Remploy Workers

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) on securing the debate. It is pertinent to remember that it is in meeting people and experiencing their despair in a very difficult job market that we see the personal side of the Government’s decision. Although I will address my comments to a broader economic perspective, we must never lose sight of the effect on the individual. The difficulty is that the actions the Government have taken in closing the Remploy factories and the lack of support they have given to workers to find new outlets for employment have happened against a backdrop of the destruction of the economy in the very parts of Wales where those workers are looking for jobs.

Former Remploy workers face some of the greatest barriers. Recruitment agencies inevitably go for the people who can be most flexible, because that is the type of job market we have. Former Remploy workers are often based in areas with the least transport connections to other job opportunities—that is why the factories were set up in the first place.

From the figures we have, we know that the tops of the valleys—the areas that are furthest from the job markets—have suffered most under the Government’s tax and welfare reforms. The knock-on effects on those local economies make it particularly difficult for anyone who faces barriers to travelling or being employed. That particularly affects former Remploy workers.

A Sheffield Hallam university report recently analysed the effect of the tax and welfare reforms on Wales. It showed that they are taking £1 billion out of the Welsh economy and that the people in the least well-off communities are suffering most. Because those on the lowest incomes spend their money quickly in their local economy out of necessity, the knock-on effect of the loss of £1,000 a year of income per working adult—if there are two adults in a home, that is £40 a week—has been net losses of 7,000 jobs in the local service industries in Wales. That is purely as a result of those reforms.

Even before Remploy people came into the market, the number of jobs was decreasing, so before new jobs can be created, it is necessary to overcome the loss of jobs in those areas. Inevitably, spend is in the bigger towns, meaning that there is even less in some of the deprived areas where there is the most difficulty in finding any opportunities for people to get new employment. That affects anyone who faces any barriers to the workplace, which is the case for many former Remploy employees.

[Ian Lucas]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the difficulty in securing work, the income of those in work is falling? That means that the spend in the local economy is decreasing, which adds to the depressed nature of the economy in those areas.

[Nia Griffith]

Absolutely. The way in which the Government have implemented their tax credit reforms means that many working people have lost out significantly. Add to that the fact that 7,000 whole jobs have been taken out of the economy, and the result is that many people have fewer hours and fewer shifts, so they have less to spend. At the same time, they are hit by high fuel prices, which the Government are not doing anything about. They cannot avoid paying them, so they have less money to spend in the local economy. In fact, four times as much money has been taken out of the Welsh economy as comes in from the EU grant to the valleys and west Wales. That has a significant knock-on effect.

What is sad is that we recognised that this was a difficult time, which is why the Welsh Government wanted to step in to do their bit to support the Remploy factories and look at ways to help. The Welsh Government have put in support through the employer’s support grant, which encourages employers to take on additional workers, and there has been some success in the Swansea area in setting up successors to the Remploy factories. However, the climate is difficult and those measures cannot account for all the former workers. Therefore, although we have one or two successes to celebrate, they are not sufficient. There are Remploy workers in my constituency who have not been re-employed in any way.

We want a much more determined effort by the Government to help the individuals concerned. In the Welsh Affairs Committee report on the Government’s Work programme in Wales, we did not find that the work being done was successful. The success rate for people with disabilities getting jobs in the Work programme was 5%, which is below the national average of 7%. That shows the scale of the problem: only one person in 20 is being found a job opportunity. A huge failure of the Work programme is its ability to address people who are former Remploy workers and those who might have looked to work in the various opportunities provided by the Remploy factories.

While the Government have thrown out the Welsh Government’s proposal to take a more positive approach to the Remploy factories, they have not put anything else in place that would lead us to jump for joy and say, “What an excellent idea.” There seems to be a failure. Oxfam Cymru suggested that, in some instances, those in the more-difficult-to-find-jobs-for category are being parked. That is a damning statement.

The worry is not only that there is a total failure to identify and help people who have specific disabilities, but that, within the greater economic context, the Government’s decisions have made it difficult for poorer areas to generate employment opportunities. In fact, those decisions have exacerbated the problems in those areas where we are trying to find employment opportunities, where there have been major job losses, and where there are difficult economic circumstances. At the same time, the Government programmes are not working to help the people in those areas.

We praise those employers who have made an effort, who are trying to take on people and who are trying to accommodate people with different forms of disability. However, even in the harsh reality of the present time, the evidence given by Remploy to the Welsh Affairs Committee shows that there is such a large number of temporary, short-term and short-hours types of employment that that situation is creating a huge difficulty. That reminds us why the form of employment at Remploy, with a proper timetable, proper week and proper factory to work at, was so important, particularly for people for whom routine is essential.

Former Remploy workers face travel problems in my area. They must cope with difficult travel arrangements to get down to the various centres, which makes things even harder for them. The result is that some do not attend those centres—it is simply impractical for them to do so.

When the Minister responds, I ask that he comes forward with positive ideas, because we would like a significant improvement in the outcomes for Remploy workers, and we would like the Government to take the initiative.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

The deficit has been reduced by a third compared with the position that we inherited from the previous Government. The hon. Gentleman can ignore those fiscal realities, but there are now 2 million more jobs in the private sector. The most recent set of statistics contained the excellent news that the number of disabled people in work has increased by 259,000 over the past year, and that the employment rate for disabled people has also increased. There is more to do of course, but that is welcome news.

