Benefit Claimants (North-east)

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) on securing the debate and on her touching personal and factual speech.

My office, like those of my hon. Friend and other Members here today, receives many enquiries from constituents who have problems with their benefits and are at the end of their tether. My excellent staff always do their best to resolve their problems. In some instances, as has been said, constituents turn out to be swinging the lead, but when they have a genuine case we see the unnecessary distress that can be caused, and we do our best to help them.

Anybody here who has experienced unemployment—I know that some colleagues have—know how miserable it is to go through the process of signing on at the jobcentre, and they know the feeling of rejection when job application after job application does not even receive a response. When somebody gets an interview and it is unsuccessful, it adds to the feeling of deflation and their confidence goes down even further. That is why people’s experience at the jobcentre is so important.

The Work and Pensions Secretary said that in return for claiming unemployment benefits, jobseekers have a responsibility to do everything they can to get back into work, and that sanction should be a last resort. However, the examples we have heard today show that the Government are not keeping their side of the bargain and that sanctions are far from being used as a last resort.

I have two examples of people at different stages of their working lives that illustrate how my constituents have been short-changed in the jobseeker’s allowance process. The first concerns a single mother who works as a dinner supervisor for less than 16 hours per week. She is entitled to a top-up of JSA, and she dutifully always sends the necessary wage slips every month. She was shocked when her benefits were stopped because her wage slips had not been received. My office got in touch with the MP hotline. We got further copies of her wage slips and sent them in again, only to find that those had disappeared too. The issue was sorted out in the end, but in the meantime her benefits were stopped and she fell into rent arrears, all through no fault of her own.

A single, older constituent who had paid her taxes and national insurance for more than 40 years was referred to the Work programme. She attended appointments with Ingeus three times a week, and her job adviser was satisfied that she met the job search requirements. She was pleased when she managed to find a part-time job, but when she went to the jobcentre to tell them about the new job, the adviser wanted to see her jobseekers’ diary. She had shown it to the Ingeus adviser, and thought she would not need it at the jobcentre. She was told that she had not demonstrated that she had performed an adequate job search, and her case was referred to a decision maker. She was left without any money for more than a week, which caused her a great deal of hardship as she started her new job. Fortunately, she won her appeal, but that was no consolation for the poor treatment she received.

I worked in the former Department of Social Security back in the 1980s, so I know that staff take pride in their work and want to help people. I cannot help thinking that the Government cuts to the public sector are putting more pressure on staff in our jobcentres and that consequently, claimants in the north-east and across the country do not receive a fair and proper service. Evidence shows that advisers interpret the guidelines for sanctions inconsistently, which means that claimants in similar circumstances can receive completely different decisions. That should never happen.

I watched some of the first session of the Work and Pensions Committee’s inquiry into benefit sanctions this morning, and I was surprised to hear that the sanctions process is not monitored. How can the Government possibly measure its success? North Tyneside citizens advice bureau told me that, according to the monitoring of a similar scheme in Canada, sanctions have little or no effect on claimants’ behaviour. I have written to the Secretary of State about the examples I have outlined. I hope the Minister can give my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and our constituents some positive answers, and that in the future jobseekers receive the fair treatment they deserve.

Independent Living Fund Recipients

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Nic Dakin]

I absolutely agree.

Let me move on to my second constituent, Jon Clayton, who illustrates what my hon. Friend said. He also receives ILF. Like Ashley, he employs carers who understand his disability. His sister writes:

“My brother Jon is quadriplegic, having been involved in an accident which was not his fault at the age of 18. He is now 54.

He is one of life’s truly inspirational people; an accomplished mouth artist—a gift he only knew he had after his life changing accident—living independently in his own home. He freely gives his time mentoring other disabled persons, helping them come to terms with another life. A life without limbs. A life without walking.

He has always sought to live as normal a life as possible. Having gone through marriage, divorce, being a step father, losing a partner.

He is both ordinary and extraordinary.

