Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I am not going to give way.

The costs of other schemes would be disproportionate and the agreements we have with the insurance companies —I know that some colleagues do not like them—would make that very difficult. We are 100% committed to delivering on the Bill. This measure represents a huge step forward, and it should be recognised as such. I thank the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), who is no longer in his place, for doing so.

The scheme will make payments to eligible people according to a fixed tariff and according to the age of the person who has the disease. The payment will be based on roughly 75% of the amount of average civil damages. Those who have followed the Bill’s progress through the other House will realise that it raised the figure from 70% to 75%. The figure of 75% is probably is not as important as the 3% levy, which is very important.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mike Penning]

I will not give way.

Setting the payments at the right rate is crucial to the success of the Bill and the ultimate establishment of a payment scheme. The payment rate of 75% of average civil damages takes the levy right to limit of what insurers have indicated they could absorb without passing the costs on to new businesses—an absolutely crucial issue. It is the absolute maximum that would be realistic within a fixed-payment scheme.

The levy on insurers will be imposed on active employers’ liability insurers at large today, not the individual insurers who took out the premiums, who were covered in cases that come under the scheme. The scheme could be jeopardised if the levy were set disproportionately high. That could delay the introduction of the scheme, preventing the payment mechanism from being in place at the time of the peak of mesothelioma deaths, which, according to the actuaries, will be around 2015. I am sure we will debate that as we go through the Bill, but I hope that that will not detract from the importance of ensuring that it gets on to the statute book as soon as possible. As everybody in the House will understand, the scheme must strike a careful balance in making a substantial payment to eligible people while ensuring that the contribution made by the insurers is fair and not excessive. Crucially, the proposed levy rate must not be so high as to risk increased costs on business, thereby adversely affecting British businesses, which no one in the House would want.

In addition to the payment scheme and the levy, the Bill makes provision for the possibility—I stress, the possibility—of establishing a technical committee to adjudicate on making binding decisions on disputes between insurers. I think we would all prefer that to these matters being in the courts.

The Bill and the principles behind it merit the support of the whole House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to this extremely important Bill. I take a strong constituency and personal interest in the subject, having seen people and their families suffer from this terrible disease. Under the previous Government, I sat on the Committee for the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill, part 4 of which set up the mesothelioma payments scheme in 2008.

The Bill is the result of the consultation exercise that Labour set up in February 2010. I share with my hon. Friends the considerable concern that it has taken nearly two and a half years for the Bill to come to fruition, particularly given that the results of the consultation were already on Ministers’ desks when the Government changed. It has taken a considerable time, and there is serious concern about the victims and families who will miss out as a result of the delay.

I want to talk, first, about an area that has not been mentioned particularly today, before adding my voice to some of the strong criticisms from the Opposition. I am concerned about the implications for reputable small businesses that are unable to trace insurance. It is very difficult for a victim trying to suss out exactly who their employer was when they contracted the disease, particularly if they worked for several different employers, and for them then to suss out who the insurer was for that particular employer. Victims are now finding that many of the companies they have worked for have disappeared or re-emerged under different names, and sometimes the only company a claimant can find will be one of a few family firms that have a good reputation in an area and which want to maintain good health and safety standards.

One case in my constituency concerns a highly reputable firm that probably never had any asbestos anywhere near the victim. Nevertheless, it has to prove that and defend itself, because none of the myriad other companies that the poor sufferer of mesothelioma worked for still exist. Even prior to 1969 when the Labour Government made employers’ liability insurance compulsory, we are pretty certain that most companies had such insurance because there was no massive increase in the number of companies taking it out. Nevertheless, records seem difficult to trace. The case goes back a considerable number of years, and finding proof of that insurance is extremely difficult.

The Bill establishes a technical committee, and its remit will be to make decisions on questions that arise

“between a potential insurance claimant and an insurer about whether an employer maintained employers’ liability insurance with the insurer at a particular time.”

A potential insurance claimant is defined in the Bill as a victim, a relative of a victim of mesothelioma who has passed away, or

“an employer alleged…to be liable for damages in respect of the disease or death.”

The technical committee has an extremely important role, and responsible employers are anxious that employers should be represented on it. If a potential insurance claimant can be defined in that way, it seems only fair that the technical committee set up to adjudicate on such matters should include employer representation. Will the Secretary of State or Minister confirm, either today or certainly before the Bill Committee, that employers will be represented on the technical committee?

Briefly, I will also mention the Employers’ Liability Tracing Office, and ask that the Government continue to identify areas for improvement. We know that as a result of the consultation last year, the Government have already announced their intention to require employers’ liability insurers to be members of the ELTO, and it is important that potential claimants can access from the ELTO the information they need as simply as possible. Promises have been made in the other place about improving the money available for research, and taking the issue extremely seriously. I know that a lot of good work has been done, not least by the former hon. Member for Barnsley West and Penistone, Michael Clapham.