It is worth putting on the record the financial position that was faced by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, when she had to confront the challenges. Two factories were specifically referred to in the debate. The Wrexham factory, referred to by the hon. Member for Wrexham, was losing £878,000 a year in 2011-12. The Croespenmaen factory, referred to by the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), was losing £889,000. I do not deny that they may well have won some contracts and increased their business, but the truth is that those factories were losing a significant amount of money.

That is important because that money—around £25,000 a head—was being spent on a small number of disabled people when thousands of disabled people in all our constituencies were not benefiting. If that money had carried on being spent, it would have put at risk the Government’s other employment programmes. We have increased the amount being spent on the Access to Work programme, and we are increasing the resources going into both the Work programme for employment and support allowance claimants and Work Choice. If we had not taken these decisions on the Remploy enterprises that were losing money, those programmes would have been put at risk. The entire Access to Work budget is £108 million a year, which is less than the Remploy factories were costing. The situation was simply unsustainable.

The decisions were difficult. In this very room, the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), then the Minister with responsibility for disabled people, had to set out and defend her Government’s policies to some of her colleagues. She received my support, because she was doing the right thing. Even if they are from an opposite political party, Ministers who do the right thing deserve support.

Looking back at the decisions that we made, various organisations were supportive of what we did. Disability Wales said at the time that it

“endorses the promotion of fully integrated services and does not see Remploy as either progressive or forward thinking in their approaches to service provision”,

and that Remploy

“are now standing in the way of full integration and indirectly hampering individuals’ chances of progression.”

Those are not my words, but those of Disability Wales. Disability Rights UK said:

“We appreciate that the Sayce Review has caused some concern for disabled people and their trades union representatives working in Remploy factories. However, we believe segregated employment for disabled people is unacceptable.”

On Monday, I was at a Scope event with the shadow Minister and spoke to several representatives from disabled people user-led organisations, all of whom told me that closing the Remploy factories and moving away from segregated employment towards supporting people in mainstream employment were the right things to do.

We have put aside more support for disabled people, not less. The hon. Member for Wrexham said at the beginning of his remarks that we were spending less money on disabled people and that he would go on to set that out, but I did not actually hear him do so. We are spending £50 billion on support for disabled people through things such as personal independence payments and ESA. We have signed up 1,100 employers to our Disability Confident campaign in order to increase the chances of disabled people finding work. The employment figures bear out that that is starting to be successful.

[Nia Griffith]

Will the Minister elaborate on exactly what he will do to help those Remploy workers, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who are currently unable to access work opportunities? Will he also explain why he did not take up the Welsh Government’s offer to try to put things right? Nobody is pretending that everything was perfectly okay with the way that Remploy was run previously. Nobody is saying that. However, there have been opportunities to create social enterprises, but it seems as though the Government have deliberately turned them down—

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Order. The intervention is a bit too long. I think the Minister has a grasp of the questions.

Universal Credit

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I accept those blandishments from my hon. Friend. There are two very important issues to remember. Universal credit is not just about the IT system; more importantly, it is about the relationship between the claimant and the adviser. When someone claims a benefit under jobseeker’s allowance, after they take a job—a part-time job or whatever—they have to sign off, which means that they do not have any contact with the jobcentre until they fall out of that job and go back again. Under universal credit, they will not sign off. They will be able to afford to take a job with fewer hours, build up their hours, go back to see their adviser and take another job. In other words, the adviser will stay with them until they come off the benefits system. It is that dynamic that is changing the lives of so many claimants and I intend to extend that to all of them,

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

We all want to see work paying properly. The Secretary of State will be aware that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said that the taper is far too steep and that some families will lose significantly by going into work. In other words, they will get only a couple of pounds more working a full week than they would get if they were entirely on benefits. What is the Secretary of State doing to address that problem with universal credit so that that does not happen and that work will always pay?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

That is a really important question and I thank the hon. Lady for being positive. Two things should be understood about universal credit. First, in-work allowances, which are rather like tax allowances, allow different groups of people—such as those with disabilities and single parents—to earn a certain amount of money before the taper comes in. That gives them a real step up, which is why the bottom 40% with regard to income will benefit to a greater degree than anybody else.

Secondly, I am fully prepared to accept that there is a debate about the taper, but when any future Government budgets they will be able to say, “We want to lower the taper because we want people to be able to up their hours quicker.” Alternatively, if there is full employment, they may say that the taper is not so relevant. That is a debate for Governments. We have instituted a very simple process whereby Back Benchers and others can say whether they want a higher or a lower taper. We have set it at what we think we can afford, and that still makes it better for those claimants going into work. There will always be a debate, so the hon. Lady will be able to argue whether the taper should be raised or lowered.

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Reform (Disabled People)

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in this debate because I feel very strongly that every disabled individual, no matter what their disability, deserves to have the utmost respect and to be valued for their skills. We should be doing all we can to break down the very real barriers that prevent disabled people from taking a full part both in the workplace and in social activities.

Before I turn to the concerns of disabled people in my constituency about the effect of Government policies on them, I want to pay tribute to the Llanelli Disabled Access Group. Sadly, it has had to wind up its activities this month, but over the past few years it has done a really good job advising people on how to adapt both public and private buildings, inspecting those buildings and giving out awards for good practice. The group’s work has been excellent and it will be sorely missed.

