Universal Credit

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I agree, and I must say what the problem has been throughout all this. When I introduced the pathfinder, which said that there would a delay in the way we rolled this out, Labour criticised us for delaying the roll-out. Then, later on, it criticised us for not doing it properly. The reality is that we are doing this properly. We will not do it against artificial timetables, but it will be done in the overall four-year timetable and it will be effective.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Secretary of State has told us today that he had serious concerns in the summer of 2012. He also told us that he then changed the leadership in October 2012. Does he recall what he said to this House in September 2012? He said:

“For what it is worth, I take absolute, direct and close interest in every single part of the IT development. I hold meetings every week and a full meeting every two weeks, and every weekend a full summary of the IT developments and everything to do with policy work is in my box and I am reading it. I take full responsibility and I believe that we are taking the right approach.”—[Official Report, 11 September 2012; Vol. 550, c. 154.]

Culture of secrecy and good news, or what?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I do not resile from any of what I said; that is exactly the way in which we have tried to manage it. But of course, someone is only as good as the information given to them. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that by September 2012 I had already started the reset process and brought in Philip Langsdale. He was coming into the office and we were going to make those changes. The reality is that this will be delivered on time and on budget. That was my view then and it is my view today. The key thing is that those charged with the responsibility of doing that have the skill to do it.

Pensions Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb]

That will need to be considered. As I am well aware, parts of north Wales have long-term unemployment issues that might have an impact on the changes. We need to consider the detail, but the changes should still be welcomed. As I conceded in my opening remarks, some issues will need to be considered in Committee, but the overall direction of travel should be warmly welcomed, whether one is a Member in Wales or in any other part of the United Kingdom. A key point that should be mentioned is that there has been no mention from Government Members of a regional level of state pension. Having heard some of the comments from Opposition Members in recent weeks, I shudder to think what the Labour party might propose in due course on a regional level of basic state pension.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The hon. Gentleman has made the point that he wants work to pay and for people to know that doing the right thing will not cost them. Does he accept that we must take care with the transitional arrangements in that regard? People could find that they lose out in the tight transition, not least because of the costs that could be imposed on schemes that might force their closure—for example, those schemes that were contracted out would now have to be contracted in. The opportunity to simplify those schemes does not really exist, as such direct benefit schemes are notoriously complicated and some people could find that their schemes close as a result of the costs imposed.

[Guto Bebb]

I will come back to some of the important points about the transitional changes, but I suspect that I will have to allow the hon. Gentleman’s specific points to be debated in Committee.

In introducing pension changes, this Government have tried to deal with the excessive level of support offered to public sector workers. At the time we were constantly accused of wanting to level down pension provision in this country, but it is clear that with auto-enrolment being brought forward by this Administration and with the single-tier state pension, we are trying to ensure a more level playing field between those people who are doing extremely important work in the public services and those who are earning a living differently. We are trying to make sure that there is a more equitable system for both.

It is interesting to note that the vast majority of people whose employers might need to pay more in national insurance contributions as a result of these changes are in the public sector. Only today I received a briefing on the issue from the National Union of Teachers. For the National Union of Teachers to state that it has no real concerns about the impact of these proposed changes on its members says a lot about the fact that the changes are very beneficial. I had not previously seen a single press release from the National Union of Teachers that had not attacked this Administration. Despite the 1.4% average increase in national insurance contributions that would have to be made by those who are currently contracted out of the system, there is an acknowledgement that a higher level of pension will then be enjoyed. That comment was made clearly by a union.

I want to emphasise how extremely welcome this change is for the self-employed, and express my amazement at the comments from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). If it is said that the pensions Minister is introducing these changes for the self-employed because he believes there are votes in it for Liberals, long may he continue to bring in changes that will benefit the Liberal vote. In my constituency of Aberconwy and in many parts of rural Wales, a significant percentage of the population are self-employed, and a significant percentage of the population were paying their 9% class 4 contribution and did not know what they were getting for their money. The class 2 contributions made by the self-employed ensured that they got the basic level state pension. Anything that they paid into class 4 was deemed to be on top. That could amount to a significant sum and there was no feeling that anybody was getting anything for that contribution.

In an area such as mine, where about 27% of the population are self-employed, it is imperative that they feel that the state is treating them fairly. It is not their fault that they have had to create their own job in order to stay employed in their own community, and it is unreasonable to argue that because there is no employer making a contribution on their behalf they should be treated worse than other employees. If the self-employed are contributing on a par with or at a similar level to the employed, we should not bring into the equation the employer contribution, because the employee, the worker, the person making an effort to pay their way, support their family and ensure a future for themselves should have the confidence that when they come to retire, they will be treated by this Government in the same way as any employee.

Housing Benefit (Under-occupancy Penalty)

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Gentleman is right. As I said earlier, it is deeply disappointing that there are not more people here to defend the Government’s policy and to debate the issues.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I applaud the strength with which the hon. Lady is setting out the case for the victims of this drive-by hit on the housing benefit budget throughout the UK. Does she recognise that there is an added complication in Northern Ireland? Given the geo-communal tensions and difficulties in Northern Ireland, a measure that sends out the message, “You shouldn’t be living there, you should move,” is fundamentally unsettling, not just for individual communities, but for community relations.

[Dr Whiteford]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes a powerful and important point. The disproportionate impact of the measure on different parts of the UK has not been thought through. The impacts on Northern Ireland clearly deserve a great deal more attention—certainly more attention than I am able to pay them this afternoon.