Some areas of the Bill are not at the point they should be, including the percentage of payment—a point raised by a number of my hon. Friends. Insurance companies have said that they would consider figures that go up to 3% of gross written premium. Why on earth are the Government settling for 75% of average civil compensation claims when their team has produced figures to indicate that 90% would still mean that insurance companies are looking at a percentage of GWP of something like 2.9%—well within the 3% limit? Indeed, 95% of average civil compensation claims would be only 3.05% of GWP, and 100% would be 3.19%. The Government could clearly afford 90% of average civil compensation claims as a very minimum, rather than a measly 75% that leaves people up to £18,000 worse off than if the average were 90%. There is no excuse for plucking a figure out of the air rather than matching what insurance companies have said they could afford.

On the date from which the scheme should commence, it was clear back in February 2010 that we were looking at an insurance company-funded scheme. In other words, the insurance companies were fully aware of what was being discussed in the consultation. They knew it would be an industry-funded scheme, so there is no excuse for the funding not to start from then, if not considerably earlier, as a number of my hon. Friends have pointed out.

Other diseases related to asbestos—asbestosis, pleural plaques and cancers related to asbestos—account for 50% of cases, but would account for only 20% of the cost. Many sufferers could benefit, but they are not included in the provisions in the Bill. People ask how it is possible to identify those diseases and whether it is possible to trace them back, yet the T&N Asbestos Trust manages to do so and administers claims for other asbestos diseases, as well as mesothelioma.

Many of my hon. Friends noted the disparity between the Department for Work and Pensions’ 100% clawback of benefits and the Bill allowing for a claim of only 75% of the average civil compensation. That is a huge disparity, with the state clawing back unfairly considerably more than a victim can claim in compensation.

I welcome the Bill and want to see it on the statute book as quickly as possible to help the victims and their families, but I have serious reservations. This is a missed opportunity: the Bill could be considerably more generous to claimants and ask a great deal more from insurance companies.

Housing Benefit (Under-occupancy Penalty)

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

It is astonishing that the hon. Lady should suggest that we are trying to get rid of social housing, given that we have built more affordable housing in the last year than was built, on average, over the preceding 10 years under Labour. That is an absurd suggestion. I entirely understand that the hon. Lady opposes everything—it is a kind of nihilism, which is fair enough—but her suggestion is not a credible option for a credible Government.

The research that we will undertake will include small-scale primary research involving a range of local authorities, social landlords and voluntary organisations in England, Scotland and Wales. The researchers will consider supply issues, rural effects—which were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid)—and people who are unable to share rooms. When possible, they will also consider the effects on vulnerable individuals and their financial circumstances, social networks and family life. That was mentioned earlier as well.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

I hope to end my speech in a moment, but I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Lady.

[Nia Griffith]

If the Minister is so keen for people to receive discretionary payments, can he explain why the Government are taking to court a case in Wiltshire in which a disabled child is unable to share a room with a sibling? Why are they spending money on taking that case to court if they think that money should be given to such families?

[Steve Webb]

There is a limit to what I can say about cases that are currently in the courts. We have been given permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. We are, of course, applying the current Appeal Court ruling, and we have issued local authority guidance on how such cases should be dealt with. That case is very much in flux at present, and I do not want to say too much about it. However, let me make a general point that sums up what we are trying to achieve.

We are trying to tackle a massive structural deficit. The biggest two items of public spending are public sector pay and benefits. We have taken action on public sector pay, with little or no support from the Opposition. We have also had to take action on benefits. We have concentrated on working-age benefits because we have protected the state pension, and no Opposition Member has suggested that we should not have done that. We were trying to find £12 billion from public spending, and housing benefit is one of the biggest working-age benefits. We had tackled private sector housing benefit, and we had to look at the social sector. The most valuable way in which we can look at social sector housing benefit costs is to look at the million spare bedrooms that we currently subsidise, and to ask whether that subsidy is fair to the people who do not receive it.

These are difficult choices, but we have had to make them because of the mess that the Labour party left to us. I hope that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill will begin with an apology.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kris Hopkins]

No, I will not. I want to make progress on the point I was making earlier.

We wanted to transfer our housing stock into a not-for-profit trust. We renovated 30,000 of those decrepit houses into decent quality houses. We put forward a £1 billion package to transform them into quality houses and put in a 30-year maintenance scheme to sustain them through that stand-alone trust. It is successful. Our Labour councillors, local Labour leaders and trade unions voted against that package, however, and actively campaigned against it. [Interruption.] I hear the scorn coming from the Opposition, but Labour does not want to take real action. Labour councillors and representatives were prepared to allow people to live in slums, rather than intervene.