I will briefly mention PIP assessments, which I am extremely worried about. I have several constituency cases of great concern, because people are in real financial difficulties. One constituent applied for PIP in September 2013 and had the medical assessment in December, but did not finally receive the benefit until September this year. Another applied in July 2013, but had not even had the medical assessment by June 2014. People are therefore having to wait a whole year. After having been to an assessment, they are very often told to go for another one. They ask whether they should go to it and are told that they should not, because they have already been to one, but they then get a letter saying that their benefit has been cut off anyway. These sorts of things must really be put right. I hope that the Minister with responsibility for disabled people will make a real effort to get such things right for these people.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with constituents of mine who have asked me to convey that the repeated changes are hitting disabled people in multiple ways—the year-long wait for a PIP decision, or being hit by the bedroom tax—and really terrifying them? Does she agree that we should never underestimate the real fear they experience during a year of waiting for such support?

[Nia Griffith]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. There are certainly some very real concerns, and I know that many of my constituents are very worried about what will happen during the transition from DLA to PIP. We obviously very much hope that the Government will sort these things out long before our constituents are put through the process.

I want to express very real concerns about people with degenerative conditions being put in the work-related activity group. It is terrible to have a degenerative condition—it is horrible to have a sort of life sentence—but it is worse to be constantly called in. The Minister says that that is to see whether they need extra help, but they may already receive the highest level of support, so that is rather difficult to believe. They should be exempted from repeated assessments.

I want to refer to the Welsh Affairs Committee’s report in which we detailed several concerns about the Work programme in Wales. It has a very poor rate of success in Wales, with only one in 20 people in the disabled category being found a position. That success rate of 5% is disgraceful. It does not compare favourably with the rate of 7% in Britain as a whole, and it certainly does not compare favourably with that for able-bodied people. Oxfam Cymru described some appalling practices:

“People who were seen as furthest away from the labour market were de-prioritised and only got any support at all after having very strong local advocacy.”

It also referred to the “absence of personalised support”. The then Work and Pensions Minister, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), told us:

“Work providers…need to improve their employer engagement effort. They need to increase the supply of jobs that are available to people who have been out of work for some time.”

The Work and Pensions Committee called for a national action plan, before the end of 2013, to engage employers in the Work programme. Will the Minister tell us what progress has been made in getting better engagement from employers, and give us categorical assurances that no such approaches to employers involve employing anybody on less than the minimum wage? We are so concerned about the comments of the Minister for Welfare Reform because we feel that they may betray a hidden Government agenda. That is why we need such assurances.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) explained so well, there has been a concerted attack on disabled people, and talk of swingeing cuts to the incomes of those who are already among the poorest in society but who are portrayed as scroungers. Sadly, there has been a rise in the number of incidents of hate crime. There is a real responsibility on everybody in government to do their utmost to combat negative images and ensure that we give disabled people the respect they deserve. We should do all we can to enable them to fulfil their potential, whether in the workplace or in other spheres of their lives.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

I wonder whether the hon. Lady has read the document, given that one of the key groups on which we focus is carers. We specifically state in the document that carers face particular barriers in the labour market and that is why we need more flexible employment, such as our extension of the right to request flexible employment to all workers as of this year.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

6. How many people were awaiting a work capability assessment on the latest date for which figures are available.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Harper)]

Between April and the end of July, the number of people awaiting an employment and support allowance work capability assessment fell by 75,000 to 637,000. It is worth saying, as I have said in answer to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), that claimants will normally be in receipt of benefit while they wait for an assessment, and that any arrears due are paid once a decision is made.

[Nia Griffith]

The Work and Pensions Committee said in its recent report that the flaws in the system were so grave that simply rebranding the work capability assessment for eligibility for employment and support allowance by giving it a new contractor would simply not solve the problem. Does the Minister agree, and what changes will he make to the new contract?

[Mr Harper]

I am not going to prejudge at the Dispatch Box the detailed response I shall give to the Work and Pensions Committee’s detailed look at the work capability assessment, but clearly one of our key priorities is to continue Atos’s work to the end of its contract, get the new provider in place and ensure that the process is working. The Select Committee made some thoughtful remarks about steps for the future. We shall respond to them in due course, when I respond to its report.

Housing Benefit (Wales)

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Housing benefit is an important issue for people in Wales. Forty-six per cent. of tenants in social housing have been affected by the Government changes that we call the bedroom tax; of the 40,000 households affected, 25,000 contain a person who is disabled. It is a significant problem.

In response to the report, the Government have said that they will be monitoring movement into the private rented sector. Will the Minister tell us what monitoring has been done? In their response, the Government also say that there is “no evidence” of cost to the taxpayer, but that is probably largely due to the small numbers of people who have moved into the private rented sector. As has already been mentioned, we know that in Wales there is only one available one-bedroom property for every 100 families that need to move. That figure was produced by Rebecca Evans AM after she got in touch with a number of housing providers: some 20,800 families were looking to move but only 280 properties were available.

Another problem is that there are not huge numbers of people on the waiting list who would qualify for those three-bedroom properties that we have in Wales. A family qualify for three bedrooms if they have a girl and a boy over nine, but a family of two parents and two children of the same sex aged up to 16 qualify only for two bedrooms. In fact, the vast majority of applicants do not qualify for three bedrooms. That is one of the problems. Even if a property is vacated, there are no savings to be made by moving other families into it.

The problem in Wales is that the landscape is semi-rural and there are former mining communities where no one would have settled were it not for the mines. Some of the valley tops are great distances from available work and it is difficult to rehouse people and to keep them in their communities.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

The hon. Lady will be aware that large tracts of Wales are very rural. She referred to distances, and the distances that people might be expected to move are unacceptable. As the Chairman of the Select Committee said, they could amount to 50 miles.

[Nia Griffith]

Absolutely. It is a considerable problem.