State Pension Reform

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

In the past, the state provided a flat basic pension and then an earnings-related second pension. By definition, low earners received low earnings-related pensions. What we propose is simply a flat pension, which means that low earners will, on average, tend to benefit.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

As well as engaging with the devolved authorities as he has promised to do, will the Minister take time to proof his detailed proposals to ensure that no untoward difficulties arise for cross-border workers? I represent a border constituency, and I know that it is quite normal for people to work on a cross-border basis. Their jobs often move across the border. However, that can create a number of difficulties, including some relating to pensions. Will the Minister minimise those difficulties?

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of cross-border workers, for which we have had to regulate in the automatic enrolment scheme. We are not aware of any specific issues that would arise from our proposals, because they are built on the national insurance contributory principle. They turn contributions into pensions in a different way, but the system is basically the same. However, if the hon. Gentleman becomes aware of any such issues and wishes to draw them to my attention, I shall be happy to look into them.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

It is pantomime season and during much of today’s debate we have heard a lot of caricature, exaggeration and hyperbole, particularly from Government Members, with the honourable exceptions of the hon. Members for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) and for Bradford East (Mr Ward).

I have sat throughout the whole debate and listened to insidious arguments in favour of this invidious Bill. It is a completely unnecessary Bill, a political contrivance. The Government are engaged in a classic act of misdirection. They are telling some of our people, “We are giving you the confection of increased personal allowances and taking you out of taxation,” and, “We are going to hit the spongers and confiscate from them,” but that is all designed to make sure that people do not realise that they will be hit with stealth cuts and stealth taxes. That is the plan and purpose of this Government. The theatre surrounding the Bill is part of that, which is why I am happy to oppose it. I am particularly glad that the official Opposition will also oppose its Second Reading, having many times found themselves boxed in by the fear of what the Daily Mail might say about some of this Government’s other measures.

The fact is that this Bill will not just hit the benefits of those people who are out of work through no fault of their own; it will also hit the circumstances and living standards of families who are working, struggling to work and who hope that they will still work, but do not know whether they will able to, as a result of this Bill. That is why it is so unfair.

The Bill is also unnecessary. I am not in denial about the scale of the deficit or any of the other hard choices that have to be made, but the idea that this is the measure that is needed now to deal with the deficit, and that it is absolutely necessary or in any way fair, is completely wrong. Nor do I believe the delusion accepted by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) that this is a temporary measure. The Chancellor, who has inspired this Bill, has already said that he wants £10 billion-worth of cuts in welfare in the next spending review period and he will still look for those cuts.

It is only today that the Government have produced their impact assessment for a Bill with such major implications, even though all sorts of other foundations and think tanks, such as Citizens Advice, have been able to produce their impact appraisals sooner. The Government’s impact assessment tells us:

“The legislation is in place for two years after which the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will review the up-rating of benefits annually in line with statutory requirements. In a similar way Government will consider the up-rating of Tax Credits and Child Benefit at appropriate fiscal events, Budgets, Autumn Statements etc.”

Just as we were given no notice of this Bill until the autumn statement, we should be under no illusions that there will not be a further grinding agenda if the Chancellor gets a mandate to get his way in the future. That is why the introduction of the Bill fundamentally changes things with regard to the commitments that we have all made to the social security system for all the reasons given by so many hon. Members.

I represent a constituency where enduring high unemployment is a chronic problem. For those who are in work, low pay and under-employment are too much a part of their experience. All those people will be hit. In a constituency such as mine, the problem is not a lack of work ethic, but a lack of work. A firm that opened recently interviewed 23 people for every job that it had. That is not a lack of work ethic. Those people who want jobs are being insulted by this Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

I am indeed. As my hon. Friend will know, it is not about the condition, but about how each individual person copes with the condition; and yes, I am happy with the criteria.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

T10. The Fair Pensions report, “Whose Duty? Ensuring effective stewardship in contract-based pensions”, highlights the relative lack of quality standards being applied to UK schemes, as opposed to other jurisdictions such as Australia. The Minister referred to active steps being taken in relation to auto-enrolment. Do those steps extend to re-visiting actively the qualifying criteria and the default fund guidance?

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

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the important issue of governance. We do not think that we have a significant problem with the early stages of automatic enrolment for the biggest firms. They are coming in at a low cost and are well governed. The issue will arise further through the process and we are indeed looking at the quality of schemes into which people are auto-enrolled, including charges and governance.

Universal Credit and Welfare Reform

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Absolutely—nothing makes me happier than getting out of London to visit the devolved Administrations, whether in Cardiff or Edinburgh. I shall spend a day in Edinburgh next week speaking to that Administration about this very subject, as I have done on a number of occasions. I am engaging in the same way in Wales, as are my colleagues. I can absolutely give the hon. Lady that guarantee.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I said I would give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend was an excellent Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee—he is highly respected among Members on both sides of the House—and I absolutely agree with him. That is how I see my role. One thing I have done is brought into the system a red team, whose job is to go through and doubt everything I am told, and to ask questions. Being a sceptic and not believing are part of the process of delivering. I absolutely understand that. We are involving others in the process—that is our purpose.

[Mark Durkan]

rose—

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

If the right hon. Lady will forgive me, I am not going to give her specific details now, although I am happy to talk to her at greater length later on. The point I would simply make is that universal credit is designed to get more people who are below work, as it were, to cross the line into work. When people ask, “What is universal credit really about?”, they always talk about the taper. That is really important: simplifying the taper allows people to move up the hours. In truth, however, universal credit’s key component is the disregards—the bit we call the participation tax rate. In other words, right now, unless someone goes straight to 16 hours as a lone parent, for example, the participation tax rate—the moment when they join work—is so high that there are households that need two earners in work just to have enough money to survive. The idea of universal credit is to break that down and improve their lot. I cannot give the right hon. Lady the detail, but I believe that more people will move up the hours, with more people moving into higher hours and longer-term work.

