Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Crockart Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

There was a nugget buried in that question: the hon. Gentleman accepts, unlike those on his party’s Front Bench, that the Work programme is improving and getting more people into work. I am delighted by his support for it.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

What assistance can my right hon. Friend offer my constituent who, anxious not to be a burden on anyone, took a zero-hours contract? Although he generally works for significantly fewer than 16 hours, on the odd occasion that he does work for more than 16 hours his department suggests that he makes a new claim when cancelling the old one. How can that be right?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I recognise that this is an issue. Some 200,000 people are employed on zero-hours contracts, which is just less than 1% of all workers. The current benefit system deals with claimants on zero-hours contracts, but universal credit will mean that they will not have to re-sign on. Personally, I think there should be far fewer zero-hours contracts. We are trying to work with employers and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to persuade those who have a genuine long-term job to get off zero-hours contracts and get a proper contract of work.

Personal Independence Payments

Mike Crockart Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, it has always been the case under DLA that when people are reassessed, some people stay on the same benefit, some people get more and some people get less. That will be exactly the same under PIP. The difference is that there was no systematic review under DLA, but there will be under PIP.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

An answer that I received to a recent parliamentary question indicated that between October 2008 and May 2012, 59% of initial work capability assessments for employment and support allowance resulted in those being assessed being awarded no points at all. Will the Minister assure me and the many recipients of DLA in Edinburgh West that all possible efforts are being made to ensure that the design and delivery of the assessments for PIPs will ensure that more decisions are correct the first time around?

[Esther McVey]

Let me reiterate once again that this is a totally different system to ESA. It is a totally different benefit altogether. In fact, we inherited ESA from the previous Government. It was wrong in 2009 and we have put in place many steps to improve the system, including putting it through three reviews. I assure my hon. Friend that we have listened to the various disability groups and organisations, and that we will get this right.

Disability Hate Crime

Mike Crockart Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I start by adding my congratulations to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on securing the debate. I recognise that she has long been a champion on the issue. As someone who sat on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill Committee, I welcome the Government’s announcement that they will table amendments in the House of Lords to offer disabled victims of crime the same protection as those who are targeted because of their race, religion or sexual orientation. The provisions were pushed for by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston and by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard).

Although I am particularly pleased to learn that the Government will be tabling those amendments, I hope that they will seek to build on experience north of the border. In 2010, Scotland became the first country in Europe to have specific disability hate crime legislation on its statute book. The Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Act 2009 makes provision for statutory aggravations that can be attached to offences motivated by prejudice towards disabled or lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, and requires courts to say what impact, if any, those aggravating factors have had on sentencing.

In Scotland, any criminal offence that is partly or wholly motivated by prejudice on such grounds is to be dealt with as a hate crime all the way through the system. For example, the offence could be assault, vandalism, verbal threats, abuse that could be charged as breach of the peace, or any other crime. If the person committing the offence uses disability-prejudiced language, or if there is any other evidence of a prejudiced motive, that makes it a hate crime. If anyone witnessing a crime thinks it was a hate crime, the police must record it as a hate incident. If there is any evidence of a hate motive—for example, prejudiced language—it will be charged as a hate crime. If the person charged is found guilty, the hate motive will be taken into account in sentencing, and the court must say publicly what difference the hate motive made to the sentence.

[Kate Green]

It is interesting to hear about the experience in Scotland, from which I am sure we can learn. I was very interested in what the hon. Gentleman said—that if anyone identifies the crime as a hate crime it must be treated as a hate crime. Is it not also important to recognise that although victims themselves often specifically exclude the possibility that it was a hate crime, that in itself should not be taken at face value, because there may be all sorts of pressures on them not to identify it as such?

[Mike Crockart]

I absolutely agree. In fact, the hon. Lady’s intervention feeds very nicely into my next point. Twenty years ago, when I was going through basic training as a police officer, racial incidents were going through the self-same process. When someone was the target of a racial incident and did not necessarily feel that it was one, the fact that someone else had witnessed the incident was sufficient to make it a racial incident. That was the test that I was taught to use 20 years ago. I have to admit that at the time it felt excessive, but it was only thus that such crimes and incidents became generally unacceptable. In that way, there was a move to general agreement that much of the racist language of the ’70s and ’80s, which was tolerated by the silent majority, was derisive and abusive. Such a move is required in attitudes to disability hate crime, and is massively overdue. I trust that the Minister will be able to assure us that the amendments that the Government have now promised to table in the Lords will go further and build on the experience in Scotland, affording a similar level of protection in England and Wales.

