Living Standards

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I want to talk about the living standards of women in my constituency who work in the public sector, who are deeply concerned about their prospects for a decent and dignified retirement, and who are today trying to make the Government listen. A third of my constituents are employed in the public sector. All of us in Wigan have friends or family who are affected by the changes to public sector pensions. To them—and to me, having met so many of these workers over the past six months—the Government’s attempt to characterise this as a strike whipped up by a group of self-interested officials not only does not ring true but is, frankly, offensive.

I want to explain to Ministers why so many hard-working, decent people are out on strike today. I have never met a teacher or a nurse who wants to go out on strike; for them, it is a vocation and not just a job. However, like me, they believe strongly in the right of people who have, for very many years, served this country so well, often on very low pay, to retire with dignity. Like me, they do not believe that the interests of the public will be served by running down the professions of which they are so proud to such an extent that nobody in their right mind would go into them. They are as baffled as I am that their Government are describing their pensions—which are, on average, less than £5,000 a year—as gold-plated. Government Members are keen on quoting Lord Hutton; well, I agree with him that we cannot say, in any sense, that public sector pensions are gold-plated.

People pay high premiums for their pensions, and for many women the return is low. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) outlined that convincingly. How many of us in this House face that prospect? I am genuinely grateful that Ministers listened and revised their offer for people who are to retire imminently. That will have a particular impact on women, and I thank them for it. However, I am deeply concerned about the situation for part-time workers whose full-time pay may be over £15,000 but whose real pay is far less. What will their Government do for them?

I want to set out what my constituents would like to happen. First, I will address the problem of affordability. Public sector workers are being hit from all directions. Thanks to the Secretary of State, teachers in academies face a pay freeze, and possibly a pay cut. Women are also having to face cuts to child care, tax credits and family support. I put it to Ministers that a scheme that is not affordable is also not sustainable. Young people are saying to me that they will not be opting into these schemes. They are willing to pay into them, but they want to know where the money is going—to know that it is going into the pension scheme. They are not willing to make sacrifices through their pay—

[Damian Hinds]

rose—

[Lisa Nandy]

We have heard enough from Government Members—it is time they listened.

People are willing to make sacrifices but not to pay for the deficit while bankers continue to receive huge bonuses and executive pay in the City continues to rise. I urge Ministers to understand that in some professions, such as teaching and policing, it is unrealistic to ask people to work until they are in their late 60s. Will they please look at the situation of people who do hard, front-line work day in, day out, and recognise that it is unrealistic to ask them to work for that long?

My constituents and I want the Government to set an example. It is not good enough to say that because low-paid private sector workers receive appallingly low pensions their public sector counterparts should receive the same. The Government should be setting an example to employers by taking a lead on tackling the grossly unfair pay and pensions gap between high-paid and low-paid private sector workers, not pushing their own employees into the most appalling poverty after a lifetime of service.

Work and Pensions

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Ministerial Corrections

Departmental Public Bodies

[Lisa Nandy]

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the written ministerial statement of 16 March 2011, Official Report, columns 9-10W, on the public bodies reform programme, what estimate he has made of the savings to his Department net of costs incurred in the assumption of additional departmental responsibilities to accrue from (a) the abolition of three public bodies within his Department's area of responsibility, (b) the merger of one such body and (c) the change in function of two such bodies.

[Official Report, 21 March 2011, Vol. 525, c. 856-57W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Chris Grayling:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on 21 March 2011.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Chris Grayling]

On 16 March 2011, Official Report, columns 9-10W, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), issued a written ministerial statement updating Parliament on progress on public bodies reform. That statement also announced that Departments estimate cumulative administrative savings of at least £2.6 billion will flow from public bodies over the spending review period.

I anticipate net overall administrative savings from structural reforms over the spending review period of £0.141 million. Overall administrative reductions from reform of all departmental public bodies are currently estimated to be £17.95 million over the spending review period.

The correct answer should have been:

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

There are already plans for the organisation to make sure that it improves the quality of its work. It was set up to make sure that absent parents, for whom we all have to pay because they are not paying their way, ante up to their responsibilities, which is good both for their children and for the whole of society.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

6. If he will bring forward proposals to ensure that all staff of his Department are paid at a rate of at least £7.60 per hour.