[Mark Durkan]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. He has said that he is taking a hands-on approach to the developing IT system. Will he assure us that the IT system, which will also cover Northern Ireland, will be formatted to allow both the continued weekly or fortnightly payment of benefits, if that is the policy of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the direct payment of housing benefit to social landlords, which is the policy of the Assembly? Will the IT system also be able to cope with the problems of cross-border workers?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I was going to deal with a lot of that in my speech, so the hon. Gentleman is helping me to speed up. Let me deal with monthly payments. I genuinely believe that we need to get people on to monthly payments, for a very good reason. Right now, about 75% of the work force are on monthly payments. We looked at this issue—as I am sure others have—when I was at the Centre for Social Justice. One of the biggest stumbling blocks we found is that when people are out of work, everything is paid directly to them every fortnight, but when they go back to work they really struggle—particularly those who have been out of work for a little time—to cope with the first few months in work. We are looking to get as many people as we possibly can on to a monthly payment, so that when they go into work they have already completed that process and it is not a big break for them.

Of course we will want to identify—working with councils and local groups, and so on—those in real difficulty. Now, here’s the thing. Until now, nobody has really bothered much about them, unless someone—maybe an MP—makes a specific effort to try to get something resolved for them. What we are doing will make us look at why those people cannot cope and then start to surround them with support. It might be about their ability to budget; it might be that the family has serious drug problems, in which case we will need to get to that. So, we start looking at the reason, then we can resolve that and move them into the process. We will allow for the ability to settle at two weeks where we think it vitally necessary, but the mainstream will go to monthly payments. However, I am happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman further about that and help him out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am very sympathetic to what my hon. Friend says. This is something of a puzzle to me, because the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen on this subject are among the most civilised members of the Opposition, and it seems uncharacteristic of them to table such a motion—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I felt sure that they would be delighted to be flattered by me, of all people. What I have said about them is true, however; it is recognised by those on my own Front Bench.

However, the motion before us is extremely overstated. It uses the language of chaos and disaster, as did the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), and calls on the Government “urgently to set out” plans. In contrast, the Secretary of State answered every question that was put to him. He was willing to listen, and he is doing something that, in principle, those on both sides of the House agree with.

[Mark Durkan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way during his praise of the Secretary of State. Last week, the Secretary of State refused to accept a reasonable job offer and incurred no sanction. If that is okay for him, why is it not okay for others?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

That was a most brilliantly phrased intervention. In turning down the opportunity to be Lord High Chancellor—one of the most ancient posts in the land, and one that most people would be honoured to hold—the Secretary of State showed his commitment to ensuring that the reforms will work. In turning down a promotion, he showed his nobility. Having listened to his speech in the debate today, I wonder whether there ought to be an amendment to “Erskine May”, so that when an argument has been comprehensively won by a Minister at the Dispatch Box, the debate could simply end, to a round of applause and cheering, with no further need for discussion.

Welfare Reform Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

I answered the Minister’s question. What his figures show is that only 6% of those who go on to ESA—no doubt many of them will have been on statutory sick pay before that—are in a position to come off the benefit within one year. That is not a reasonable chance to get back to work, as I think the Minister will recognise if he reflects on the matter.

As the Minister said, Lords amendment 18 specifically addresses cancer. I do not think that anyone in this House will be surprised to learn that, for many cancer patients, 12 months is not long enough to become well enough to get back into work. At 12 months, many people are still experiencing debilitating physical and psychological effects from the cancer and from its treatment. People cannot go back to work in those circumstances, and that is why Macmillan Cancer Relief, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) referred to, says that

“proposals that ESA claimants who are expected to carry out work-focused activities will only receive the benefit for one year, without being means-tested, will hit cancer patients particularly hard”.

Macmillan also says:

“Three quarters…of people with cancer placed in the ESA Work-Related Activity Group are still claiming ESA 12 months later.”

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Minister, with his rather “Let them eat cake” answer to our right hon. Friend, the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), was emphasising that the 7,000 people affected would generally have another income available to them? That ignores, first, that that other income could be quite modest; secondly, their family circumstances; and, most importantly, the fact that they face other costs—of a personal, family and household nature—because of their condition.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Ministers say that there is no need to worry because means-tested ESA will still be there, but if a partner is earning £7,500 a year, no means-tested support will be provided at all.

In the other place, Baroness Hayter quoted a letter from a 59-year-old man currently on contributory ESA who has worked and paid into the system since he was 15—that is, for 44 years. Now, when his health is failing, he will be left on the poverty line. He draws the obvious conclusion—this picks up on the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) made earlier—saying:

“It would be better if my wife stopped working then perhaps I could claim income-related ESA—just like any person who has never worked”.

That is the position that this change is putting people in. The Government say they want to reward work; with this measure, they are scrapping the reward for work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Anne Begg]

Let me say from the outset that I support the Lords amendments and do not agree with the Government’s motion to disagree. I shall talk about two main aspects: one is the time limitation and the second is the can of worms that I have managed to open this afternoon about the youth rate.

The time limit is unfair to people who have worked all their lives, done the right thing and thought that part of their payment of national insurance would provide them with some kind of insurance scheme so that if an unfortunate accident or ill health befell them, they would qualify for an income replacement benefit—in this case, employment support allowance—regardless of their actual income. People believed that it would work like any other insurance policy and would pay out if the unfortunate happened. The Government are breaking that link between the concept of an insurance policy and how much and for how long it will pay.