The Government state in their response that they will not consider a blanket ban on forcing people in adapted premises to move. When there has been investment to make properties suitable many housing authorities in Wales try to keep them available for disabled people. Not having a blanket ban on hitting disabled people with the bedroom tax is a short-sighted policy. Apart from the tremendous upset for the individual, it is not good use of public funds.

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

Will the hon. Lady say how she would define what “significantly adapted” is in practice?

[Nia Griffith]

I am sure we can all imagine major adaptations such as changes to bathrooms and additional rooms. The only one that might be considered less significant is a stair lift that could be put in or taken out, but any other form of adaptation should be taken into consideration. Further to that, it should be noted that legislation passed by the Welsh Government has enabled local authorities in Wales to desist from selling off some types of properties. They have largely chosen to keep in their stock properties such as those suitable for old people who downsize precisely because adaptations have been made that suit older people as they become less physically active.

Another point in the Government’s response is that the bedroom tax

“may encourage more claimants to move into work”.

That sounds like forcing people to look for work. People are already looking for work. People who have the capabilities are already looking for work. We must take into account the fact that some of them have significant disabilities and there are not many suitable jobs available.

Transport and child care are problems in rural areas, which are multiplied because of trying to fit in transport to work with picking up children and getting home from work. It is not easy to find jobs with hours that fit in.

I have taken issue with the Minister about the fact that the issue is not just a matter of obtaining a few extra hours. We all know that because of the complex way in which housing benefit is worked out people effectively lose around 60% of the benefit for additional earnings. The equation does not involve simply a few extra hours. The matter is much more complex. On tapering or claw back, I am extremely concerned about the proposals for universal credit because 76p in the pound of each tax credit will be clawed back when people take on more hours of work. The Centre for Social Justice suggested that it should be only 55%. That is another enormous hurdle for people taking on more work or going out to find work.

What progress has there been on collecting information and monitoring rental costs? That was promised in the Government’s response.

I turn to discretionary housing payments. The whole point about them is that they are discretionary, but they are imposing an enormous work load on local authorities because everyone on housing benefit is deemed to have insufficient funds to cover their rent. That was our definition of housing benefit. It was provided for people whose residual money after deducting various items was not sufficient to cover their rent, so it is inevitably massively oversubscribed.

The Government have said that they have provided extra money, but let us look at what that really means. I will use the example of Torfaen, which was given £193,000 of additional money for its discretionary housing payments but the shortfall in housing benefit is approximately £1 million, or five times the discretionary amount allocated. Torfaen was then told that it could spend up to £430,000, but that extra money must come from its own funds. In other words, it must make sweeping cuts elsewhere when it is already facing significant cuts.

The Welsh Government have provided £1.3 million of extra money throughout Wales to help with the additional administrative burden, but what a waste of money. If housing benefit was paid, none of that would be necessary. Having gone through the process once, it will have to be repeated because the whole point of discretionary housing payment is that it is supposed to be a temporary measure, as the Government noted, to tide people over. However, if there is nowhere for them to move to, the process will be repeated.

The officer in charge of housing benefit for Monmouth and Torfaen, Richard Davies, summed up the situation when he said that administering the huge demand for help has dramatically increased council work load and dealing with discretionary housing payment

“applications is like dealing with a totally separate benefit scheme. It’s shifted everything from statutory to discretionary”

so

“it’s a huge burden of administration.”

[Guto Bebb]

I am interested in the hon. Lady’s comments about Torfaen, but she could mention the situation in Denbighshire and Conwy where a report from Eryl Rowlands, who is responsible for the matter in both counties, makes it clear that the anticipated problems associated with the so-called bedroom tax have not come into play.

[Nia Griffith]

There may be differences in different areas because of the availability of different types of property and work. In my county, we are building bungalows in, for example, Seaside and Kidwelly, but we know perfectly well that the rate of building will not keep up with more than 1,000 households in Carmarthenshire that are waiting to be moved or to be given an alternative option to their present situation.

I want to respond to the criticism that the Welsh Government have not had a building programme during the past 15 years. Many properties have been built, especially adapted properties for disabled people and a range of supported housing and housing association housing. However, when we have small communities with a limited housing stock we need it to be as versatile as possible. It is always possible to put a small family unit in a three-bedroom house, but it is not possible to squash a large family unit into a one-bedroom flat. Our tradition in Wales, where land is relatively plentiful, has been to build houses rather than flats. That is the situation we find ourselves in. It is not the fault of tenants that they may have been allocated a two or three-bedroom property when under the bedroom tax theory they should have a one or two-bedroom property.

The Government must rethink their policy, particularly bearing in mind Lord Freud’s comments that there may be issues in particular areas. More than that, we would like them to monitor the situation. Many people are now finding it almost impossible to make ends meet, with arrears running at more than 50% in many areas, often involving people who have never been in debt in their lives.

On a slightly different note, landlords are also affected. One issue that has been raised again and again, and has not been terribly well answered by the Government, is direct payment to landlords. There has to be two months of being in arrears before it is possible to get somebody switched across to having a direct payment. That is causing us real problems, in terms of availability of property. Some whom we might call “amateur” landlords—people who have perhaps become landlords by accident, because they cannot sell a property—are now becoming very reluctant to rent out properties to people who are on housing benefit, whereas before they would have had a guaranteed cheque from the council. That is also affecting bigger landlords—the social housing providers. So will the Government take another look at the response they have made about those direct payments? I am not the only person to mention that; it has been mentioned very vigorously by lobbyists on behalf of landlords. On that note, I shall finish.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Roger. Given the interest in the subject and the number of people here, I will be as brief as I can and focus my remarks on bedroom tax, or spare room subsidy—or whatever we choose to call it.