He relies heavily on his full time carers. Carers who he personally has ensured are trained to an appropriate and exceptional level to look after a person with specific and defined needs. One false move and he could (and has) spent 18 months bed bound with a pressure sore at the expense of some ill trained nurse.

His carers are trusted to ensure and give a high level of care, entrusted with the most personal of tasks from catheter changing, toileting, dressing…This has been part of Jon’s life since his accident. Something he has taken on with humour and dignity.

If the ILF is removed Jon will be unable to live independently. Being able to engage in what you and I would consider a normal life. He will be unable to travel, have holidays, visit family, visit friends.

The ILF has enabled independence. Given life, where life seemed over.

I would therefore urge you to do all you can to prevent this life enabling function—the ILF—from being eroded.”

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend think it is a disgrace that, last month, when people such as his constituent turned up at Tothill street, the doors of the Department for Work and Pensions were locked against them? Those people simply wanted to hand a letter in to the Minister’s office, but no one was available, and I had to take the letter in by the back door.

[Nic Dakin]

I am sure all those who turned up to present the letter will want to thank my hon. Friend for carrying out that duty on their behalf. Obviously, it would have been much better had they been able to access the Department themselves, and I am sure the Minister and his colleagues will reflect on that. Sometimes these things happen, sadly, but the Minister has heard my hon. Friend’s concern, and I am sure he will want to address it.

A fundamental concern for Jon, Ashley and others is whether they will be able to employ their specialist staff in future. The question was raised with North Lincolnshire council, which responded on 9 June 2014 with these words, which are rather bureaucratic:

“We appreciate this situation may cause you concern as an existing Independent Living Fund customer and would wish to reduce any worry or anxiety you may have.

Allocation of future monies will be based on your updated assessment and support plan and on future Local Authority funding so at this stage we cannot give any specific guidance on the amount of monies that you may receive from us or cannot give guarantees on the future employment status of any Personal Assistants you may currently employ.”

As hon. Members can imagine, such “reassurances” serve only to heighten anxiety and build mistrust.

I return to my central question: will the Government guarantee that Ashley, Jon and all those currently receiving ILF will not lose their independence as a result of the Government’s decision to close the fund? I believe that that decision is aimed at saving money, but it might end up costing far more in other budget areas, such as health.

A better way forward would be for the Government to engage with ILF recipients—they clearly had an opportunity to do so recently when my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) went with recipients to the DWP—to learn from their experience and to find ways of shaping future services that are cost-effective, but that continue to deliver true independence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

Bear with me: I am very short of time and I did a deal with the hon. Gentleman before we started that I would take less time so that other hon. Members could intervene. If the hon. Gentleman intervenes on me now, it will make it difficult. I am more than happy to write to him on any issue if he wants me to.

I understand fully people’s concerns about the change in practice; those concerns arise with any change affecting any benefit, but there really should not be concern. The people who now deliver the care to people in the community are exactly the same as those who will deliver the version of the ILF that is provided in the future. All that I can try to do is ensure that we monitor what happens as carefully as possible, to see that people’s rights and needs are met as the scheme is transferred out. It is important that none of us underestimates the skill and dedication of the people who go out to do the reviews. I have a team in London. Obviously a certain salami-slicing goes on; we want to try to get that money down and into the system, so there are the same people doing assessments. Will some of those assessments have to be tweaked, over a period of time? Absolutely, they will be, and we will help. We will give as much assistance as we can with that.

I want to touch on what the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) said about the delegation to the Department for Work and Pensions. I am sure that it was peaceful, well-mannered and nice, but that is not always the case. If the hon. Lady looks at the side of the building she will see that paint has been thrown over it, and there have been nasty incidents outside. If she wants to come to see me privately I shall talk about that. That is why the security people were there: we do not know what will happen until people turn up. If I had been there, I would have met the hon. Lady. She knows my door is always open. I have seen her, and if she wants me in future to meet a group of the people who were with her, I shall be more than happy to do that, but there have been nasty incidents and the security situation is understandable. The hon. Lady frowns at me, but those things have happened—she just needs to take a look at the side of the building.