[Nia Griffith]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some local councils, such as Carmarthenshire county council, kept their whole housing stock in-house and have done an excellent job in renovating section after section of it? He should not be saying that the deciding factor is whether a council decides to keep provision in-house or to give it to another authority to look after. What matters is what is done with that stock.

[Kris Hopkins]

I do not know where the taxpayers of Bradford were to find £1 billion over 30 years to renovate those houses. That was the reality and the reason why the housing was put into a trust, which is delivering. The people of Bradford living in social housing were betrayed by the Labour party.

I want quality homes and I shall work to make sure we get them, but the fact is that the housing benefit budget has doubled in 10 years, on the back of the previous Government’s economic failure and mismanagement. We have to spend within our means. The public rightly expect us to get a grip on the benefits regime—a regime the Labour Government allowed to get out of control. Labour failed to build social housing, failed to manage the economy and therefore clearly failed those who are living in social housing and those who need access to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

In Wales, some 40,000 households will be affected by the under-occupancy penalty or bedroom tax, which is 46% of working-age social housing tenants who receive housing benefit. That is one of the highest percentages of any area in the UK, well above the UK average of 31%, and is due to the nature of the housing stock which is mostly three-bedroom houses. In my county of Carmarthenshire the housing department has identified 1,341 households that will be hit, 860 of which are in my constituency. At least the department is being proactive and trying to find people and help them, but it is an impossible task.

We have heard a good deal today about the range of people who should be regarded as exceptional cases, and I endorse the idea that people such as foster carers and those in specially adapted properties should not be penalised. The fact remains, however, that many people of working age in social housing are vulnerable individuals but do not count among those who will receive discretionary treatment. They have often been allocated social housing because they are in need—because they have, for example, mental health problems. Clearly, the discretionary money falls far short of what will be needed to cover the whole of the shortfall for those in need.

Where does that leave us? All hon. Members understand that some households have a spare room. That is simply because the overwhelming majority of council housing and housing association housing is three-bedroomed. In an ideal world, we would free up the three-bedroom properties for families who need them, but that cannot be done overnight. People have sometimes had to accept those homes because they are the only ones available. In recent years, housing associations have built one and two-bedroom properties, and Carmarthenshire county council, my local authority, is building some small bungalows, but they are already in great demand, and there is no way that local authorities can suddenly build enough new properties to accommodate all those who will be affected by the under-occupancy penalty.

Many of those who move to the available one and two-bedroom properties are pensioners, who are mercifully exempted from the bedroom tax. The problem, however, is simply that there are not enough one and two-bedroom properties. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) spoke of incentives, but even without incentives, many people want to downsize when their children grow up—downsizing means that properties are easier to look after, and people often recognise the social value of giving up their property to a family and moving into a smaller one. However, they cannot do that if there are no properties to move into.

Let us look at the reality of what will happen. Let us be clear: people on low incomes just do not have extra money to cover the extra rent. As is explained in the House of Commons briefing, the amount of money that people receive in benefits has never been based exactly on need. There has always been a compromise between need and what could attract political support, but the fact remains that people on benefits live on scarcely enough to cover basic needs. There is already a massive squeeze on household budgets, with relentless price rises for essential items such as food, energy bills and bus fares. Those on the lowest incomes suffer the most, because they have no spare cash and have already cut back on anything that is not essential.

Many people will try to stay where they are to avoid disruption to their family and their children’s schooling, or the increased bus fares they would have to pay if they moved away. They will desperately try to pay the additional rent from their meagre budgets. That will mean people turning off heating and cutting back on food, and trying their utmost not to spend anything extra. However, the chances are that, despite their best efforts to keep their secured council house tenancy, because they value that and realise how difficult life is in the private sector, where they are pushed from pillar to post, they are likely to fall into arrears. That will have a negative impact on council housing and housing association budgets and cash flows, and leave less money for maintenance and new build.

Once a family falls into arrears, their problems will spiral. They will be prey to loan sharks as they try to make ends meet. What happens if they are evicted? The council will have to re-house them. They could end up in bed and breakfast or other privately rented property, all of which would be more expensive than the amount saved by imposing a bedroom tax on the extra room in their house. The trouble is that some private accommodation is only temporary—the family will move from pillar to post, with all the educational disruption that that will cause for their children.

The private sector has problems, because there is a lot of pressure from young professional couples who do not have the job security or deposit to buy their own homes. They are pushing up prices and taking the more desirable private properties. Another problem is that, although we have passed legislation to license landlords, it is taking a while for local authorities to do so. There is a lot of backlog in driving up standards and decency in private sector homes, which are often sadly lacking.