Before I start, it would be remiss of me as a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee not to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) on his chairmanship of the Committee. He is right to say that the subject matter was not without controversy. The debates were always going to be spirited and the deliberations could be lively at times. It is perhaps remarkable that we reached the point at which there is a report to discuss today, but we have, and that is in no small part due to his endeavours as our Chairman.

I want to focus my remarks on three areas: first, the application of the policy to rural areas such as mine; secondly, the policy’s application to the homes of disabled citizens; and thirdly, the increasing concern expressed by members of the veterans community in my area about the application of the policy.

As we have heard from everyone so far, 40,000 housing benefit claimants in Wales will be affected by the policy. That is about 46% of the working age social rented sector housing benefit claimants—the highest proportion of people affected among the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. On top of that, it is a plain fact that the amount of accommodation required to pursue the policy simply is not available. My particular concern is that the shortage has a disproportionate effect in rural areas, as my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) said, where the large distances between communities and the potentially available—potentially being the key point—housing stock are far greater.

We asked—I remember asking this in one of our hearings—whether we should be asking people to travel 40 miles each way, each day, for their jobs, so disrupting family networks and inconveniencing children and their schools in terms of their education, particularly in areas where transport links can be difficult, non-existent or disproportionately more costly. Should we put people in the position of having to consider such things in the first place?

The reality on the ground is that the required social housing stock is not available. That is compounded in my constituency by two university towns, which have a huge effect, making the private rented sector highly competitive in Lampeter and particularly in Aberystwyth. The challenge to provide accommodation was brought graphically to our attention in Aberystwyth recently, when a development of social housing flats, Plas Morolwg, managed by the Tai Cantref housing association, was closed due to storm damage. The occupants of the 40 flats had to be rehoused under emergency arrangements. That was just about achieved—only just. It would be a near impossibility for 40 families to be moved under any other guise. I cite that example because it illustrates that there is no slack in housing, which is why we are right to question the Labour Assembly Government about their plans and record of house building to date.

One recommendation of the report was about whether we should incentivise the over-60s with cash payments to move. I am very relieved that the over-60s—people of pensionable age—were not included in the provisions in the first place. A lot of misinformation was going around at one point that they were included. I am very glad that that was sat on. Again, even if we could offer people choices, suitable housing for pensioner couples and individual pensioners is simply not available.

[Nia Griffith]

Does the hon. Gentleman find in his area, as in mine, that pensioners are queuing up to have smaller properties if they become available and that they do not really need incentives because they are very keen to move?

[Mr Williams]

We could well have attended the same surgeries. It is certainly my experience that I have had people willing to move, but there is simply nothing available for them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Glyn Davies]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point in that there are great differences between constituencies. He may well speak later in the debate and describe what has happened in his constituency, but when the policy was debated early on, a number of people said that it was going to hit rural areas harder—that was going to be the real problem. No area is more rural than my constituency, and the reality is that the commitment of the local authority and Mid-Wales Housing Association has made the policy work. I am not pretending that it has been easy, but they have made it work as well as possible.

The final issue I want to discuss is new housing, which is clearly needed for the policy to work well in the longer term. Housing deliverers did not respond to what they could have anticipated, perfectly reasonably, to be Government policy. To say that the policy was suddenly dropped on them, out of the blue, and that they need two years to deliver is, I think, a bit of an excuse. They could have anticipated that the policy would be introduced, but we are where we are.

We need the Welsh Government, as well as housing and planning authorities in Wales, to recognise that we need new properties. They should not be piling on extra costs. The Welsh Government have not delivered on new housing. We only need look at the figures to see that they have gone down. They have put on new costs. The planning authorities demand planning gain for this, that and the other, and make it almost impossible to build housing. The Welsh Government have put on the extra cost of sprinklers, which in themselves are fine—

[Nia Griffith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Glyn Davies]

I will in a second—let me just finish the point, because I am getting warmed up. They put on all these extra costs, the consequence of which is that housing is not built. People might have some idealistic objective to deliver something of which they can stand up and say, “Isn’t it grand? We must do this,” but the reality is that builders moved out of Wales because they could not accommodate the extra costs. We need a positive attitude in Government and local authorities. In order to house the people of Wales affordably, both national and local government must ensure that housing is delivered and not start from a position of trying to stop people building.

I do not have much else to say, but I would like to allow the hon. Lady to intervene.

[Nia Griffith]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain how, with his Government cutting capital expenditure funding to the Welsh Government by half, he expects them to be able to build more houses? What progress is Montgomeryshire making on taking similar steps to Carmarthenshire county council, which has been able to borrow funds to build houses?

[Glyn Davies]

Again, we have a complete separation, as if the private sector is over here and the public sector is over there. The issue is not the funding of the public sector; we must allow the private sector to deliver the housing we want. The private sector will deliver what we want if we create a situation in which it can. For the past few years, all I have seen is local and national Government making it more difficult for people to deliver what the people of Wales want.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

No. For example, when the Labour Government introduced the principle that private sector tenants with a spare room should have to pay for it, they did not describe the measure as a bedroom tax, so I do not see why a similar one for a social tenant should be.

Work Programme (Wales)

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the Select Committee Chair on his excellent management of the inquiry and the report.