[Mrs Glindon]

It is just that I cannot hear the Minister.

[Mike Penning]

Okay, I will shout; but there was certainly no slight intended to the hon. Lady or the people with her. Security make the decision, and like all Ministers I must bear with them on that. I would obviously meet at any time and place.

The subject is enormously emotive and important, but we must not make assumptions about what will happen. My reason for thinking that we can have some confidence is that the scheme has been closed since 2010, so people with exactly the same needs as the people we have heard about in the debate have had them met by the new system. They have been helped by it. It is vital not to have a two-tier system, as we do at the moment. People who have needed a version of the ILF since 2010 have had that from the local authorities, but people such as those I met last night, who are on the scheme, are having their assessments, and the change is taking place. Did families say to me yesterday that some of the questions seemed bizarre, given the disabilities of the person concerned? Yes—and I am taking that issue up. Colleagues may want to liaise with me and work with me; I think that is the key to this.

I will be honest and frank: the scheme is closed to new entries and the money will go out to local authorities. We will monitor what happens very carefully. Will there be teething problems? Yes. Will there be issues to do with the forms? Yes. However, I think we desperately need to get away from the process and from thinking that my Department, or a part of it, is the best place from which to bring a benefit right into the communities and to the individuals who need it. That is not the case. I came new to this.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Yes, there is huge support in other countries. Recently, Mrs Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, said:

“There is a need for clarity: who is entitled to claim social security in Germany, and under what conditions.”

The Deputy Prime Minister of the Netherlands, among others, has said exactly the same. I am in discussions with many of my counterparts across Europe to make sure that we, as individual independent nations within the EU, will be able to impose the conditions we require to stop migrants coming here just to get better benefits than they would in their own country.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

With thousands of PIP claimants waiting six months or more for even their medicals before they get anywhere near any money, will the Minister say exactly what penalties he is imposing on Atos and Capita for failing so abysmally?

[Mike Penning]

As I said in my previous answer, it is not just Atos and Capita that are too slow. They are under a contractual obligation to the Department and I am enforcing that contract, so where they are asked for compensation we will get that compensation.

amendment of the law

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The tragedy of the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) is that he actually believes what he said. I think that we need to be a bit more realistic now. For the past four years, we have heard the Conservatives blaming the previous Labour Government for the economic recession—[Interruption.] If Members want to follow North Korean doctrines such as that of the “Dear Leader”, they should just carry on, but let us get a little bit real.

The recession started in America. I am sure that my colleagues remember Lehman Brothers and Fannie Mae. In this country, we had a problem with Northern Rock, which the Labour Government tried to address. All of this talk about us running up a deficit is nonsense. Basically, we had to save the banks. When the Labour Government came to power in 1997, they cleared the national debt. They inherited the policy of 50p of every pound paid in tax going to pay off the national debt; crumbling schools; patients waiting for treatment in hospitals on trolleys; and declining manufacturing, especially in Coventry and the west midlands. Coventry was losing thousands of manufacturing jobs a week, and household names such as Standard Triumph were disappearing. I am sure that my colleagues remember that.

The previous Tory Government attempted to rebalance the economy. They moved from manufacturing for export to the service industries, which led to the crisis of 2008. When we left office, we still had our triple A rating. We had introduced low interest rates to help families and pensioners and quantitative easing to help the economy and we had bailed out the banks to protect savings. Growth was returning. We had persuaded George Bush, an American Republican conservative President, to pump billions into the American economy.

When the present Government were in Opposition, they said that they would maintain our spending levels. They opposed freedom for the Bank of England and said that the economy was over-regulated and that they wanted to cut red tape. That was their solution to a worldwide crisis that started in America and spread across the world. Their plan was to pretend that it was confined to Britain so that they could blame the previous Labour Government and justify breaking their election promises to the British people.

We must remember that 13 million people are still living below the poverty line in the UK and that 350,000 people used a food bank last year. Energy prices are high, housing is inadequate, wages are low and the Government are offering nothing at a time when many people are suffering. The Government have very little to offer.

