Separated Families Initiative

Debate between Pamela Nash and Anne Begg

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) on securing this important debate. I will not repeat the points hon. Members have made, but this is a welcome opportunity to discuss the impact of HSSF, as well as the expectations of it and of the new CMS.

The goal of the CMS must, of course, be to ensure that children are well provided for and looked after by both parents when those parents are separated. At a time when child poverty is rising—latest figures show that one in four children in my constituency live in poverty—maintenance has a crucial role to play. For the poorest single-parent families, it can provide up to a fifth of their household income, which is a huge amount for them. It is therefore important that the Government make this good new project a success, and if they are to reduce the use of a statutory maintenance service, which they have said is their goal, and to support families to form their own maintenance agreements, the success of HSSF will be absolutely fundamental.

The service is in its early stages, but the case of a constituent who came to my surgery last week gave me some concern about its success so far and about how it might be improved. My constituent’s case made me feel that it is not really clear when a case is eligible to be referred to the CMS, and I would love the Minister to give us some clarity today. At the moment, parents are required to seek advice first and then to get a reference number to go to the CMS. I should have thought that that would happen when the parents had exhausted all other avenues in trying to come to an agreement on their own.

My understanding from the information my constituent gave me, however, is that he had paid maintenance regularly every month for more than 10 years and had, indeed, upped the payment following a request from the receiving parent, but that he then received a letter from the CMS with a payment plan. My understanding is that he was not contacted previously about any mediation and was not involved with HSSF, and his record of paying monthly on time for more than 10 years was not taken into account.

As a result, my constituent was assessed as having to pay £236.71. Previously, he was paying £250; now, he has to pay £283.99 because of the 20% fee. There must be a failure somewhere in the HSSF process in my constituent’s case, and I worry that the problem is more widespread. The child in this case now has less money per month, while the father is paying more per month. How can that possibly be of any benefit to the child or the parents involved?

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

I am quite disturbed to hear of that experience, because it sounds very much like the criticisms we made of the previous Child Support Agency. Often, the non-resident parent was chased for extra money without having gone through an understandable reassessment. That is quite concerning, because the whole point of the new system was to sort cases out long before they got to the CMS itself.

[Pamela Nash]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The reason the issue has upset and angered me enough that I have come here to make my case today is that we were all very hopeful when we knew a new child maintenance service was required. As constituency MPs, we all have big CSA work loads—like others, I have personal experience of this issue—and we wanted the proposals to be a big success. I therefore hope that my constituent’s case is indicative just of teething problems, not of how the CMS will work in the future.

My constituent’s case also underlined my general concerns about the introduction of fees and how they will impact on children and families. I therefore renew my plea for the Government to publish, at the earliest opportunity, the information and analysis they have on the impact the measures are having on children. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us today when that might be.

The debate also gives me the opportunity to discuss the closure of cases from the 1993 and 2003 schemes and how those might go through HSSF and into the CMS. Will the Minister update us on what progress has been made? My understanding from a written answer from the Minister for Pensions is that the closure process is due to go on until May 2018 and that the last cases to be covered are those in which

“Enforcement action is under way”—[Official Report, 1 July 2014; Vol. 583, c. 526W.]

In many ways, those are the cases deemed most difficult to deal with.

To return to the matter we are debating, I am concerned that the HSSF initiative is due to be funded only until March 2015, whereas the process of case closure is due to go on until May 2018. The cases involved are the most difficult and would, I imagine, need the support HSSF offers to make a successful transition. Does the Minister share my concerns? Are the Government considering extending the funding of the HSSF initiative beyond March and indeed until after May 2018, when the case closures are due to end?

Let me finish my short remarks by returning to where I started and to the reason why we are all here. Child maintenance is a crucial part of fighting child poverty and making children feel not only financially supported, but supported by both parents, and that is important for their well-being. The Government are continually telling us they are putting families at the forefront of their policy, and I hope they are doing everything they can to make their proposals a success.