People suffering from cancer are often used as an example of a group that will fall into the work-related activity category of ESA: cancer patients will often not be well enough to go back to work within the year. Other groups of people have fluctuating conditions and some have slowly progressive neurological conditions. From everything the Minister said today, the assumption seems to be that people in the work-related activity group will move towards work, but some will be on the opposite journey, moving further and further away from work as their condition deteriorates.

Because we assess people not on their condition but on how their condition affects them when they go through the assessment, someone with multiple sclerosis or in the early stages of Huntington’s disease might not qualify for the ESA group, might end up in the WRA group and might qualify only some time in the future. They are likely to be a group that has already been in work and will have fallen out of work precisely because they have been diagnosed with these conditions. Although many of us—and probably those people, too—want to be in work, we live in the real world where employers will often not take the risk of employing someone with that type of condition, especially if the person has already lost one job precisely because of it.

I think the time limit is arbitrary and unfair, and I wish the Government would look at it again. The two-year provision is arbitrary as well—[Interruption.] In fact, I do not agree with time-limited provisions at all, but this is the best we have; it is twice as good as the Government’s proposal. [Interruption.] I am sorry that some Conservative Members at the back of the Chamber find this so funny. The people with Parkinson’s disease and MS do not find it funny. It is their lives that are being undermined, and it is they who will not have an independent income. It is my constituents—and, indeed, those of Government Members sitting at the back of the Chamber—who, because they have saved all their lives, will not qualify for income-related ESA and will suffer as a result. They will lose their independent incomes, and their household incomes, although they may have been cataclysmically affected, may still be too high for them to qualify for income support. Despite what those Government Members sitting at the back may think, income support levels are very low, and the actual level of income on which such households will have to live will therefore not be what they may have expected.

[Mark Durkan]

My hon. Friend may recall that, in an intervention on the Minister, the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) pledged his support to the Government on the basis that, in rejecting the Lords amendments, they were removing from the system people who had been abusing it as a “lifestyle choice”. The people we are discussing are people who are suffering from life-impacting conditions such as cancer, Parkinson’s and AIDS, or young people who have had disabilities since their birth or childhood. Where does the issue of lifestyle choices come in for those people?

[Dame Anne Begg]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is not a lifestyle choice to be diagnosed with a progressive, debilitating condition. It is hard. It is difficult. Individuals in that position face enough prejudice in society already, probably from the employers who told them that they could no longer do their jobs. That is why they need to apply for and claim benefit: because they have already faced that prejudice, which the Government may be making even worse. It is hard for those people, and we are making it harder.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs McGuire]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point and no doubt he will pursue it outside this House.

Before I move on, I want the House to hear what Lord Freud said in the other place when asked about how people would cover the reduction in rent. The Minister glibly passed over it, saying that it was only £12 or £14 on average. Lord Freud said:

“Claimants affected by this measure will have to decide whether to meet any shortfall themselves—from their earnings for example, or they could take in a lodger, or someone they know, to fill the extra bedrooms.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 October 2011; Vol. 731, c. GC72.]

How many times does the Government expect people to take lodgers into their family home? Will social landlords even allow lodgers to be taken in, because in my experience they do not allow it? I see the Liberal Democrats are nodding. Ministers also need to make it clear whether rent received in such circumstances would be taken into account in benefit calculations. They are putting people in an unbelievable bind.

This proposal is ill thought-out and will not achieve its aims. It is predicated on an assumption in the impact assessment that will not work. It will push the poorest people, including those who are working—we should not forget that this is an in-work benefit—into even greater disadvantage. It will force social landlords to take eviction action if people end up in arrears. In other words, it is a disaster of a policy, and we should support the Lords in these amendments.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

As well as the socially disastrous consequences that my right hon. Friend has mentioned, does she recognise that under the parity principle this measure would have to be transposed to Northern Ireland? Particular difficulties will be caused in relation to access to social housing in the future and to the demands for new social houses that are benefit-sized to be built in particular locations. Given the geo-sectarian tensions in parts of Northern Ireland, it could be a factor for destabilisation, with certain communities being seen to be punished for their current demographic status.

[Mrs McGuire]

My hon. Friend has highlighted exactly why this particular proposal has been ill thought-out.

Credit Unions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I commend the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for obtaining the debate and for his good and active work as chairman of the all-party group on credit unions. I am conscious that the Minister who is to reply to the debate is from the Department for Work and Pensions because that Department has been closely involved—recently, in particular—in the long awaited LRO, which is so welcomed by credit unions in this country. However, without detracting from the positive points that have been made about the development and potential of credit unions in Great Britain, I want to highlight some points about credit unions in Northern Ireland. I am aware that there are in the Chamber not only officials from the DWP, but some with a relevant interest from the Treasury.

The LRO has long been sought by the credit union movement in Great Britain. It is great to see that advance, some of whose benefits were highlighted by the hon. Member for East Hampshire. Of course, that development, of itself, will not extend to credit unions in Northern Ireland, as he mentioned, so we have a little source of frustration. The Northern Ireland credit unions have spent many years campaigning to be able to offer as many services as their counterparts in Great Britain—their much smaller counterparts, both as to member numbers and savings. At a time when it looks as if that will now happen—at least the primary measure to permit it is coming with the draft Financial Services Bill—one frustration makes Northern Ireland credit unions a wee bit jealous: the LRO will further enhance what their counterparts in Great Britain can do compared with what they can do. Also, of course, there are issues to do with some of the details of the regulation that might come from the Financial Conduct Authority, courtesy of the Treasury’s plans in relation to the draft Bill and associated developments. Issues of context and content arise in relation to the change.