I want to mention briefly the poor level of performance by Working Links Wales and Rehab JobFit in Wales. We know that there are examples of subcontractors doing very good work, but overall it has been recognised that their performance does not compare well with other providers throughout the UK. In their response, the Government said that they will continue to take action where performance does not meet expectation.

What has the Minister been able to do so far and what does she intend to do about those two providers? What monitoring has been carried out—not just counting outcomes, but examining how they operate? The providers have bid for contracts and been awarded them, and the Government should hold them to account for the job of finding work. Considerable public money has been invested, and it should be looked at carefully. What is the providers’ percentage cut for management? What is their engagement with employers? Do they give the right incentives to employers to take part? Who provides training and is it sufficiently linked to the local job market?

Considerable money is at stake—nearly £14,000 for some employment and support allowance claimants—so there must be value for money. There have been instances of poor practice when people have been sent for interviews for unsuitable jobs, have travelled to turn up for non-existent jobs or have had to report repeatedly to centres away from the main areas where they could be looking for work. That happens in my constituency; people have to come to Llanelli when they live in Tumble and should be looking for work in somewhere like Cross Hands.

The report mentions evaluation of the impact of the Work programme. What progress has been made on that? It also mentions Andrew Sells reporting back in the spring on how to roll out good practice in respect of lone parents. What progress is being made on that?

I turn to the community work placement scheme, which is a continuation of the Work programme. I note that only two providers have bid for that in Wales and that they are the same two that are underperforming on the Work programme. Will the Minister look carefully at that and consider inviting further bids? The scheme involves £30 million of public funds.

On the potential overlap or conflict with Welsh Government programmes, we all understand why the Government do not want to double-fund people and pay out twice. This week, Ken Skates, the deputy Minister for Skills and Technology in the Welsh Government, made a clear statement detailing much of the work that has been going on between him and the Minister. I am glad that they are working together to try to sort the matter out.

As the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) highlighted, people coming out of prison are immediately put on the Work programme. There should be a mechanism to exit from that if it is more suitable for them to be on a Jobs Growth Wales scheme or another one. Funding should be managed so that there is no double-funding and that funding is shared if there is going to be more than one provider. I do not see why it is not practical to sort that out so that we do not end up paying twice, but we get the best outcome for the people concerned. I would like an update on progress from the Minister on holding people to account and ensuring that we get the very best value for money for people in Wales.

Personal Independence Payments (Wales)

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

Thank you for calling me so early in the debate, Mr Owen. I apologise, but I will have to leave early because at 10 o’clock I have to chair a meeting on congenital heart disease in children.

There is no doubt that the Capita scheme for the personal independence payment is in total disarray and that the Government must shoulder the blame. They drew up the service level agreements and they need to fix the PIP—and quickly. When the Government were drawing up those agreements, did they estimate the correct average time that would be spent assessing each case? They said it would take one hour, but Capita—we spoke to the company last week—is taking two or three hours. Was the estimate realistic?

The travelling times experienced by our constituents in getting to the assessment centres and the number of face-to-face assessments set by the Government are all totally unrealistic. Did the Government show due diligence? Did they correctly assess Capita’s ability to deal with high volumes of cases? Were the service level agreements strict enough? Also, if my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) is correct, why have penalties not been imposed? The company has the carrot of profits, but it also needs the stick of enforcement. It has not had that so far.

The number of staff required was totally underestimated. Capita told us last week that it initially put in place 140, but it now needs to take that to 450—a tripling of staff. In fact, it cannot find the staff. I have an advert in my hand, placed in the Llandudno press: Capita is looking for

“qualified Nurses, Occupational Therapists, Paramedics, Physiotherapists …Disability Assessors”

to work in Llandudno. There is not one mention of staff who can deal with mental health issues. Fifty per cent. of the cases are musculo-skeletal, but 50% are mental health cases.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that those staff were not in place when Capita was awarded the contract?

[Chris Ruane]

Again, things come down to due diligence and to the assessment of the problem by the Government when awarding the contract. In addition, in the north Wales situation, there was no mention of staff who can deal with mental health issues.

We talk about the vast numbers of people affected, so let us consider who they are. One of my constituents who had mental health problems was told that she could not have an assessment in her own home. She lives in north Wales, but she was told to go to the nearest assessment centre—in Cardiff. It takes me two hours and 36 minutes to get from Rhyl to London, but I could almost have gone from Rhyl to London and back again in the time that it would take that lady simply to get down to Cardiff. Would the Minister send someone from London up to Cumbria for an assessment test, because those are the time scales that we are talking about? That shows total disregard for the individuals involved.

Another individual in my constituency, who is wheelchair-bound, waited for six months, but her case had still not been sorted out. In that time, there were knock-on effects to other benefits and funding was taken off her; she lost her mobility allowance and so she lost her car. There she was, with mental health issues, in a wheelchair and stuck in a house. Things that help people with mental health issues include visiting relatives, joining voluntary organisations, going to a place of worship and getting out in nature, none of which she could do because her car was taken away. All the things that could have helped her were taken away from her by Government action, or inaction.

The rules for the terminally ill suggest that if they have seven months left to live, they are pestered and hounded, but if they have six months left, they will be left alone. That should not be the case. We should prioritise the people—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Owen. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) made a powerful case about some of the problems that people are facing. I am sure that all of us in this Chamber want to see people getting back to work if they are able to do so, but none of us wants to see whatever ill or disabled people suffer from being made worse because of all the stress and anguish of the process that we are discussing.