My first major problem with the Budget is that it is extremely unfair to our young people—a group who have been undervalued and forgotten by this Government. The Government should be ashamed of how they have simply abandoned a whole generation, who will suffer the most during this recession. Some 282,000 people under the age of 25 have been jobless for a year or more. That figure is at its highest since 1993 and has almost tripled since 2008. More than 900,000 young people are still out of work. That is a serious problem and the Government seem completely complacent about it.

The Government are pleased about the employment picture, but they have not considered the experience of young people in this country. What about young people who can find only part-time work? What about young people who have work, but in a different field from that in which they are trained, or for which they are overqualified? The Local Government Association has warned that a third of all young people will be out of work or trapped in underemployment by 2018 if we are not careful.

A young person’s first job is just a statistic to this Government, but someone’s early career can make a huge difference to their life. For someone who went to university, studied hard and hoped for a job in a particular field, it can be highly disheartening to work in a non-graduate job or a completely unrelated field. Nearly half of recent graduates are in non-graduate jobs. That can be a blight on their future in competitive industries.

Similarly, when people are burdened with financial pressures, being able to find only part-time work is a problem. We are talking about hard-working, driven young people who want to get on but instead spend their whole lives in jobs that are well below their capacity. Yet the Government smugly pat themselves on the back for the employment figures.

Our young people are being abandoned. If the Government do not see that as a serious problem and begin to take action, we are looking at a lost generation. That reminds me all too well of life for young people under Thatcher.

The Government’s flagship Youth Contract has been declared a failure by their own advisers and the Work programme is finding work for only one in six of the long-term unemployed. That is simply not good enough. Labour’s compulsory jobs guarantee scheme, which would be funded by a tax on bank bonuses, would ensure a paid job for every young person under 25 who was out of work for more than a year.

It looks to me as though the Government have given up on young people, perhaps because they think that they have not forgotten about tuition fees, or perhaps because they know that Labour will give the vote to 16-year-olds and they will not. Either way, they have simply decided that the youth vote is not worth chasing and they are going after pensioners instead. That is disgraceful. Young people are being forgotten. A Government should be a Government for everybody, not just for the people who might vote for them or the people who they are afraid might vote for the UK Independence party. That is no way to run an economy.

The Budget does shockingly little to address the fact that women are so unfairly hit by the cuts. Women are bearing the brunt of the cuts and the Budget is no exception.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Women form the majority of employees in the public sector, so the cuts to that sector are doubly affecting women. Does that not show that the Government are going about this in an unfair way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

I apologise for being absent for part of this debate to attend a delegated legislation Committee, but I have heard the majority of the speeches. It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), and to hear her witty but correct analysis of the Budget and the things she thinks need to be done.

This Budget holds mixed fortunes for my constituents, but I will first thank the Chancellor for extending the period in which enhanced capital allowances are available in enterprise zones by a further three years. Why? The former world-famous Swan Hunter shipyard, which the previous Tory Government closed 20 years ago, was purchased by our Labour council in 2009. It is now being developed by our Labour mayor, Norma Redfearn, under the name of Swans, as a site for companies in the offshore and renewable supply industries. The new Swans site sits alongside successful companies such as oil and gas fabricators OGN, and award-winning subsea fabricators SMD. It borders Shepherd Offshore, which lies in the neighbouring constituency of Newcastle upon Tyne East. Most importantly, it forms the bulk of our enterprise zone on the north bank of the Tyne. The news announced by the Chancellor gives more commercial leverage to North Tyneside council’s excellent regeneration team, to support businesses that already want to come to the Swans site, and that will create thousands of jobs for local people over the next few years.

But mixed fortunes it is. My researcher in North Tyneside, Eddie Darke, goes to the Innisfree social club in Longbenton every week. He told me about two of his pensioner friends who remarked to him, “There is nowt in the Budget for us, Eddie”. Those gentlemen, I am sure they will not mind me saying, are hardened drinkers, yet they know that with just a penny off a pint, it would involve an awful lot of drinking before they feel any economic benefit, even at club prices.