As the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members acknowledged, the credit union movement in Ireland at large is very strong. It has a long history, well rooted in communities. It is also particularly strong in Northern Ireland. The roots of my predecessor, John Hume, were in the credit union movement: not only did he help to found the movement in my constituency, but he led it in Ireland in the 1960s. In Northern Ireland, we have 163 credit unions, 103 of which are affiliated to the Irish League of Credit Unions. Those tend to be more mature; they have been longer in existence. Some 60 credit unions are associated with the Ulster Federation of Credit Unions. The Irish league has 370,000 members and there are 148,000 borrowing members with total savings of more than £700 million and total loans of more than £430 million, so, given the size of the Northern Ireland population, we are talking about something quite significant.

That is the situation while the credit unions are able to offer their members limited services—essentially just deposits and loans. The beauty of the measures that we hope will proceed—courtesy of the draft Bill and the consultations undertaken by the devolved Department and the Treasury in the past while, in response to the report to the Northern Ireland Assembly of an inquiry that I chaired—is the creation of at least the regulatory openings to allow credit unions in Northern Ireland to offer increased services. That is because some historic anomalies and legislative warps have limited what credit unions in Northern Ireland can do. They are not regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Therefore, they cannot offer services that are, by their nature, regulated by the FSA here.

It looks as if we may be coming to a path forward in that respect, but the credit union movement—both the Ulster federation and the Irish league—have concerns about the context and the detail of what is happening. The recent consultation was shortened to two months instead of three. People are worried that it has been rushed, and that although the changes that could be made afterwards have long been awaited, they may take place relatively quickly, before credit unions have been able to prepare themselves properly, internally and externally, for their impact, and for all the requirements. There is no point imposing change that will add to difficulties and make life hard for busy and effective credit unions.

The federation and the Irish league are also concerned about the content of some of the changes. Some of the proposed changes would take credit unions in Northern Ireland backwards in relation to existing functions. One is the planned reduction in the maximum deposit limit. Credit unions in Northern Ireland have a maximum deposit limit of £15,000. It was raised to that amount in 2006, because it needed to be. The proposal is that under the new arrangements it will be scaled back to £10,000. That will affect 48 credit unions in Northern Ireland, in which there are already people over that savings limit. That is entirely consistent with the culture of credit unions, which is about encouraging thrift through growing savings. To ask credit unions to tell some of their savers that they must take money away seems perverse.

The credit unions that belong to the Irish League of Credit Unions also offer, essentially, a free life-savings insurance service to their members. Whatever the value of a member’s savings on death, a multiple of that will go to their next of kin. Therefore, imposing the new limit will mean a significant change in the benefit that credit unions can offer their members.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the issues affecting credit unions in Northern Ireland, and I agree with him. I have received representations on the issue of borrowing, as have several hon. Members, and it is clear that members’ borrowing ability will be adversely affected, with the effects that he suggests. In the case of Northern Ireland, which has such a mature credit union movement, would it not be a good idea for the FSA and the Government to consider the best examples of what has happened there and perhaps import those, rather than imposing what is suggested for Great Britain on Northern Ireland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. Any changes proposed now should be about allowing and encouraging credit unions in Northern Ireland to go forward, not taking some of them backwards, and expanding their platform, rather than restricting the space in what they offer their members. He has made the point that the deposit restriction has a consequential effect, in some ways, on borrowing. Another issue, although I shall not go into it here as time does not permit, is the limit being imposed on unsecured loans. Given that there is such a high rate of saving and very healthy savings levels in credit unions in Northern Ireland, that restriction also seems perverse in its consequences.

There is also a proposal to limit the investment maturity period for any surplus sums that credit unions invest. Many credit unions in Northern Ireland are investing them very prudently, sometimes on three, four or five-year terms. The changes proposed by the Government would limit them to one-year deals. In the circumstances, the logic of Government policy should be about encouraging long-termism, prudence and sound investment in savings, so it seems perverse that credit unions in Northern Ireland are being told that they will no longer be allowed to follow the good and effective practice in which they have been engaging for years, and that they will have to move to a more varied and less reliable pattern of dealing with investments.

There are also issues with the transition to the new arrangements. Traditionally, credit unions in Northern Ireland have been registered with and regulated by the Northern Ireland Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, albeit for a limited number of services. Credit unions belonging to the Irish League of Credit Unions and the Ulster Federation of Credit Unions have enjoyed their relationship with DETI. They have confidence in its officials, who have important insight and rapport.

During any change or transition to the Financial Conduct Authority, given that it will involve new things, as will the new regulation for credit unions in Northern Ireland, it will be important to have a strong support programme in place. The devolved Administration should support that, but I also hope that the Treasury and DWP will be sympathetic, because the kinds of measure that we want during the transition and development period are akin to the sorts of support that the Department has been happy to give to members of the Association of British Credit Unions Ltd and credit unions in this country.

I wanted to take advantage of the debate, secured by the hon. Member for East Hampshire, to set out some of the concerns. The story of credit union development in Northern Ireland has been good and strong. We could be on the threshold of something positive, but there is a danger that unnecessary detail will detract from that potential.

Disability Hate Crime

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Kate Green]

Indeed, and I will say a little more about that. It is an important point that highlights that some of the perpetrators of really shocking instances of abuse and criminal behaviour are very young. Intervening early to demonstrate to them the absolute unacceptability of such behaviour is clearly the right thing to do.

Cases such as that of Fiona and Francecca Pilkington are of course the extreme, but they exist in a context of rising hostility to disabled people, which fuels abusive behaviour and leads to an increase in the harassment of them. Recent research for Scope by ComRes has shown that 47 % of disabled people feel that attitudes towards them had got worse over the past year, with 66% of disabled people reporting experiencing aggression, hostility or name calling.