Just one aspect of that problem—letting agents—is being covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) in the debate in Westminster Hall this afternoon. There is so much to tackle in the private sector to bring it up to standard.

If we take into account the cost of administering discretionary payments and the difficulties of trying to share them fairly, when there is clearly not enough money to go around, we realise that it would be far better not to implement the bedroom tax. It would be far better to stimulate growth, get more jobs and more people in work, and therefore increase the tax take. There would then be a chance to get the deficit down. In the meantime, we could use the money from the 4G sell-off to build more homes so we have less of a housing crisis.

Universal Credit (Wales)

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty]

Absolutely, and I will come on to that point in due course.

It is not only those whom I have spoken to who have sincere worries about universal credit. As we have several times seen in the press, one Cabinet Minister has reportedly said in private:

“The information technology for the new system is nowhere near ready. It’s a disaster waiting to happen.”

Who knows whether such rumours are to be believed, but I understand that a number of Cabinet Ministers share that view, which is perhaps one reason for the delays.

What is the specific impact on Wales? Based on an analysis of the December impact assessment and some rough calculations, we estimate that a staggering 140,000 people across Wales might lose £1,600 a year. That is based on an estimate of the Welsh population that will be affected. I would be grateful if the Minister shared the Government’s figures and estimates about how many will be affected in Wales and how much they will lose. Will he provide a breakdown by local authority to help local authorities prepare for the impact of the changes?

Aside from the raw figures, which are shocking in themselves, I want to share the key fears that people have raised with me about the implementation of universal credit in Wales. First, there is the challenge of budgeting for many families; secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) mentioned, there is the digital divide; thirdly, there are power relationships within the home; and, finally, there are the risks posed to local authorities, housing associations and other registered social landlords.

First, on budgeting, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions frequently appears to suggest that those of us who raise the issue are patronising our constituents. Rather than taking so entirely complacent an approach, I commend the work that organisations such as the citizens advice bureaux, the Cardiff and Vale credit union, housing associations—for example, Cadwyn in my constituency—are doing to support tenants by helping them to set up bank accounts, jam jar accounts and similar facilities in credit unions. I also commend the Welsh Government’s work to support those efforts.

Levels of financial literacy––let alone access to a bank account––are not, unlike this measure, universal, and we need to be realistic about the impact of the changes on many people. Rather than making huge assumptions, perhaps the Minister would tell us what risks he sees in relation to the problems in the area and what his Department is doing to assist. I can certainly tell him that many of the organisations that I have mentioned, let alone individual constituents, have experienced varying or little support from his Department, and that relates only to those who are aware of such support.

I want to touch on direct payments and the data from the direct payment pilots that the Department has conducted. A couple of days ago, “Inside Housing” published an article entitled, “Direct payment pilots report increased arrears”, by the journalist Carl Brown, which states:

“Landlords testing direct payment of benefit failed to collect 8 per cent of rent on average in the first four months of the six pilot projects.”

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend also ask the Minister what assessment has been made of the effect on local councils of all those arrears, because they will have major cash-flow problems?

[Stephen Doughty]

Indeed, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s point, which I will move on to later.

Mr Brown also stated:

“Data released today by the Department for Work and Pensions showed 6,220 tenants across the UK were paid directly in the first four months of the projects. Of these, 92 per cent of rent was collected on average overall, meaning arrears were around double the normal figure. A total of 316 tenants have been switched back to payment of benefit to the landlord.”

To give a figure that is specific to Wales, in relation to Bron Afon Community Housing and Charter Housing in Torfaen, 535 tenants were involved in the first payments and there have been 59 switchbacks so far, which is about 11%. Those figures are obviously of deep concern and they raise wider issues: there are deep worries about how universal credit will work in practice and about the support provided to people, and there are also major implications for organisations, whether they are local authorities or housing associations, that are supporting those tenants.

Secondly, on the digital divide, my colleague the Welsh Minister for Finance, Jane Hutt, has repeatedly warned that people with few or no IT skills might have difficulty applying for universal credit. In 2010, figures suggested that about a third of adults in Wales did not use the internet regularly, and recent figures from the Office for National Statistics suggest that about 20% have never used it.

Under-occupancy Penalty (Wales)

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Jessica Morden]

I agree with my hon. Friend and I will come on to make those points. Again, the study by Bron Afon in Torfaen highlights such cases.