It has been said many times in this debate that the Budget will benefit the most well off. This is certainly true, as the Chancellor extends his austerity measures well into the future. What comfort is there for thousands of public sector workers who will, in effect, see their living standards cut further, in a mere 1% pay increase, if they get even that? The real cost of living crisis is hurting single people, families, those who are employed, those who are unemployed, and young and old alike. The crisis has not been addressed to any degree, and that will not help people to feel confident about their future fortunes.

I recently carried out a survey across a community in my constituency where households live in a range of accommodation from lovely riverside apartments to local authority sheltered homes. The community is made up of mixed age groups and those in different economic circumstances. I found that since the coalition Government came to power, 67% of those constituents said that they are worse off, with only 6% saying that they are no worse off. Some 54% thought they would be worse off over the next two years, while only 30% thought they would be better off in future. Sadly, 71% are worried about their energy bills and 42% are very concerned about the rising cost of food.

I do not see anything in the Budget that will change those statistics significantly, or help any of my constituents improve their lot in relation to the high cost of living. Why did the Chancellor not freeze energy bills and take up some of the sound proposals from Labour that would see the books balanced in a much fairer way? I am optimistic about jobs being created on the north bank of the River Tyne. We are desperate for those jobs. I am, however, equally pessimistic for my constituents, whether they are working or, through no fault of their own, on benefits. They will not benefit from the Chancellor’s Budget and they will continue to struggle to make ends meet. This is in no way a Budget for them.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Friday 22nd March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), who so ably told us of the dire effects that this Budget will have not only on his constituency, but on our native north-east.

Last year the Chancellor told us that his Budget was one that supported working families and those looking for work, unashamedly backed business and was on the side of aspiration. However, a year later it proved to be a Budget that led to the stalling of the economy, the downgrading of the country’s credit rating and more U-turns than can be counted on one hand or perhaps even two hands.

This year, as borrowing is set to be £245 billion more than planned and the OBR has stated that people will be worse off in 2015 than they were in 2010, when the Government took office, the Chancellor has trotted out the same lines about aspiration and setting free the aspirations of the nation. I find myself repeating the same lines about how this Budget will adversely affect my most vulnerable constituents, who through no fault of their own have to depend on welfare benefits in one way or another. Last year the Chancellor said that he expected to make further spending cuts of £10 billion by 2016. This year he has raised the amount to £11.5 billion, and as spending on schools and health is to be protected, the welfare budget is bound to be hit.

For the first time, the Chancellor has decided to limit annually managed expenditure, which includes the welfare budget, as well as debt interest and payments to the EU. His main claim for limiting AME is that in order to spend more on the services that we value, including the health service and our armed services, he must cut the growth in spending on the welfare budget. Of course, this stands in stark contrast to the increased tax cuts of £3 billion for the most wealthy in our society.

What will these cuts to welfare involve? We know that all will be revealed in June, but what more can be taken away from the poorest in the country, both the working poor and those who have to rely entirely on benefits? There is speculation that these cuts could realise suggestions flaunted by the Prime Minister in his welfare speech made last summer—things such as paying benefit in kind instead of cash, reducing benefits for the long-term unemployed, and the abolition of housing benefit for the under-25s. But I ask: what do the Government care for the unemployed? Only this week, they pushed the contemptible Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill through the Commons. My constituents from all walks of life are firmly against it, and have contacted me with their serous concerns about the Government’s actions. However, a Government who will stoop so low as to take rightful benefits from claimants and force jobseekers into workfare are unlikely to have any conscience when it comes to making deeper cuts and causing further hardship to the worst-off in society.

Moreover, as millions of the poorest workers look forward to being taken out of income tax, they also have to look forward to increased rents because of the bedroom tax, and they will find that they now have to pay more council tax because of changes to local government finance. In reality, they will feel that the Government have robbed Peter to pay Paul. Many low-paid workers are in the public sector, and after a two-year pay freeze will see their pay rise by only 1%. No doubt many of those hard-working people will have aspirations to own their own homes, but poverty pay and loss of tax credits and child benefits will mean that, despite the Chancellor’s Help to Buy scheme, a home of their own remains out of reach.