Jobcentre Plus

Debate between Pamela Nash and Anne Begg

Thursday 10th July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Dame Anne Begg]

I think people would be surprised to learn that Jobcentre Plus does not routinely record the reason why someone leaves benefit. As far as JCP is concerned, because the primary focus is on benefit off-flows, the important thing is that the person is no longer on a job-seeking benefit. However, as my hon. Friend says, why are they no longer on a benefit? It could be because they have a new job—that is what we hope—and it is possible that they have transferred to a different benefit because they have become ill, but they might be in prison or have gone into the black economy. We do not know, and nor does JCP because it does not gather that information or track claimants’ destinations. We think it is important that JCP does that in order to judge how efficient and effective its work is.

At some point, hopefully in the not-too-distant future, off-benefit is likely to cease to make much sense as a performance measure, particularly with the introduction of universal credit. I think Members agree that a system that merges out-of-work benefits and in-work tax credits, and in which benefits taper off gradually as earnings increase, would be a huge step forward. That is what universal credit is intended to do, but it will require creative thinking from the Government about new performance measures for JCP.

The Department says that it will think about how to formulate such measures once universal credit is implemented—whenever that is going to be. We think that it should be thinking about and testing them now, not leaving it until much later. Even if universal credit continues to slow down, the Committee certainly thinks that the development of a new measure is worth while anyway, whether in conjunction with universal credit or not. The Department must pilot more meaningful performance measures that track JCP’s effectiveness at getting people into work and helping them to stay there for the long term. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the Government understand the importance of achieving longer-term positive employment outcomes.

Another part of our report that has received quite a lot of attention—perhaps because many Members have experience of it in their constituencies—is Jobcentre Plus’s use of sanctions. There is an inherent tension in what JCP does, between helping and supporting people to find work on the one hand, and, on the other, enforcing strict rules, including financial penalties for claimants deemed not to be trying hard enough to find work. Such is the everyday experience of the Jobcentre Plus adviser and the job-seeking benefit claimant, and it can make for an uneasy relationship.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about sanctions data? In preparation for this debate, I requested figures on sanctions from my local jobcentre. The staff there said that they had not received any data back since March and so are themselves unable to keep track of the number of sanctions being issued and the reasons for them.

Fairness and Inequality

Debate between Pamela Nash and Anne Begg

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Pamela Nash]

It will not come as a surprise that while I agree with the majority of the motion, I am disappointed by its tone. It does not recognise what the Labour Government achieved on inequality between 1997 and 2010—in fact, it attacks that Government—so I will be abstaining, and I am glad to have had the opportunity to put on the record my reasons for doing so.

In my region of north Lanarkshire, the welfare reforms will take £55 million out of the economy every year, which affects not just individuals whose benefits are being cut, but local businesses in our town centres which are now struggling to cope with a vast reduction in customer numbers. That is damaging the development and visible progress of the last 20 years, during which time we have struggled to repair the damage done to our depleted heavy industry and manufacturing in the west of Scotland.

Partly owing to our industrial heritage, my constituency has relatively high levels of disability and chronic illness—as a result of old injuries from those days—and that has made my community particularly vulnerable to the welfare cuts. Many households have a member living with a disability or illness, as I see every day. I have been particularly perturbed by the scrapping of crisis loans, which is affecting the most vulnerable in our society, and although many of the changes have been mitigated by the Scottish welfare fund, many people are still being left in dire straits. Every day I see people whose benefits have been sanctioned and who are no longer entitled to a crisis loan.

[Dame Anne Begg]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will be as disappointed as I was to learn that, according to figures published today, the Scottish welfare fund has been underspent by a considerable amount. Obviously, those who are losing out are the most vulnerable families. It is a great shame that the SNP Government did not see their way to ensuring that the money was properly spent and properly allocated.

[Pamela Nash]

That does indeed upset me. When people come to me and tell me that their benefits have been subject to sanctions, it usually proves to have been due to an honest error; but are we really saying that, in this day and age, even those who have been sanctioned through their own fault should be starving? The only places that I can tell those people to turn to are my local food banks—and food banks throughout the country are confirming that benefit sanctions are one of the main reasons why people are going to them to obtain food just to survive.