Faced with no social housing and the need to stay in a community, it is hardly surprising, but none the less shocking, that one of the findings of a survey of social housing tenants by Bron Afon was that some tenants had concluded that the only possible solution for them was to eat two meals fewer a week to make up the shortfall. They felt that that was the only area on which they could economise.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend not think that realistically many families are going to fall behind with their rent, with the result that they will find themselves moved into smaller properties or, at the end of the day, homeless? What does she think that our local authorities can possibly do with their limited resources to deal with a sea of people who will have nowhere to go?

[Jessica Morden]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. It is true that housing associations, local authorities and the Welsh Assembly will be under stress because they will not be able to mitigate the effects of this policy.

With a chronic shortage of available housing, many tenants appear to feel that there is no alternative but to be forced into arrears or to resort to desperate measures such as payday loans or loan sharks. Families will be forced into financial difficulty and rent arrears. Steve Clarke, chief executive of the Welsh Tenants Federation, estimates that 10% of tenants who will be affected are already indebted to their landlords who are seeking repossession orders. The double whammy of rent arrears and the increases could mean that 4,000 present themselves as homeless. This is against a backdrop of food banks in Newport giving out hundreds more parcels a month and food crime up 26% over the past two years. We are talking about people stealing washing powder.

The Government appear to think that people will find it easy to get extra hours of work or to find an elusive job. They think that lone parents with small children should go out and seek lodgers. In fact, the findings of the hotline of Community Housing Cymru— “Your benefits are changing”—found that 13% of people who rang would consider downsizing and 8% might consider a lodger. However, 79% said that taking on a lodger or moving were not suitable options and that they would apply for discretionary housing payments.

I believe that £7 million has been allocated to Wales, which faces a potential loss of £25 million. That is the Government’s answer to those who cannot move. There is a limited amount of money from the Government towards those payments, but once it has been used, no other payments can be made. I take the point that was made earlier about the fact that there has been no clarification of how the money will be spent. The deserving might miss out if they happen to be in need when the fund has been exhausted. There has been no compelling analysis of the impact that the changes will have on individuals, and the Government’s response of setting a finite budget without knowing whether it will be sufficient is as callous as the bedroom tax itself.

Atos Work Capability Assessments

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke). I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) for initiating the debate, and to the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to it.

We are all here today because constituents have come to us and told us their stories. Constituents have come to me in their wheelchairs with their carers because they have wanted me to know about the difficulties that they are experiencing. They cannot understand why, in the face of overwhelming medical evidence, they are still being called in for interviews. Some cannot understand why they have been told “If you make it to this interview, you must be fit for work.”

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my utter despair at the sheer amount of money that is wasted on calling in people whose well-documented histories clearly show that they suffer from conditions which, sadly, will not improve in any way, rather than being spent on trying to find ways of helping those who are in a better position to go back to work?

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I object to the Government’s proposals to limit to 1% for the next three years any rise in income-maintenance benefits to low-income households, over 68% of which go to households in work, not households out of work. It is grossly unfair, hits the poorest hardest and will cause genuine hardship; it makes no economic sense whatsoever. Making real-terms cuts to low-income families will have a disastrous effect on local economies. People on low incomes and families who are struggling to make ends meet immediately, through necessity, spend what money they have and any increase they receive on basic essentials, putting that money back into the local economy. They have no choice about that. Low-income families have already been disproportionately badly hit because of rising food and fuel prices. Implementing these real-terms cuts will suck money out of the local economy, leading to more difficulties for local businesses, more shops on our high streets closing, and more job losses. This will particularly affect economically depressed areas where it is already hard to find another job, and more people unemployed means more people needing to claim benefits.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about jobs. The benefits bill is rising because of this Government’s failure on the economy and jobs. Does she agree that the Welsh Labour Government are showing the way with their Jobs Growth Wales fund, which is already ahead of target, in stark contrast to the failure of the Work programme, which has seen only two in 100 people put into work?

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed. What the Welsh Government are doing is absolute proof that we mean business in our motion and in saying that we need to create opportunities and make sure that people get back to work. The great thing about the Welsh Government’s programme is that they have been targeting private sector jobs having previously concentrated on public sector jobs. That is making a huge difference to the people who are able to take part.

The Bill will suck more money out of the economy. For example, House of Commons Library figures show that over the next three years the Government’s economic decisions will mean cuts in welfare benefits taking some £3.6 billion out of Wales. If we also add in the £2.4 billion in extra VAT that people will be paying, that amounts to a massive £7 billion coming out of the Welsh economy during this Government’s term of office. That is no way to foster economic growth.

It is a complete myth that people receive massive, generous amounts. Comparisons with actual living costs have consistently shown that what people receive is not generous to start with, but over the years there has at least been a recognition by Governments of all colours that allowances should be regularly upgraded to reflect inflation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) said, a decision to limit increases in the rate of income-maintenance benefits to below inflation for a sustained period is historically unprecedented. At a time when benefit allowances are down as a percentage of full-time earnings and prices of essential items are rising, this will lead to increased hardship and increased child poverty. House of Commons Library research shows that, as a result of these proposals, the real value of benefits and their value as a percentage of average full-time earnings will fall.