We have all heard of vital paperwork not being sent out, delays of up to six months and longer, medical assessments being cancelled at the drop of a hat and even people not being told that their assessment will not take place. Then, when the process has been gone through, some people are being told that they should never have gone through the process in the first place, because of what they suffer from.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who unfortunately has had to leave the Chamber, touched on mental health. That is a particular area of concern. We are talking about people whose lives are already difficult enough without some of the problems that the Government are now forcing on them. We see people who are literally in tears. They do not understand what is happening to them and are worried at every stage of the process. People are even saying to me, “Mr Tami, if I attend the interview, will that be held against me?” I say no, but they are worried; they are scared. They do not understand why their money is being stopped, why this is happening to them. We are making people ill by doing this; there is no point in pretending otherwise. I have been seeing people who were not great the first time I saw them, but each time I see them they are in a worse state. They are in more debt. They are worried; they are scared, because of what is happening to them.

I saw one guy who was in a wheelchair most of the time. He had had two strokes recently. Clearly, that person will not enter the realm of work very easily. Why do we have to put through this process people who are suffering? Equally, another man, who was 64 years of age, had a long history of heart illness. With the best will in the world, how will he enter the realm of work? Who will employ him? [Interruption.] I know, but that is how people view it; they feel that they are being forced out to work.

This is a very difficult situation. I accept that. Colleagues have mentioned the meeting with Capita. It has helpfully sent us a note about that and some of the questions that were asked. I notice that it is entitled “Health and wellbeing”, which is a somewhat strange situation, but there we are. Let me go through some of the points that it raises in the note. The first question is:

“Why are claimants facing delays in the assessment process?”

The Minister will not be surprised to hear that it is probably the Minister’s fault:

“Referral volumes from the Department are higher than forecast.”

One of my hon. Friends mentioned this:

“More health professionals are needed. The planning assumption was 141. We have now trained over 250 and will have nearly 450 by July 2014.”

Why was the original figure so wrong? It was not just slightly out. There is a massive difference between those figures.

This is one of my favourites:

“Why was the reality of delivery different to the original assumptions?”

Capita states:

“The complexity of producing the new and detailed reports means that there are a number of interrelated factors that add to the assessment timescales. Critically, the assumptions we originally built our operating plan to have not proved to be accurate in live running.”

I presume that in English that means that they have cocked it up.

[Nia Griffith]

Would my hon. Friend, like me, like the Minister to explain exactly what specifications there were in the service level agreement between the DWP and Capita for time scales after the PIP2 form and the medical assessments have been received for Capita to produce its assessment? What were those specifications?

[Mark Tami]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, because something has gone very badly wrong. As I said, some of these things are not just slightly out; there is a massive problem.

I will quote just one more paragraph from Capita’s note:

“What are the current timescales from applying for PIP to a decision being made?

The Department for Work and Pensions estimate that in total it may take around 21-26 weeks from the time a claimant first calls to initiate a claim to when they write to them with their decision. For most people this will include a face-to-face appointment which could take…12-16 weeks to arrange.”

I find that staggering. Then there is this very helpful comment:

“It may take less time than this or longer”.

There we are; there is our answer. Now we know that things are going very well!

As my hon. Friends have made clear, we have all dealt with such cases. I have details of one here. The person applied for PIP last November. They were chasing and chasing and finally got an assessment date for April, but they are still waiting to go through that process. Someone else applied for PIP in June. They had the assessment. However, they got an answer from the DWP only in March, and again that was after they had chased it. Someone else applied in September 2013. Three medical assessments were cancelled by Capita. Some were cancelled without the person being told. They chased for an appointment and finally got one in January. Again, they were having to chase all the time. My favourite is this one. Someone received a letter on 4 February this year informing them that a consultation would take place at their home sometime between 20 January and 25 January. They go back in time to have the assessment, back to the future, or perhaps it involves the use of a Tardis or there is some other new thing that the Department can use.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

3. What assessment he has made of the cumulative effect of the Government's policy programme on disabled people.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of the cumulative effect of the Government's policy programme on disabled people.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

The Treasury regularly produces analysis of the cumulative impact of coalition changes, including welfare. However, even independent bodies such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies do not feel that results can be broken down reliably for the disabled community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

We are doing something to address the Atos WCA contract that the previous Government brought in. We are working with it to get it out of that programme, because we are not happy with the quality. We will work with it and Capita in ensuring that PIP produces exactly what it needs to do.

[Nia Griffith]

A disabled constituent of mine, in common with many others, has been called in four times for assessment by Atos and had his entitlement docked. He has gone to appeal, had a successful result, and had it reinstated four times. Will the Minister talk to his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about setting a limit on the number of times that Atos can call in people for a reassessment in any given period? It is a total waste of public money as well as causing immense distress to constituents.

[Mike Penning]

That is exactly what I have been looking at. In particular, I have been looking at tribunal cases, as we have a backlog of cases on the WCA, the policies before PIP and the disability living allowance. I am looking carefully at what is happening. Some can actually go for up to 10 years. That is what I intend to do for people who are desperately in need of the benefit, so that they are not called in as much as they are now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady will know that there are provisions for parents who face such challenges. Her Majesty’s Passport Office carried out an internal review of gender markings for passports. A copy of the review has been laid in the House so that Members may refer to it. It concluded that there would be no significant advantages to including a non-gender specification. Of course, we will continue to look at the matter. I am sure that my colleagues in the Home Office and other Departments that issue such documentation will have listened carefully to the comments that have been made today.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

3. What recent discussions she has had on the position of black, Asian and minority ethnic groups in the labour market.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

The ethnic minority employment stakeholder group supports the Government’s ethnic minority employment strategy. The group meets regularly and reports progress to the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), who has responsibility for employment.