The Chancellor said that the Budget does not duck our nation’s problems, but I think it compounds them. It is not a Budget for an aspiration nation; it is a Budget that will bring mixed fortunes for people across the United Kingdom. It will not bring the growth needed to see everyone prosper, to see everyone get jobs. The low-paid worker strives hard every day, but their aspirations are often crushed by the need simply to make ends meet, and this Budget will not change that. At the Conservative party conference, the Chancellor said:

“We are still all in this together.”

His Budget plan does not reflect his words, and it leaves me worried about the economic future of many of my constituents.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2012 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

1. What his plans are for the future of housing benefit for people under 25 years old.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

8. What his plans are for the future of housing benefit for people under 25 years old.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

In June, the Prime Minister instigated a debate about the merits and risks of taxpayers continuing to meet the £2 billion bill that automatic entitlement to housing benefit for people aged under 25 brings. More work is required, and that discussion and debate is still going on.

[Mrs Glindon]

Last year, 10,000 young people became homeless because, through no fault of their own, they could no longer live with their parents. Will the Secretary of State give the House a categorical assurance that there will be no further plans in this Parliament to take away young people’s housing benefit?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I repeat what I said in my first answer: there is a discussion and debate. The policy debates are likely to go ahead, but I have no plans as yet to implement any policy—there are further discussions to be had.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I absolutely agree. It is important to extend the net as widely as possible. My hon. Friend is a huge campaigner for public sector organisations and he is right about the Shaw Trust, which I have visited. It is a phenomenal organisation. We will use the trust and every other organisation we can. In fact we set up desks in jobcentres, which were manned by the Prince's Trust on behalf of all other charities, so that we could extend that net to enable anyone who needed it to get support, not just from the Government but from other organisations.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

The unemployed former Remploy workers in my constituency have seen little or no help from the DWP or Remploy since they lost their jobs. What will the Secretary of State do about that?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am very happy to take any particulars from the hon. Lady and to hear more detail from her, but the really successful part of Remploy is the part of the organisation that works to get people back to work. It has had a very successful record. We have put extra money into that organisation. We have made more money and more support available to try to get people who were working in the factories at Remploy back to work. However, I must say that during the period that the Government she supported were in office, next to no support was given to people who left Remploy when it closed up to 29 factories.

Remploy

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on securing this Back-Bench debate, because for many months workers in the 54 Remploy factories across the country have been waiting for the Government’s decision about their jobs. Given the massive unemployment figures announced this week, I can only imagine that the anxiety felt by those workers has been heightened.

I am proud to say that my own union, the GMB, has been supporting the workers at Remploy and last month handed in a 100,000-name petition at 10 Downing street. Quite rightly, it called on the Government to save Remploy. There is clearly a place for trade unionism in modern Britain when workers face such an unfair fight.

I am speaking in the debate because one of the 54 factories, Remploy Newcastle, is in my constituency, at Benton Square industrial estate in Palmersville, and it has been on that site for the past 32 years. There are 57 full-time employees at the site; 55 of them have disabilities. Those workers produce bedroom furniture, bed bases and mattresses, and assemble and pack cable glands for CMP Products—a locally based company. In recent years, the factory has also provided very successful work placements for more than 100 trainees. In total, 90% of the work undertaken at Remploy Newcastle is for north-east companies. That factory is therefore very much part of our local economy.

Given the threat of the workers at Palmersville losing their jobs, through no fault of their own, I am sure that hon. Members will be able to understand why they are frustrated about the unnecessary redecoration of their factory and the change in Remploy colours, which has resulted in all signage and stationery being changed at the cost of thousands of pounds. They know that they have fantastic skills, including in upholstery, joinery and commercial sewing, but those skills are being wasted as they see their work being deliberately dried up. They and their unions are rightly angry that, during the past five years, more than £15 million has been spent across Remploy on consultants.

