CPI. I accept that, and I also accept that on average that will be lower than RPI, typically by about 0.8% a year. I do not dispute that. The accrued right is the one we are honouring.

The right hon. Gentleman said in parenthesis that pensioner inflation is typically higher than general inflation. I do not know whether he actually believes that; it was never something his Government took into account when setting pensions. They never uprated pensions differently because of pensioner inflation. There are certainly periods when pensioner inflation is higher when, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the costs of fuel and food are rising faster than the norm, but there are other periods when it is lower. I have asked officials to look at the matter and there is no evidence over a 20-year run that pensioners buy goods that have that inflation time bomb ticking away inside them. There are times when inflation is higher, which may include recently, and times when it is lower, but over the long run there is no evidence for that proposition.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) welcomed the restoration of the earnings link, and the triple lock. I am grateful for her support. She quite properly put me on the spot about the future of the pension system. I accept her analysis; we need a pension system fit for the future. If we are to auto-enrol 10 million of our fellow citizens, we need to be confident that it pays to save, and that they will be better off. I assure her that that is absolutely central to our thinking about long-term pension reform. We are making good progress on that project.

The Chair of the Select Committee asked a number of questions. I will respond to one or two on the record, although she has explained why she is not here to hear the response. She kept making the point that the basic state pension is not the only part of a pensioner’s income. Of course it is not.

I thought that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) made some sincere comments. She raised the issue of people with relatively modest occupational pensions who will get less under CPI. The state pension is bigger than all of those figures. Every one of the figures she quoted is less than the basic state pension. The package of Government policy on pension indexation is for an earnings link on the basic and a CPI link on the additional. The basic pension of every person she is concerned about is bigger than their additional pension, the earnings link in the long run is worth 2% more than prices and CPI is 0.8% less than RPI. The people she is most concerned about will overwhelmingly benefit from our package of policies. Therefore, I can assure her on that point. Taking the package as a whole, they will be better off, not worse off.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) made an important contribution and pointed out that Age UK, which is very much an independent organisation, was delighted by the triple lock, because it is a historic move to give pensioners the best of earnings, prices, plus 2.5%. I wish only that we were able to do this in a normal year—in 16 of the past 20 years, earnings were greater than prices. People would then start to see the benefit of the earnings link and the triple lock, and in time they will.

The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) quoted some civil service pension figures. I make the same point to him. All the figures he quoted, based on average civil service pensions, prove my point. If we take them in isolation, CPI is lower than RPI, but people do not just get their civil service pension—they also get their state pension. We are putting more in through the state pension than we are taking away typically through the additional pension because of the relative sizes and the difference between the various indices. Our constituents write to us and raise the bit they see, but overall the state pension will more than make up for that for the vast majority of people, although not for people with very large pensions.

On the ratchet, I simply accept the hon. Gentleman’s rebuke for fiscal irresponsibility. I will take it on the chin and pass it on to the Chancellor for him.

I enjoyed the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) and his account of his conversation with Jack Jones. I am delighted to say that both coalition partners supported that. We needed the Chancellor on board for that one. I regard it as being to the credit of both coalition partners that we have been able finally to restore the earnings link. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the case of his constituent. As he was describing it, I was thinking that I was sure I signed a letter on that the other day, and I gather he has now received it. I apologise to his constituent for the mistake that was made and I hope that that has now been resolved.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) perfectly properly says that he will not support the order and that he is against mass means-testing and so am I. A pension system that allows too many people to retire poor and means that they have to be swept up by a leaky safety net is not a good, sustainable long-term pension system. I have set it as my goal to do something about that. We may not agree about these orders but we have common cause on that principle.

[John McDonnell]

Did the Minister ever consider a quadruple lock so that, earnings or inflation, CPI or RPI, whichever was the higher, would be used?

[Steve Webb]

We did look at that. Either one could say that what one is trying to do with pensions and benefits is protect pensioners’ spending power—that would be a price measure—or one could protect people’s position relative to the rest of society, which is an earnings measure. One wants to avoid silly small figures such as 75p, which is where the 2.5% comes from. To say, “But we will measure inflation according to different measures and we will pick the biggest” conceptually does not work for me. We could have done that, but in our judgment the point of revaluation is to maintain spending power fairly for the group in question. Our judgment is that CPI is the answer to that question.

There is a separate question about whether pensions should be higher or lower. In a way, the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran are saying that we should be paying bigger pensions. It seems to me that that is an entirely separate debate from how we should correct for inflation. That is where CPI comes in.

[John McDonnell]

There is a point of principle that the Minister and I have argued over the past 13 years at least, which is that, whatever measure is introduced, there should not be a loss. Having that quadruple lock would convince people that this is at least a way forward, because people would be protected against years such as those five out of the past 20 where CPI was higher than RPI.