A study published last month by the Glasgow Media Group, which analyses how the media are reporting disability in the context of Government spending cuts, reveals a major shift in how disabled people are portrayed, and the negative impact that that is having, both on public attitudes and on disabled people themselves. The research found a fall in media coverage that described disabled people in sympathetic and deserving terms, and an increase in the number of articles focusing on disability benefit fraud. Researchers observed an increase in articles portraying disabled people as a “burden” on the economy, with some articles even blaming the recession on incapacity benefits claimants.

Harassment and attacks exist and flourish in that context of hostility—a context, it has to be said, to which politicians are helping to contribute. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the derogatory and damaging language that has surrounded too much of the debate about welfare reform, and will give her commitment that there is a determination across Government to stamp out any negative portrayal of disabled people.

Although attitudes and language are important, campaigners have rightly identified the need for a much wider, whole-system change. That requires that public bodies and the professionals who work in them treat all manifestations of disability-related harassment and hate crime with the utmost seriousness. Too often, victims fail to report harassment and attacks, because they are unsure to whom they should report them, or because they feel that they will not be believed. Too often, when attacks are reported, the response of the professionals is to focus on the behaviour of the victim and how that should change. In other words, they focus on how victims should curtail their lives to avoid finding themselves in a situation in which they continue to experience harassment. That cannot be right. The priority must be to focus on the behaviour of the perpetrators, to challenge behaviour that is unacceptable, to deal appropriately with criminal behaviour and to take all necessary steps to prevent it occurring.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. She has just made the point about people being subjected to patterns of harassment. Is she hearing from police officers that they are increasingly conscious that, when younger officers or officers who are new to an area produce a report and check the books, they find that that report is the latest in a series of reports about harassment being suffered by a particular individual? It is almost because a report forms part of a pattern that the police are inclined to say, “There is nothing we can do about it”, because nothing has happened about the previous reports. The police fail to appreciate the cumulative impact of this sort of antisocial behaviour and constant harassment. Such behaviour and harassment should be a call to action rather than a call to indifference.

[Kate Green]

That is an important point and I am sure that it is one that the police will also take note of. Too often there is an attitude that nothing can be done because the victim is disabled and there is scepticism about what disabled victims say. One shocking case, quoted in Katharine Quarmby’s book “Scapegoat”, was that of a blind woman who had been sexually assaulted, but the response of the police was that it was not possible to proceed with the case because, of course, she had not seen her attacker.

In its report, “Hidden in plain sight”, the EHRC has proposed a number of important measures to help to improve the situation. First, there must be leadership and ownership of the issue across all public bodies. This is not an issue simply for one arm of government. It cuts across central Government Departments, local government, the criminal justice system, the education system, health, housing, care, transport, employment and so on. Therefore, a signal from the Minister today of the seriousness with which the Government regard the issue will be important. However, warm words will not be enough. Disabled people want to know how Ministers will ensure that the issue remains a priority for ministerial attention across Government; what structures exist within Whitehall to focus attention and drive action; what accountability mechanisms will be put in place; how public institutions that fail to take action will be compelled to do so; and how Ministers will work with local government to ensure ownership of the issue at local level.

Secondly, such an approach must be informed and supported by the systematic gathering and monitoring of data that spell out the scale and severity of the problem, and by analysis of that data to support and direct policy makers’ attention to where action is needed. We know that there is significant under-reporting of harassment and abuse of disabled people, and there is a need to improve the recording and reporting of disability hate crime.

Radar has responded to that problem through its “Stop Disability Hate Crime” project, which is working with disabled people’s organisations and the authorities to develop a national independent disability hate crime reporting centre, which will provide minimum standards for other such centres, and raise awareness of disability hate crime and incidents and how to report them. The project also maps the disability hate crime third-party reporting sites that already exist or are being established. Also, a survey has been undertaken to find out why disabled people do not want to report disability hate crime and what would make them more confident to do so.

The Radar project is an important initiative and I hope that the Government will look carefully at the lessons that emerge from it, and at ways of strengthening the capacity of third-party hate crime reporting centres as a valuable way of increasing the incidence of reporting. Of course, it will be important that such centres follow minimum standards, but I know that all right hon. and hon. Members will welcome Radar’s work in that area and look forward to its report, which is due to be published early next year.

Thirdly, practice at the front line is, of course, vital to ensure that action is taken swiftly to respond to and prevent harassment or criminal attacks on disabled people. That requires the engagement, attention and effort of a range of public institutions. Crucially, those public institutions must work in partnership with each other and with disabled people to develop and to implement the right strategies to tackle disability hate crime. That partnership working can enable early identification of the patterns of behaviour that we have been discussing today, which is essential if problems are not to escalate. Today those patterns are too often missed, or cases are dealt with in isolation. As a result, the response of the authorities can be fragmented, inadequate or too slow.

In its 2009 report on the security of disabled people, the EHRC pointed out that a range of public authorities were not playing any preventive role: housing associations, social care providers, health care providers, the voluntary and community sector and local authorities. Too often, there is an inadequate response to incidents even when they are reported. That must change. Although there has been some progress in the response of the criminal justice agencies, action across the piece is needed and it is in that context that the Government’s action plan will be so important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and to follow the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who always speaks in an informed way. Today was no exception. I join him in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on obtaining the debate at an important time, and on her excellent speech. I hope that she will forgive me if I re-emphasise some of her points, each of which was well made.

Disability hate crime is a big issue, affecting about 60% of all disabled people in the UK. Within that number, people with learning disabilities are hugely affected: according to Mencap, nine out of 10 say that they have been bullied, harassed or harmed because of their impairment. I should declare that I am the joint chair, with Lord Rix, of the all-party parliamentary group on learning disability.