The announcement from the Government signals recognition, welcome to us all, of the need to tackle those despicable crimes. It is also heartening for me to help push forward the agenda that my predecessor in Edinburgh West worked on in the previous Parliament. Responding to a parliamentary question tabled by my predecessor, John Barrett, in April 2008, the then Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said:

“The Home Office is responsible for the police recorded statistics. Statistics are collected on the number of racially or religiously aggravated offences but no information is available on those offences which are specifically ‘disability hate’ crimes.”—[Official Report, 29 April 2008; Vol. 475, c. 330W.]

I welcome what the Government have already done, specifically the coalition commitment to improve the recording of such crimes. Since April 2011, all police forces now report hate crimes centrally. Published data from the Association of Chief Police Officers show increases in the number of disability hate crimes reported in 2010—a 21.3% increase on the recorded figures in 2009. This must be one of the few areas where we can welcome a large increase in reported crime, as it shows that the push for people to report the crimes is having an effect.

I await the promised hate crime action plan and the Government response to the Equality and Human Rights Commission inquiry, but it is positive that the issue is finally receiving the attention that it deserves, although of course it is a shame that this or any Government have to tackle it at all. Such horrific cases as the killings of Brent Martin, Steven Hoskin or Fiona Pilkington should assault our consciousness as a decent society and daily remind us how serious the situation can become if left unchecked. As the Equality and Human Rights Commission noted in its “Hidden in plain sight” inquiry, we need to look at preventive strategies alongside any legislative changes, ensuring that we nip in the bud such attitudes and behaviours before they escalate. We also need to address the wider geographical, social and economic factors, identified in the Commission’s research, that can leave disabled people and others at greater risk.

A change of attitude in this country is vital. After all, it is not disabled people who create their oppression, it is others. As previously said, and as Sir Ken Macdonald so eloquently argued in one of his final speeches as Director of Public Prosecutions, we must overcome a prevailing assumption that disabled people’s intrinsic vulnerability explains the risk that they face, an assumption unsupported by evidence. At best, that had led to protectionism, constraining rather than expanding the individual freedom and opportunity that greater safety and security should provide. Only by extending the same expectations of safety and security to disabled people as to everyone else can we truly address the deficits in our current approach and wake up to the need to act. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on those points as well.

I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We are currently finishing an inquiry into independent living, which has looked at various aspects such as access to welfare, housing and employment and the differences in provision between different local authorities and nations. We have even had the Minister along recently to answer various questions about Government policy. However, I now realise that we have omitted investigation of a basic element. A constituent part of ensuring access to independent living is laid out in article 3 of the universal declaration of human rights:

“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and”—

crucially—“security of person.” What is clear from many of the dreadful examples that we have heard today is that that security is put at risk daily by the criminal acts of a few, which are unfortunately tolerated by many more.

As a member of the JCHR, I have also taken note of the EHRC’s endorsement of the mechanisms of the Human Rights Act 1998, which it says are essential for the protection of human rights in the United Kingdom. The EHRC also argues that the existing law is well crafted to balance Britain’s international obligations with its constitutional conventions. In particular, the existing Act preserves parliamentary sovereignty and the role of British judges in interpreting the legislation, and has allowed many people to exercise their basic rights without the time and expense of taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights. I hope that the Minister can reassure me and other members of the Joint Committee that any revision of the Human Rights Act will not change that crucial lifeline for those who are disabled.

In conclusion, I welcome the issue finally receiving the attention it deserves. I await further concrete steps by the Government to deal with this hidden crime.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. I intend to call the Front Benchers at 10.40. Therefore, I call Mr Stephen Lloyd, assuming that he can constrain himself to that time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Crockart Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We have remained on schedule to start the process for individuals. It is not the case that assessments are taking twice as long. There is an early element of bedding in for the personalised statement, as was recommended by Professor Harrington, but we are not aware of any long-term factors that would change the timetable for the whole reconsideration process.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

10. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of user groups in assisting people with disabilities to obtain work through the Work Programme.