[Steve Webb]

I come back to my point that as the basic state pension is a big part of pensioners’ income, particularly for the most vulnerable, we are protecting their living standards overall—they will get bigger increases under this package of indexation than they would have on the basis of a straightforward RPI level alone. I believe we are doing the right thing.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) for his kind comments and I appreciate the expertise he brings to the debate. He was absolutely right that the idea that large numbers of pensioners will have large mortgages is quite implausible. It is true that 7% have some mortgage interest at the moment, but even those who face mortgage interest will typically have lower average amounts because they will be towards the end of their mortgage terms. Basing an inflation measure on an index that includes mortgage interest seems to me to be quite inappropriate for pensioners. As my hon. Friend pointed out, one consequence of CPI schemes such as the local government pension scheme is that it will help to put pensioners on a more even keel. As he also rightly said, this money has to come from somewhere—somebody has to find it—and this order will have the consequence of getting the systems on to a more sustainable basis. My hon. Friend tempts me on public sector pension reform, but I obviously must not pre-empt what Lord Hutton will say. He will be saying what he is going to say within the next few weeks, so we do not have much longer to wait.

Drawing the threads together, this debate has provided a worthwhile exploration of the issues. Our fundamental point is that the principal order will cost the Government £4.3 billion to protect and enhance the benefits for the people who need them the most. I am proud to commend these provisions to the House.

Question put,

Housing Benefit

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2010 Commons Chamber

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

This debate has been enlightening in many respects thanks to Members on both sides of the House. I shall not be repetitious; I shall just concentrate on putting on the record the plight of my constituents and the implications of the policy for them. It will at least give me some peace of mind that someone has spoken up for them.

Like every other Member, I have a weekly advice surgery—about twice a week at the moment. We have an open-door policy at the office, and we are swamped with casework, as many Members are. Half my casework is housing-related, and my surgery is the most distressing part of my week, as I am sure the surgery is for many Members are. It is heart-rending.

Families, who come with their children, are living in appalling housing conditions: overcrowded, sleeping three or four to a room and often, as the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) said, using their living rooms and other parts of the accommodation as bedrooms. They live in unsanitary conditions, lacking heat and hot water, and often their premises are damp. They live a nomadic life in my constituency, with 12 to 18-month accommodation licences, and their children move from school to school, disrupting their education.

We have not seen a housing crisis on this scale since the second world war. In the borough, I have 1,500 to 2,000 families and more who are homeless at any point in time. The reason for that has been mentioned—the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) referred to it—and it is that the bulk of our council housing stock has been sold off. Little council housing has been built in 30 years, under both Governments, and the buy-to-let landlords have moved in to provide the accommodation. They fail in many instances to maintain the properties, and we also have Rachmanite landlords who abuse their tenants. They are profiteering from the housing shortage with high rents and, of course, through housing benefit, but I find it ironic that in this debate Members on one side of the House seem to be blaming the tenants and housing benefit for high rents, not the landlords themselves, who charge those high rents and exploit the benefits system.

Many families in my area already struggle to pay the rent, and many already make up the gap between benefits and rents. They receive some discretionary payments from the council, but they are few and far between, and the families get into debt and fall back on loan sharks. As a result, they often fall into rent arrears, get evicted and then become classified as intentionally homeless. We can see how people can get caught in a cycle of deprivation.

The new proposals will exacerbate the nightmare that many of my constituents already face. Some 3,000 families will lose out on anything between £6 and £27 a week. The London Councils survey, which has been quoted extensively, demonstrates that a large number of landlords have stated that they will evict families if the gap in rent is more than £20. Many families in my constituency will be evicted, and they are already rushed through eviction as it is. That means that there will be an increase in homelessness in my area and it will be extremely difficult to find accommodation. I already have families moving out of the area on different schemes who find it very difficult to find work elsewhere and then desperately seek to come back to be close to their family members.

The results of these proposals—I want to put this on record for my constituents—will be an increase in poverty, immense stress, and immense distress for many people, particularly at a time when unemployment is rising in my constituency, as it is across the country. I do not believe that cuts in benefits are the answer, or that people are incentivised to find work by poverty or by homelessness—in fact, it pushes them back into further depths of despair.

There is an alternative proposal for which many in this House have argued for a number of years. First, it is about building council homes again, and getting back to investing on a scale that meets the needs of our population. That means an element of redistribution of wealth and ensuring that people pay their taxes, particularly the corporations, so we must tackle tax avoidance and evasion. I believe that we need an emergency programme of house building to tackle the homelessness that we now have, particularly in London and the south-east.

Secondly, there should be rent controls. If benefits are high because rents are high, there is a simple solution that applies in many parts of Europe, where people have controlled the rents and thereby stopped the exploitation by landlords.

Thirdly, in areas such as mine we need a more radical solution to the level of homelessness. We should allow councils compulsorily to purchase empty properties so that we can put families into them. I find it a disgrace that a house will stand empty for a long period. Some 300,000 properties are empty for more than six months, while people are on the streets or living in housing deprivation. We have a housing crisis on our hands, and we need an emergency programme to tackle it.

I certainly do not believe that cuts in benefits will go any way towards tackling this problem—in fact, that approach will cause more homelessness, put more people into deprivation, and cause immense human suffering in our society. That is why I support the motion, and why I will do everything I possibly can in this House, in demonstrations, and in direct action on the streets to oppose these housing benefit proposals.