The recent Equality and Human Rights Commission report “Hidden in plain sight” suggested that disability harassment is so common that many have come to accept it as part of their everyday lives. The report also found that numerous agencies, including the police, the courts, the Crown Prosecution Service and local authorities, have failed to recognise disability hate crime and respond effectively when it happens.

Mencap’s “Stand by me” campaign aims to rectify the issue by encouraging police forces to give greater attention to disability hate crimes and promoting the need for Government to do more to achieve improvement. In June this year, I had the privilege of hosting a reception. I was delighted that the Minister was there, as I am always delighted when she is present. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), whom I am delighted to see back in a post to which she is eminently suited, feels equally welcome.

The Government committed to publishing a hate crime action plan, but there is no evidence of it yet, although it is essential if we are to achieve strategic direction and a co-ordinated approach to tackling hate crimes, such as those aggravated by disability. Sentencing is a key issue that has been raised. Recently, the Government announced their intention to equalise minimum sentences for murders aggravated by disability as part of schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. I welcome that strongly, of course, but it does not mean the end of the issue. Murder is just one part of a huge spectrum of abuse suffered by disabled people, and provision should be made to safeguard all disabled people who suffer any sort of disability hate crime.

Types of hate crime vary substantially, as we have heard. Murder and physical abuse are the most hard-hitting and widely publicised. However, name-calling and general harassment build up over time and can cause long-lasting psychological damage to the victim, as was seen in the case of Fiona Pilkington, who, sadly, killed her learning-disabled daughter and herself after years of abuse. Another, relatively recent phenomenon, referred to by the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, is mate crime, in which perpetrators falsely befriend disabled people and exploit them financially, physically or sexually. Sentencing for disability hate crime should be comprehensive enough to safeguard against all those forms of crime.

The Government have also announced that they will reform section 146 of the 2003 Act, which imposes sentence uplifts for crimes aggravated by protected characteristics such as disability. Section 146 is widely unenforced: only 1,200 cases of disability hate crime have been prosecuted, compared with 48,400 racist and religious hate crimes. However, the Ministry of Justice has said that the Act will be updated so that where any offence is shown to be motivated by hostility towards the victim on the grounds of transgender, race, religion, sexual orientation or disability, sentences must be more severe. The implication is that the law will be strengthened so that courts “must” impose a sentence uplift, thus removing their discretionary power. Will the Minister clarify the situation? I would welcome that.

Another issue that must be addressed is the power of the Attorney-General to review sentences deemed unduly lenient. That power does not extend to sentences for disability-motivated offences, which creates an inconsistent picture in the legislation on disability hate crime. There is a possible implication that disability hate crime is not as much of a priority as other strands of hate crime such as race or religion, important though those are. Disability hate crime must be recognised as an equal issue across all forms of sentencing.

[Mark Durkan]

My right hon. Friend rightly highlights the fact that the Attorney-General can review lenient sentences for racial or religiously aggravated attacks, even where the offence is relatively minor, but the law insists that disability-aggravated crime may be reviewed only if it is most serious. Does that not essentially put the law and the Attorney-General in the Sepp Blatter position of saying, “Yes, it’s wrong, but it’s not really serious; it’s unacceptable, but it’s somehow understandable.”?

[Mr Clarke]

My hon. Friend’s point is salient and I am sure that we all take it on board. It is essential that the issues under discussion are dealt with as part of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill; otherwise, the opportunity for disability hate crime to achieve the type of parity for which we are calling will pass.

What needs to happen? I acknowledge the Home Office directive on collecting figures on disability hate crime. That could achieve a better understanding of the national picture, taking in every part of the United Kingdom. However, more needs to be done to be proactive, even beyond that.

Police forces need better to understand disability, including learning disability, so that they can effectively support victims of disability hate crime. That includes flagging up repeat cases of disabled people being victims of abuse. Mencap’s police promise initiative, for example, encourages police forces to sign up to a list of pledges to show their commitment to tackling disability hate crime.

Courts and the criminal justice sector should employ special measures, as per the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s recommendations in the “Hidden in plain sight” report, better to accommodate disabled people. That includes effective support for witnesses, which can be crucial in so many cases.

It is also hugely important to tackle wider public attitudes about disabled people, as hon. Members have mentioned. There is a lot in the media about people being “benefit scroungers”, and disabled people are often deemed guilty by association, which breeds contempt among the public, some of whom perceive disabled people to be cheating the system to ensure that they get state handouts. That is wrong and unacceptable.

I again welcome the debate and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston on securing it. I strongly believe that we should face the issues and problems of sentencing and respond accordingly, and her debate today has given us a wonderful opportunity to focus on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for dealing with a point that I was about to address and that has been alluded to by other Members. The focus needs to be shifted away from always analysing a case’s evidence by looking at the victim, and towards the wrongdoing and what the offender has done. That welcome shift of emphasis was displayed in guidance issued by the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecutors in England and Wales in March 2010. It is similar to the shift in focus that occurred some years ago in relation to domestic violence. People used to ask of the victim, “Why did she stay with him?”, instead of focusing on the behaviour of the perpetrator, which, I am glad to say, is what is now happening in cases of domestic abuse. The same must happen in relation to disability.

The danger we face in focusing on the victim and their behaviour is that in assuming that all disabled people are vulnerable just because of their disability, we start asking dangerous questions, such as, “Why don’t they avoid these situations? Why do disabled people put themselves in that position in the first place?” By asking those dangerous questions, we are at risk of driving disabled people back into their homes and into institutions, and away from mainstream society. That is wrong and I hope that today’s debate will give a clear message to the Government that we must avoid it. We are in danger of being as bad as the people in ages past who used to apply the dunce’s cap to disabled people in the classroom.