I know that time is limited, so I shall try to keep the rest of my comments brief. The myriad statistics that have been shouted across the Chamber today, and all the political posturing, have sometimes made it difficult to bear in mind that individual people with whose cases we all deal as constituency Members are affected by the cuts that are taking place. An old classmate of mine from primary school came to see me a few weeks ago. He is a former serviceman, and when he came out of the Army he became a security guard, but he is now struggling to find employment. How can he be expected to find a job at a time when more than 2 million people are still unemployed, and at a time when many other servicemen and servicewomen will be joining him in the dole queue as further job cuts in the military are announced?

Most of the jobs that will be available to that ex-serviceman will be part-time jobs, or jobs involving zero-hours contracts. Moreover, he depends on housing benefit to keep a roof over his head, and he has been hit by the bedroom tax. His child’s bedroom has been deemed to be a spare room by the Department for Work and Pensions, because the child also has a bedroom in the mother’s house, so he has had to pay bedroom tax for a long time in order to ensure that he still has regular access to the child.

The Scottish Parliament recently passed a budget to fund complete mitigation of the bedroom tax. I welcome that measure, and I am glad that the Scottish Parliament eventually listened to the Scottish Affairs Committee—of which I am a member, although we are not allowed into the Parliament—but many people have already been affected by the tax, and I have to say that the “smoke and mirrors” approach taken by the SNP to one of the clearest examples of UK Government policy making the poor poorer has been nothing short of shameful. They have sat on their hands and done nothing when they could have taken action.

The UK Government made it very clear that the Scottish Government had the power to mitigate the bedroom tax long ago. The SNP said that there was no cash, and then found £20 million. It subsequently said that its hands were tied, but the Scottish Affairs Committee was told by the Scotland Office months ago that that was rubbish, and that the Scottish Government already had the power to mitigate the tax for all the people who were suffering in Scotland. I ask them now to think about the people who have suffered since the bedroom tax was introduced 10 months ago, and to consider apologising to those people and telling them how they will be recompensed.

As I have said, I regret the tone of the motion, which does not acknowledge the progress made under the Labour Government in alleviating the poverty of families both in and out of work. I hope that the Government will heed the many important points that have been raised by members of all parties today, and that they will establish a commission of inquiry to examine the impact of welfare reform—on the most vulnerable in particular—and to investigate inequality throughout the United Kingdom. I also hope, for my constituents’ sake, that the Scottish Government will immediately take advantage of every lever that their devolved powers have made available to them to protect the people of Scotland, and will not continue to pretend that they are powerless to tackle inequality without independence.

Pensions Bill [Lords]

Debate between Pamela Nash and Anne Begg

Monday 20th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dame Anne Begg]

Indeed. The hon. Lady says more eloquently what I was trying to say about displacing people out of pension age into the working age poor. There is nothing to be gained for those people if all we are doing is delaying when they get their state pension. There will be the odd situation that when people retire, their income will go up, rather than people being able to work until they reach retirement age.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we are coming out of carers week, the Government should remember the 37% of women affected by the state pension age increase who will not be in the work force in the last years of their working lives, as the Government call it, and who have responsibilities caring for an elderly or ill relative or for their own grandchildren? They will be among those who suffer most as a result of the increase.

[Dame Anne Begg]

There are much wider issues with raising the state pension age such as the fact that, towards the end of their working life, many people may start to take on less paid employment because they have taken on caring roles. My generation of women is often called the sandwich generation in as much as they are looking after elderly parents or other elderly relatives as well as looking after their own grandchildren, to allow their sons and daughters to go to work. That is the generation that is caught by the anomaly—a generation of women who, perhaps, were not able to work throughout their married life and have not necessarily built up the national insurance contributions that will give them a full state pension.

I am curious about the Government’s argument that the flat rate pension will miraculously mean that all women will get a state pension, when my understanding is that that pension will still be based on the number of years of national insurance contributions. That was brought down to 30 years in the Pensions Act 2007, so women can already qualify. That Act also made it easier for carers to qualify for credits. I see the pensions Minister is about to jump up. Perhaps he can clarify whether the qualification for the flat rate pension will not be 30 years of national insurance credits.