Much has been made by the Lib Dems of the raising of the personal tax threshold, but in reality this is a regressive measure. An analysis by Citizens Advice and the Resolution Foundation shows that the impact of capping benefits and tax credits will wipe out any gains from the increase in the personal tax allowance for those on low incomes—precisely the people it is meant to help.

I received a distressing letter recently from a woman who has been diagnosed with cancer that will require extensive surgery and follow-up treatment. She has been alarmed to discover the amount that she is expected to live on as statutory sick pay. She has worked all her life and made contributions. She has enough to cope with without having to worry about money. This Government’s Bill will make matters far worse for people such as her. To make a real-terms cut to statutory sick pay for one year, never mind three years, is an absolute disgrace.

This Bill will not help people on low incomes—in fact, it will make life extremely difficult for them—and neither will it help to get the economy going. What we really need is real growth strategy to get the economy going, and then we can talk about paying back the deficit.

Work Capability Reassessments

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for contributing that example. We must look at such situations carefully.

The process of reviewing the new descriptors is finally under way—although I suspect that we will return to it in due course—so I will concentrate on appeals and the time between assessment and reassessment. One of the most common stories that I hear from constituents is that they are found fit for work, wait several months for an appeal, get ESA and are then called back for a further assessment, sometimes just weeks and often only two or three months later. That is one of the most visible flaws in how the system works.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that not only is the waste of money enormous, given that so many are granted benefit on appeal, but that given all the cuts to citizens advice bureaux, it is difficult for people to get the right support going into a frightening tribunal situation?

[Sheila Gilmore]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. There is evidence that people who are represented are more likely to be successful than those who are unable to get representation.

That is the context for the issue of reassessment: the high volume of appeals means that people must wait long periods for a hearing and a decision. In answer to a written question last month, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) said:

“During the period 1 April to 30 June 2012 (the latest period for which data has been published) the average time taken from receipt of an ESA appeal by the SSCS Tribunal to disposal was 19 weeks”.—[Official Report, 19 November 2012; Vol. 553, c. 307W.]

However, that 19 weeks is not the average waiting time for an individual making an appeal but merely the average time it takes the Tribunals Service to process the appeal after it receives the papers. Before it even receives the papers, an appeal must be lodged with the DWP, the relevant decision maker has to perform a series of checks and the Department must prepare and submit its response.

There is no time limit for DWP to prepare its response to an appeal. In a written answer to a question from me in February this year, the then Justice Minister, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), indicated that between June 2010 and May 2011, the average time it took from the submission of an appeal to DWP to receipt of the papers by the Tribunals Service was 8.1 weeks. If we add that to the average of 19 weeks, we are looking at about 27 weeks. Over and above that, individuals will have submitted an application and undergone an assessment. In 2011, they had to wait seven weeks for the result of that assessment, although I know from talking to my colleagues that many people encounter much longer waits.

What does all that mean in practice? I raised an example during Prime Minister’s questions on 2 March last year. A constituent of mine had a young adult son who was severely autistic but had been found fit for work, and who appealed successfully. The process took 10 months, and he was told that he would have to be reassessed in six months. I do not think that the Prime Minister understood the question that I was asking; he gave me an answer about disability living allowance rather than employment and support allowance.

Before the Minister says, “That was then; that was 2011, and we have made so many improvements that it isn’t happening any more,” only two weeks ago, I visited a constituent whom I had not met before who told me a similar story of having applied, being refused and appealing, and who within a relatively short time had to go through another assessment.

Ford UK (Duty of Care to Visteon Pensioners)

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Caton.

We need to remember the utter devastation that the goings-on at Ford and Visteon visited on some of our constituents. Having worked all their life and put by their money, they do not expect to be treated in such a way that their pension is 50% down on what they had hoped. In the days when workers could choose which factory to work in, some might have chosen Ford specifically because it was a reputable company, with a decent salary and a decent pension contribution scheme, only to be told a few years later that the figures did not add up and that they were not going to get what they thought.

Workers were told that they had no option but to transfer their pension. They were told that it was not legally possible for Visteon UK employees to remain in the Ford pension scheme post-spin-off. They either had their pension frozen until they were 65 or they transferred it, being told that it would continue to grow as per the existing terms and conditions. There has therefore been a terrible betrayal. Again and again in the documentation, we read sentences such as:

“Your accrued pension rights will be protected”.