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

I regard the role of specialist organisations and specialist user groups as extremely important for the delivery of the Work programme. They, above all others involved, will be able to provide the specialist support that individuals with particularly serious challenges in their lives face in trying to get into the workplace.

[Mike Crockart]

I thank the Minister for his answer. However, given that only 230 disabled people secured work through residential training colleges last year, at an average cost of £78,000 per person, will the Secretary of State commit to implementing the recommendations as set out in last week’s Sayce review on allowing such colleges to develop as centres of excellence and to adapt their provision to operate directly in provider markets—for instance, as subcontractors in the Work programme?

[Chris Grayling]

We are considering the Sayce recommendations and have not yet formally responded about our decisions on whether to adopt most of them. However, my hon. Friend makes a sensible point. I have visited the Queen Elizabeth Foundation for Disabled People near my constituency in Surrey, where I said to people that I would encourage them to look to see whether they can enter the Work programme to provide specialist support as subcontractors. I hope that all the colleges will consider taking such an approach.

Pensions Bill [Lords]

Mike Crockart Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which details my paid employment in the pensions industry prior to my election last year.

I must admit to being a little confused by today’s debate. As a new Member, I had been under the impression that Second Reading was an opportunity for debate on the general principles of a Bill. I am also somewhat confused by the Labour party’s position. On the basis that some of the detail in the Bill is not yet right, it is prepared to throw the entire subject out and delay the reform that is necessary to move this country to a sustainable pensions system. It is worth spending some time looking at those general principles.

As has been noted, the present state pension age of 65 for men was set by the Widows’, Orphans’ and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act 1925, which was passed 86 years ago. That brought the pension age down from 70, which had been set in the excellent Old Age Pensions Act 1908. At that point, barely 40% of men lived long enough to claim it. The women’s pension age of 60 was set 71 years ago by the Old Age and Widows’ Pensions Act 1940, so change has not exactly been rushed into. As the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) said earlier, this country’s demographics have meant that for decades we have faced a ticking pensions time bomb, but we have unfortunately been very slow to deal with it. We may well have started to do so in the past 10 years, but countries such as Sweden grasped the problem 20 years ago and introduced auto-enrolment back then.

Life expectancy is far from static, having gone up for those aged 65 by five years between 1920 and 1990 and, crucially, by a further five years between 1990 and now. Men can now expect to live until 77 and a half years old and women for four years longer than that, but not only are we paying state pensions longer; we can expect to pay them to far more people. As the baby-boomer generation of 1946-47 reaches retirement in 2012, 800,000 people will celebrate their 65th birthday—150,000 more than did so this year. It is now abundantly clear that our current state pensions system and its funding are entirely unsuitable and unsustainable. That is why I welcome the general thrust of this Bill and, indeed, much of its detail, but as we go forward it is clear that we have to sort out four elements to ensure a sustainable system.

First, we must be certain of what the state will provide. I welcome the current consultation, looking at the possibility of a single-tier universal pension, because, although it is not in the Bill, it is clearly part of the solution to the puzzle. With certainty about what they can expect from the Government, people will be able to decide whether the basic provision on offer is sufficient, although it is more likely to make it easier for them to decide to top up what is on offer.

Secondly, we must establish a level of state pension provision that is sustainable in the longer term and is regularly reviewed to ensure that it matches life expectancy. We simply cannot afford to find ourselves in this position again, having ignored the warning signs that our state pension offering has become unaffordable.

The current acceleration timetable for the state pension age will unfortunately, I fear, almost certainly fail to deal with the funding gap that I have outlined, but that does not mean that I support the Government’s current proposals, as it is quite clear that they will badly affect many women. It is simply wrong that those women, who are fast approaching their expected retirement age, will now be given as little as six years’ notice in order to plan how to cope with a delayed state pension. Some are already unemployed, caring for older relatives or working substantially reduced hours due to ill health.

The proposal hits especially hard those women who had already been told that their planned retirement would be delayed by four years. They are now being hit with a second delay. It will cause many to suffer unexpected financial pressures with insufficient notice, and it seems inequitable given the different outcomes for them and women of similar ages. An age difference of days could result in a pension two years later.