[Nia Griffith]

Back in November, an inquiry report published by the all-party parliamentary group on race and community and the Runnymede Trust found that discrimination was present at every stage of the recruitment process. What plans does the Minister have to tackle illegal discrimination, and what new approaches is he developing to tackle BAME unemployment through the Work programme?

[Mike Penning]

To answer the second part of the question first, we look at each individual case. Evidence has shown that that approach has been much more successful in getting people, particularly those from the black community, into work. If there is discrimination, there is legislation on the statute book to deal with it. It should be reported to us and we will take action.

Welfare Reforms and Poverty

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The first question that we must ask ourselves is why we make social security payments to people. We make them because people have lost their jobs, which is a traumatic event in itself. We make them because of sickness or disability. We make them to people who are in work, but are on low incomes. Some 68% of those who are affected by the Government’s welfare cuts are in work, according to the Resolution Foundation. I will come back to those people in a moment. We make payments to prevent homelessness and to protect people from living in squalid, cold and damp conditions—conditions that will make them more susceptible to disease. We make payments to prevent malnutrition and the diseases that go with it. That is particularly important for children. Malnutrition in childhood not only affects those children in adulthood, but can affect their children. The difference in longevity between well-off areas and poor areas is well documented.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) has explained clearly, we are one of the richest countries in the world and there are other ways in which we could get the deficit down. I will not spend time talking about food banks, other than to say that 50% of the people who are going to food banks are doing so because of mistakes, changes or delays in their benefits.

I want to focus on benefit rates, the Government’s policy on them and the effect that is having on people in Britain. To go back to the beginning, it is a bit of a misconception that UK benefit rates are based on a systematic estimate of minimum needs. Even from the start, back in 1948, benefit rates were a bit of a compromise between the actual needs and what was deemed to be affordable. Even by the time they were introduced, Rowntree had researched the fact that social need was an additional need to physical need. However, that was not recognised from the beginning. Although things were rather patchy until April 1975, in general, benefits increased in line with inflation. Since then, successive Governments have uprated benefits in line with inflation, mostly using the retail prices index until 2011. It is only from then onwards that we have seen the breaking of the link between inflation and the rates at which benefits rise.

Universal credit will be subject to annual review, but not to mandatory uprating. There is a huge danger that it will fall behind inflation. However, well before we get to universal credit, with its myriad problems, which are not helped by the sheer incompetence with which it is being introduced, the Government should be looking at the impact of the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Act 2013. Most working-age benefits have been limited to rises of 1% a year, and yet the costs of basic items such as food and energy—the very basics of life—are rising by significantly more. Even Government estimates suggest that there may be 200,000 more children in poverty, and the Child Poverty Action Group estimates that there could be 1 million more children in poverty by 2020.

Which benefits have been affected? Let us look at the list. The first is tax credits, which have a huge impact. We called the cut to tax credits the strivers’ tax, because it affects people who are desperately trying to make ends meet. Such people are often doing two or three jobs and patching together a few hours here and a few hours there. They are then told that they have to find more hours. Those hours simply are not available; otherwise they would be doing them.

I heard the most extraordinary statement from the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb) when we were talking about housing benefit and the bedroom tax. He came out with the absurd nonsense that two or three hours on the minimum wage would make up the £15 shortfall. Does he not understand how the system works? It is very complex and there are enormous differences depending on the family circumstances and who lives in the household, but essentially, if somebody who is getting housing benefit gets additional income, roughly 65% of it will go straight into a cut in their housing benefit. So in order to get an extra £15 a person effectively has to earn £45, and to get an extra £25 they effectively have to earn about £75. That does not take into account the transport costs to get to work and so on. That is a couple of days’ work at minimum wage at the absolute minimum, on top of the other work people are already doing—these are people who are in work.

The effect of the changes is catastrophic. What have we seen cut? Tax credits, pension credits, savings credits, the health and pregnancy grant, lone parent benefits, contributory employment and support allowance, disability living allowance and council tax benefit have all been cut, and there is the switch to CPI instead of RPI. Luckily, in Wales people have been cushioned for one year by the Welsh Government, but whether that can continue and is affordable is another matter. The impact of all those cuts together is absolutely catastrophic.

The other myth we often hear peddled is the fantastically high figures that, somewhere or other, a tabloid newspaper manages to find for housing benefit. That is because they take the example of one large family in a very expensive area of London, completely forgetting that the family does not receive that money—it goes straight into the pockets of a greedy landlord. That is one of the significant contributors to a high housing benefit bill.

As our shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has said clearly, and has been quoted today as saying, we will get the benefit bill down. How will we do that? We will put people back to work, we will ensure that the national minimum wage keeps up with inflation and we will bring in measures to encourage employers to introduce the living wage, through tax breaks in the first year of its introduction. Frankly, we could make £3 billion of savings simply by helping people to earn more and pay more tax. They would then not need as much in the way of tax credits. We will have a house building programme that will put people into social housing at more sensible rents, thereby reducing the housing benefit bill. We have already seen how a two-bedroom house in the private sector can be far more expensive than a three-bedroom house in the social sector.

There is so much we could be doing. In this motion, we ask for a commission to look at the impact of poverty because we are very concerned that not just this generation but generations to come will be affected by the dreadful conditions and poverty we now see spreading across the UK.