On behalf of the Remploy workers and the unions that support them, I ask the Minister to continue to fund Remploy, but instead of taking heed of the recommendations in the Sayce report, which makes no case for the future of Remploy, she should consider the alternative strategy set out by the consortium of trade unions. That strategy makes sense. It sets out a complete review of the whole structure of Remploy, which would result in a much more efficient, sustainable organisation.

Does the Minister really want to be responsible for ruining the livelihoods of so many disabled employees? Does she really want to risk her reputation by making her final decision based on the evidence of a report that many consider to be flawed? Does she have the courage to examine a real viable alternative that will not only save jobs, but create a more efficient organisation and support many local economies across the UK? Will she consider the alternative strategy set out by the consortium of trade unions?

Oral Answers to Questions

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I commend my hon. Friend for her commitment to her constituency. Clearly, my colleagues and I have listened to the point that she makes, but there is a more important issue behind what she says—that each one of us as Members of Parliament, even including yourself, Mr Speaker, have an important role to play in building links between employers, welfare-to-work organisations and others who can help make sure that the unemployed in this country find an opportunity to get back into work as early as possible.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Last July, during Department for Work and Pensions questions, the Minister said that in his view,

“British-based staff are the best contact centre staff”.—[Official Report, 18 July 2011; Vol. 531, c. 604.]

Will he therefore acknowledge the role played by MPs, workers and the Public and Commercial Services Union in persuading Hewlett Packard to drop its plans to offshore more than 200 DWP jobs, and will he commit to ensuring that his Government’s procurement policies do not permit contractors to jeopardise UK jobs and sensitive public data in this way in future?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady is right. I personally intervened as Minister to say that that offshoring should not take place. It is important that we do not see Government-controlled employment move offshore. We have a job to try to maximise employment in this country, and I pay tribute to all those involved in that work force for drawing our attention to the issue and the challenge. It is by far the best option to see people investing in the UK. It is particularly gratifying to see the contact centre industry around the UK increasingly reopening centres, recognising that British workers are far better at delivering good customer service than their counterparts in other parts of the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mary Glindon Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s endorsement of credit unions, and I am pleased to say that, last week, the House of Lords approved the legislative reform order that will pave the way for credit unions to expand. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) asked about the difference between the USA and the UK. One of those differences is that many of our credit unions are small and have not been able to stand on their own two feet and become viable. We are determined to enable them to become viable so that they can perform the functions that she set out.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

7. When he plans to bring forward new work capability assessment descriptors for mental health and fluctuating conditions.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

We have received suggested descriptors for mental, cognitive and intellectual function from Professor Harrington’s working group. Given that they represent a substantial departure from how the current assessment works, we are considering what impact they will have and will come forward with proposals soon. We have not yet received any recommendations from Professor Harrington’s separate working group on fluctuating conditions.

[Mrs Glindon]

In July the Minister received recommendations for changes to the mental health descriptors from Mind, the National Autistic Society and Mencap, and although he says that the Government will be bringing forward proposals shortly, will he specify when those changes will be implemented?

[Chris Grayling]

The challenge facing us is that the recommendations will involve a complete change of the work capability assessment, not simply for mental health issues, but for physical issues, and is therefore a multi-year project. We are considering whether we can incorporate elements of the recommendations into the current approach much more quickly. I am concerned to ensure that we do the right thing by people with mental health conditions, and I want to ensure that we take any sensible steps as quickly as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

The Government are absolutely committed to Remploy and are continuing to fund the modernisation plan. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are looking at the future of Remploy—not just the factories, but employment services. If he has particular examples of current practice that he is concerned about, I would be delighted to talk to him about that. I am not aware of any such business being turned away.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Does the Minister consider £22.60 enough to live on as a personal allowance to provide clothing, toiletries, travel and socialising? If not, why does the Minister expect my disabled constituents from the Percy Hedley Foundation who took part in the Hardest Hit campaign to—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Thank you for the question, but we must move on.