Unlike the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), however, I believe that there are signs that the Government may be prepared to move on the issue, and I urge them strongly to do so. The current acceleration timetable will not deliver sufficient progress, but, as Members have already said, a fairer way might be to accelerate the progression of the pension age to 67 and/or 68 years old and, by doing so, at least to give people 10 or more years in which to plan how they deal with it. That idea could find a great deal of support, given that Saga and Age UK have already proposed it, but I suspect that my support may well ensure that I am not a member of the Public Bill Committee.

On the third part of the pensions puzzle, we must make it as simple as possible for people to contribute to their own pensions provision and to take ownership of funding their own retirement. As we have heard, 7 million of us are not saving enough for our own retirement and 44% of working-age employees are not contributing at all towards a private pension.

That brings me to the fourth element of the solution—employers’ contributions. It is clear that to fill a funding gap of the size we are facing, we must strike a balance of responsibility between the state, the individual and employers. Mandatory auto-enrolment, as confirmed in the Bill, exemplifies that balance. The changes in the Bill will, I hope, do exactly what they aim to do in making automatic enrolment work, in the words of the title of the independent review. I hope that the provisions to raise the earnings threshold for auto-enrolment, to introduce the optional waiting period and to simplify the system of self-certification will increase employee and employer buy-in of the system.

Although raising the earnings threshold would certainly ease the financial difficulties of the lowest paid, it would effectively lock out of auto-enrolment those most in need of extra pension provision. Will the Minister reconsider that to see whether auto-enrolment could continue, merely delaying employment contributions until an earnings threshold is reached? Many examples of such graduated schemes already exist in the private sector. It is well known that even £1 invested earlier on for 40 years is likely to yield far greater returns than any amount invested 10 years later, once income has risen sufficiently to cross that threshold.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) that the proposals in the Bill are insufficient to deal with this immense problem. The auto-enrolment contribution level of 8% that is floated in the Bill is a start, especially from the low—indeed, at times non-existent—base that we have at present, but in many other countries the level is double that; in Sweden, for example, it stands at 18.5%. The proposed level is a good start, but only that.

More than five years ago, the Pensions Commission stated that

“there is…general acceptance that future policy needs to be based both on significant reforms to the state system and on a new approach to private pension saving which goes beyond a wholly voluntary approach.”

Having expressed my one concern about the Bill, I believe that it finally makes radical steps towards advancing that consensus, and I hope that the whole House will unite in supporting it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Crockart Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

6. What steps are being taken to improve the quality and accuracy of the work capability assessment.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to improve the quality and accuracy of the work capability assessment.

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

We believe that the work capability assessment is effective at identifying a person’s functional capability for work and work-related activity, and very much more so than its predecessor, the personal capability assessment. However, I am clear that we must get this right, particularly with the large-scale migration beginning next year. On taking office we implemented some of the recommendations of a review carried out under the previous Administration. I have commissioned a new review under the chairmanship of Professor Malcolm Harrington of Birmingham university, with input from some of the leading figures among the mental health charities, to try to make sure that we get this right—that we deal with any rough edges that there may be in the system before the migration next year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is right. This is the central issue that we have to get right. It is one of the reasons I asked Professor Harrington to include Paul Farmer, the chief executive of Mind, in his review, and why I invited mental health charities to make practical suggestions about changing the work capability assessment to identify precisely the issues that my hon. Friend has highlighted. I want to get this right. It is in no one’s interest that people should be given a steer in the direction of work if that should not happen to them. I want to look after those who genuinely need ongoing support. We will do everything we can to get this right.

[Mike Crockart]

Many of my constituents complain that too much weight was placed on one chat with one individual on a particular day, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) stated. That might be a good day for their condition, and the chat with that one individual may not provide a long-term in-depth knowledge of the claimant’s work capability. What help can the Minister give to assure my constituents that proper weight will be placed on the opinions of the claimant’s full medical team?

[Chris Grayling]

As I say, we must get this right. I have sat through a work capability assessment, so I understand exactly the issues that people are raising. I have looked carefully at the structure of it and have invited people with expertise to take part in the process. We will do everything we can to get it right. What I will not do is condemn people with mental health challenges to a life on benefits, with little opportunity of getting into employment. That would be the wrong thing to do for them. They deserve better and they will get it from this Government.