Such attitudes lead to other dangerous assumptions, such as that of some involved in the criminal justice system that disabled people are somehow unreliable or incredible witnesses, simply because of their disability. That is another dangerous and fatal assumption, which, I am afraid, has played far too great a part in the criminal justice system and has prejudiced and stopped cases involving disabled people. It has ended in miscarriages of justice involving disabled people.

I have mentioned the guidance, which was welcome. It followed a speech made by Lord Macdonald when he was Director of Public Prosecutions, which I think helped to clarify the CPS’s position and its understanding of disability. I welcomed his comments about the concept of hate. We have to be careful when using the word “hate”; we must make clear what it covers. The danger with the word is that hate is an extreme concept, so we think that there cannot be many people in our society capable of it. The definition, however, is a wider one, and includes hostility or prejudice. What does that mean? There are other words for hostility, such as unfriendliness, antagonism, meanness and sheer ignorance. That is particularly important when we consider that many acts are perpetrated over a long period. We have heard about many sad cases, both today and elsewhere, that involve the victims of a crime finally suffering the last straw that broke the camel’s back. It is important to remember that “hate” has a wide definition and involves a whole section of attitudes that I believe are bred from ignorance and sheer lack of understanding of the needs of disabled people. That leads to offences that take place on many levels; low-level offences can cause so much misery to the lives of disabled people.

We have been rightly reminded of the provisions of section 146 of the 2003 Act. To be fair to the drafters of that welcome provision, it says that the court “must” treat the fact that the offence was committed in an aggravating way when the offender, immediately at the time of the offence, or before or after it, demonstrated hostility based on the disability or presumed disability of the victim. The provisions are there; they are mandatory. The problem is with the previous stage, because there must be evidence of hostility beforehand, which is where the work of prosecutors becomes extremely important.

The guidelines include a welcome set of considerations that all prosecutors should consider when reviewing cases involving disability. They are the sort of factors that we have discussed today, such as previous incidents involving the victim and the offender. Are the incidents escalating in severity or frequency? Is the targeting becoming systematic and regular, rather than opportunistic offending? On the status of the offender, we have heard about so-called “friends” who befriend people and then manipulate the circumstances. A lot of proper questions are being asked in the guidelines. The key now is to ensure that in every case, those considerations are applied, looked at and checked in each case file.

Key actions could be taken now to help both prosecutors and sentencers. For example, section 146 should be flagged up as a consideration in every case file, so that when prosecutors assess and prepare the evidence, any sentencer is aware of it. In open court, the prosecuting solicitor or barrister should remind the court of their powers under section 146. Such nuts-and-bolts practical measures could see the sort of increase in the use of section 146 that was rightly referred to by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), and which we all want to happen.

Court practitioners and judges need more training on disability issues, most notably the use of section 146. The key point that I found, depressingly, time and time again is that the equation between disability and reliability has to be broken. We have to break that link in the hearts and minds of those involved in the system.

[Mark Durkan]

In respect of the whole question of sentence uplifts, the ECHR report stated that sentence uplifts have never been applied to any prosecution of rape or sexual assault where the victim was a disabled person. Is the point about the question of unreliability of people as witnesses, which the hon. Gentleman has just made, a factor in that?

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will address his point directly. There is no doubt in my mind that prosecutors who face a case where the victim has disabilities feel that somehow the prosecution will be an uphill struggle. Far too often, the use of special measures is not considered as much as it should be. For example, in a case that I was involved in, a person with a moderate learning disability was the victim of a rape. Through the help of an intermediary, the person was able to give evidence through a video link and a conviction was secured. The intermediary was a speech and language therapist. She was not only able to give confidence to the victim, but was there to assist the court if there was any ambiguity or lack of clarity to the jury in what the victim was saying. It was a most encouraging exercise, not only in achieving a fair result, but in making sure that the voice of that person was heard.

The role of intermediaries should be expanded and encouraged, not viewed as an unusual event in our courts. I think that there was an instinctive suspicion among practitioners that somehow the use of an intermediary would dilute the victim’s evidence, or would in some way interfere with the process of giving evidence. Those concerns are unfounded. People should think of intermediaries as officers who help the court, rather than people who somehow manipulate or interfere with the evidence. That is not my experience, nor that of many other people who have successfully used intermediaries. To put it bluntly, if the intermediary had not been there to assist the witness in that very serious offence of rape, I do not believe that we would have secured a conviction. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point.

It has already been said that in the past four years, despite the fact that there are 10 million disabled people in the UK, only 1,200 cases of hate crime have been prosecuted. On the basis of a recent Scope survey, conducted in May 2011, that is an incredibly low figure. The survey revealed that almost 60% of disabled people had experienced hostility, aggression or violence due to their impairment, and that half of disabled people said that they experience hostility on at least a weekly basis. Almost 40% of disabled people said that hostility had got worse in the past year. If we extrapolate those figures, we see that millions of people are suffering in silence or, when their voice is heard, that the situation is not being effectively dealt with by the authorities.

We have come a long way since society wished to institutionalise disabled people and wholly shut them out from the mainstream, but we still have a long way to go to ensure that when disabled people, rightly, access mainstream life, they do not become vulnerable because of the circumstances in which they put themselves. We must all, as a society, stop asking these dangerous questions: why do they come out into the mainstream and why do they put themselves in those positions? Let us focus on the offender. Let us focus on the offending. With that approach, we can achieve real results in the field of disability hate crime.