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

The figure of £7.60 per hour to which the hon. Lady refers was the London living wage until last week, and I can confirm that all directly employed DWP staff in London are paid £7.60 or above and, indeed, are paid more than the new London living wage of £7.85 announced by the Mayor of London on 9 June.

[Lisa Nandy]

I am sure the Minister is aware of the economic as well as the moral case for the living wage that was most recently advanced by the Mayor of London. In the light of that, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that as well as the directly employed staff, contracted-out staff in his Department, such as cleaners, will also be employed on the living wage because they do such important work for the people of this country?

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Lady is right to point to the position of contracted staff. She will be aware that long-term private finance initiative contracts were entered into by the Labour Government which involve paying people less than the living wage. We have inherited that practice. However, I understand that Telereal Trillium, with which we have our principal contract, including for cleaners, has an agreement with the relevant trade unions to pay higher rates on new tenders.

Tackling Poverty in the UK

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

It is a real privilege to follow the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White), whom I congratulate on his maiden speech. I congratulate him also on his real and obvious passion for tackling the problems of poverty that still exist in this country, as that is a passion I share.

I wish to draw attention to a series of decisions that have been made by the Government that are either very serious mistakes or a damning indictment of their commitment to tackling poverty that we heard earlier. Before I came to the House, I worked in the children’s charity sector. Many charities such as Barnardo’s and Save the Children are still, despite a great deal of Government support and intervention, grappling with the terrible problem of child poverty. The roots of that problem run very deep, as we have heard. I want to draw attention to one issue in particular that I think has been overlooked.

Many of the children who are growing up in poverty have parents who work, as the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington has discussed. If we are serious about tackling poverty, we have to make work pay. Will the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), consider adopting a living wage policy in her Department and urge her colleagues across government to do the same? Will she also commit to making sure that we have a definition of a living wage outside London in constituencies such as mine where people are also really struggling and would benefit strongly from such a policy?

I want to talk a little about the households living in poverty in which people have not worked for generations. Many hon. Members have talked about this today. We have heard a lot about the legacy that this Government inherited when they took office, but what about the legacy left to the Labour Government? Young people who left education in the 1980s and 1990s and were unable to find work have since had children who have grown up in households where nobody has ever worked. I know that because I have seen it on the front line in my work for the Children’s Society. Supporting families to change that situation takes time.

I am concerned by what we have been hearing about the Sure Start programme. One reason why Sure Start has been an important innovation is that it unites families from across the social spectrum. It brings children and their parents into contact with other children and their parents right across the income scale. It helps to build confidence for that reason without any of the social stigmas that can become attached to services that are reserved simply for the poor. I have seen that for myself in the Beech Hill and Ince Sure Start centres in my constituency; it could not be more important to those two communities to have those services that unite people. In his opening remarks, the Minister talked about visiting communities and seeing for himself where people face these challenges. Well, some of us live in them and some of us represent them, and our message to the Minister is that he should not restrict those services but preserve them, as they are hugely valuable to the whole community.

For the same reasons, I also want to discuss the future jobs fund. I have heard today that the Government have, as well as deciding to axe the future jobs fund, announced that £750,000 is to be taken out of the working neighbourhoods fund in Wigan. Together, those two things will cripple my constituency. Despite its relatively short life, the future jobs fund has already brought real benefits to the young people in Wigan. I know that because, yesterday, I received a letter from the chairman of my local Age Concern, writing in a personal capacity. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) referred to it earlier. I shall briefly read out the comments because they do much more justice to his real anger than I can with my words. He says:

“Currently we have two able, bright and personable young people who have come to us under the auspices of the Future Jobs Fund. I am angry on their behalf that this scheme has been cancelled. I am even more angry at the hypocrisy of current government ministers claiming that they wish to protect the jobs, particularly of the young, when these two young people find that their opportunity to gain skills and knowledge that would enhance the possibility of their gaining employment has been so casually and thoughtlessly removed.”

By taking away a scheme that guarantees a real and lasting paid job for young people who would otherwise not have one, we store up trouble for future generations. If we are not careful, we will leave a legacy every bit as devastating for future generations as the one that continues to blight so many children’s lives now. We must not repeat the legacy that was created in the 1980s and 1990s. I urge the Minister to think again.