Workers were told by Ford that their “pension benefits are guaranteed”. That was also stated in an e-mail, in which the answers had been approved by the director of personnel for Ford Britain. A letter dated August 2000 from Brian Smith, the human resources manager, clearly stated:

“For employees transferred to Visteon from Ford on 1 May 2000, the new Visteon Scheme will provide exactly the same benefits as the Ford Fund, now and in the future”.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Is the hon. Lady aware of a question-and-answer document circulated particularly to employees in the Swansea plant? It included the question:

“If I stay with Visteon will my pension be secure?”

The answer was:

“Visteon has committed to mirror the terms and conditions of Ford. This means that…your pension”

will “be secure”. Is that not a case of deliberate misinformation or, even worse, deception?

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed. We often hear the word “mis-selling” used in relation to financial products, but that is far too kind a word, which suggests some kind of mistake. I call it a complete rip-off, a complete betrayal and an absolute disgrace in relation to what people were told and what the reality turned out to be. Clearly, somebody knew what was going on.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Is the hon. Lady saying—if she is, I agree—that the people in Ford knew that the Visteon pension scheme was not as soundly based as the Ford one? Does she think that the main board in the United States is aware of this history in detail?

[Nia Griffith]

I am coming to that point. In fact, it was the Ford actuarial team that decided the amount of the transfer. The initial £49 million deficit in Visteon’s pension funding was clearly determined by Ford.

Can anyone imagine that there were not already thoughts, in some big boardroom in Ford, about how it could get rid of its liabilities—that nobody had in mind the thought that its biggest problem was the pension deficit and how to fund it for the future, and wondered what it could do to get rid of that? Can anyone tell me that they really believe that Ford had not already thought of hiving off the bits in the supply chain for which it could get cheaper prices, thinking that it could use its 90% purchasing power over Visteon UK to force down prices, before it embarked on the separation plan? It seems clear to me that Ford was determined to drive down prices even further than what it had agreed in the separation plan.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there was a very determined plan from the beginning. To me, it seems that there was a cunning plan: Ford wanted to maximise profits and to drive down costs on the backs of the workers in Visteon UK plants. Once it had managed to hive off certain sectors and to form Visteon, we heard that Ford was starting to drive down prices to ones that were significantly lower than those in the original separation agreement.

We also found that Ford tried to source components elsewhere. There were the dreaded confidentiality agreements: “Don’t tell Visteon that you’re making the bits that we get from them now, and that you’ll stockpile them so that we have them ready for when we get rid of Visteon altogether.” Do not tell me that somebody was not already thinking about that right back before 2000. If we look at the whole thing from beginning to end, there was a distinct plan of maximising profits for Ford and trying to get rid of the parts of the company providing components that it could find more cheaply elsewhere.

For Ford to do that on the backs of workers who worked loyally for it for 20 or 30 years is absolutely despicable and totally morally reprehensible. I fully concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who said that people have to make ethical choices about from whom they buy products. People need to know how Ford has treated the Visteon workers.

[Geraint Davies]

People should also know that the lot of Visteon workers in the UK is far worse than those in Germany or the United States. That suggests that there has been a carefully choreographed judgment about where Ford can get away with ripping off workers. The view was that it could do it in the UK—covertly lining up alternative suppliers, and telling them not to tell Visteon that that was done to knock Visteon out—and the whole thing really stinks.

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. With Visteon workers elsewhere not being treated in the same way, we must question what went on. It seems to me that there was a massive cover-up and a real attempt to drive down prices in a way that, as I have said, was completely morally reprehensible.

Universal Credit and Welfare Reform

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The money is being cut by 10%, so councils must somehow come up with a scheme that will save 10% and will be introduced on a local basis. It will be chaotic. Many councils are saying that they will not be able to do it in time, and it will certainly mean that there will be no national taper that everyone can understand.

However, that is just the start of the problems. The project is not on schedule, despite what the Secretary of State said earlier. According to paragraph 21 on page 37 of his White Paper of November 2010, between October 2013 and April 2014

“All new claims for out-of-work support are treated as claims to Universal Credit. No new Jobseeker’s Allowance, Employment and Support Allowance, Income Support and Housing Benefit claims will be accepted.”

I believe that that is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) was told. It is absolutely clear, but it is no longer true. A newsletter appeared on the Department for Work and Pensions website over the summer announcing that, in fact, that timetable will apply in only one Jobcentre Plus district per region. In all the other districts, the change will take place some time after October 2013 and by summer 2014. The timetable has slipped; it has been delayed from what was stated in the White Paper—I am delighted that the Secretary of State is back in his place. On the budget, to the end of the last financial year the project was due to spend £400 million. In fact, it spent £500 million. So it is already over budget, too.

I welcome what the Secretary of State said about online claims: he told us that the Department expects that at the beginning only about half of claims will be submitted online. That is a very significant change from what has been said until now in respect of the digital-by-default proposal. It would be helpful to know what will happen to the 50% who do not apply online. How will things work for them? When people have problems, who is going to help them? As my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) rightly pointed out, the introduction of universal credit will coincide with a drastic reduction in the availability of advice, just when people are supposed to be grappling with these new processes.

What about people’s documents? At the moment, people applying for housing benefit present their documents to the local authority. Where will they present them in future? Will people start turning up at jobcentres with their documents or will they be expected to post them somewhere—or will we no longer have the fraud checks that are currently built into the system?

This is supposed to be all about work incentives, but large numbers of people will find that their work incentives are worse. The Government apparently plan a simple income cut-off for free school meals. If people earn less than X, their children will be entitled to free school meals, but if they earn more than X, they will not. That is a disastrous new cliff edge—far worse than anything in the current system. It means that someone with three children who earns less than X will suddenly have to start paying out over £3,000 in school meal charges per year if their income increases above X by just a pound or two. That is a massive disincentive to people to increase their income.

We have been asking how Ministers are going to tackle this issue since March last year. We asked the Secretary of State when he would make up his mind when he gave evidence to the Welfare Reform Bill Committee. He said that

“during the Committee stage we should be in a much stronger position to make it much clearer how we will do that.”––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 24 March 2011; c. 155, Q299.]

Some 18 months have now passed, and today the Secretary of State told us he is talking to various people about it. All this is supposed to be in place within 12 months from now and Ministers still cannot tell us what they will do, but it does appear that that very damaging feature will be part of the system.

I have asked about the publication of the business case. I believe that Ministers will not publish it because it projects that there will be no increase at all in the total number of hours worked as a result of the introduction of universal credit. In other words, the whole basis on which this project is being taken forward is flawed. That is partly because of the situation for second earners, which has been mentioned. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) asked the Secretary of State what would happen to hours worked. He did not answer, and I think I have just explained the reason why. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) pointed out, second earners in a couple face sharply worse work incentives than in the current system. We are going back to an outdated male breadwinner model, where the second person in the couple is not expected to work.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) pointed out, incentives for self-employment are terrible, too. Tax credits have encouraged self-employment, but, under universal credit, the DWP will assume after the first year that people are earning at least the minimum wage for every single hour they are working in self-employment.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the Federation of Small Businesses is saying that this will be a disincentive to people to get up off their backsides and start their own businesses and get going? That suggests that something is fundamentally wrong.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is because of the design that has been chosen. In July, the chair of the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group called for a rethink. He said:

“In many cases the income of self-employed earners will fall sharply making it, in some cases, uneconomic for them to continue to work.”

That is the opposite of what everybody in this debate has said universal credit is supposed to do, but that appears to be where we are heading. It is, I am afraid, a mess.

As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, a great deal of care was taken over the design of tax credits to ensure that mothers receive cash support for their children. All those safeguards are deliberately being removed from universal credit, which will cause serious problems.

I very much welcome what the Secretary of State said yesterday about refuges. As we know, Refuge has been saying that it will have to shut all its domestic violence shelters. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) was able to secure a pledge from the new Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), that he will lobby DWP Ministers on that point, but how are the costs of other kinds of supported housing to be met? The Government concluded a consultation on that in October last year. Another year has passed, and nothing definite has been announced, and in one more year this is all supposed to be up and running.

As has been said, we do not know anything about how in-work conditionality will operate. I have not even mentioned Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ real-time information system for pay-as-you-earn. That is supposed to start from next April. Every company in the land is due to start reporting PAYE to HMRC not, as now, once a year after the end of the financial year, but every single month. The Government say it will all happen automatically through everybody’s computerised payroll systems, but what about small firms that do not have a computerised system? The Low Incomes Tax Reform Group says:

“Businesses will have to draw up two sets of accounts—one for HMRC, the other for DWP—and the latter will have to be done monthly, thereby massively increasing bureaucratic burdens.”

This is a mess. It has not been properly worked through. Key decisions have not yet been made. It is no wonder the Treasury and No. 10 are so worried. The House should be too, and should support our motion.

Employment Support

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is right. In this day and age, we need to recognise that disabled people want to live independent lives. We are committed to that as a Government. To do that, we need to help more disabled people into work and we are more likely to achieve that if we can ensure that that money is used most effectively. The proposals that we are discussing will help an extra 8,000 disabled people into work.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

As the Under-Secretary knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) has been very successful in getting public bodies locally to buy furniture from the Swansea Remploy factory. Now that that factory’s order books are full, will she look again at its potential to be cost effective and drop her plans to close it?