Sanctioning of Benefit Recipients

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes that there have been many cases of sanctions being wrongfully applied to benefit recipients; and call on the Government to review the targeting, severity and impact of such sanctions.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting me this debate. The process of sanctioning benefit recipients is now being used on an enormous scale—almost 1 million sanctions a year. Even the right-wing Policy Exchange think-tank acknowledged in a report published last month that about 68,000 benefit claimants each year are having their welfare payments stopped unfairly. Given that the penalty for the first infringement is the loss of benefit for four weeks, for the second the loss of benefits for three months and for the third the loss of benefits for three years, the number of people being driven into destitution by administrative diktat is enormous. Even the Policy Exchange admits that 8% of that number should never have been sanctioned.

I presume that everyone accepts that fall-back sanctions have to be applied in extreme cases where there is deliberate and real non co-operation with the obligation to try to find work and where no good reasons have been found for such behaviour. Those sanctions should be proportionate and reasonable and not exercised punitively or with a view to achieving targets or objectives—whatever we call them—for removing people from the unemployment list.

From the evidence that I have collected from my constituency surgery, Citizens Advice, YMCA, the excellent Work and Pensions Committee report on this issue and the Library, it is abundantly clear that the standards that the DWP likes to claim always apply in sanctioning cases far too often certainly do not. I wish to cite a number of cases drawn directly from those sources.

A security guard at a jobcentre turned away a man with learning disabilities who had arrived 20 minutes early to sign on. The man then returned two minutes late to sign on and had his JSA sanctioned for 4 weeks.

A man was sanctioned for four weeks because he had not known about an appointment as the letter had been sent to an address that he had left a year ago, even though Jobcentre Plus was aware of his current address.

A woman claiming employment and support allowance had been diagnosed with cervical cancer and had given the back-to-work scheme provider a list of her hospital appointments. She was sanctioned for failing to attend an appointment on the middle day of her three-day hospital stay. The woman had two daughters but her ESA was reduced to £28 a week. She asked for reconsideration, but had heard nothing five weeks later.

A woman was sanctioned for failing to attend provider-led training when the receptionist had rung to tell her not to come in because the trainer was ill. She was subsequently told that she should have attended to sign the attendance register.

A woman whose ESA was sanctioned had her benefit reduced from £195 to less than £50 per fortnight because she missed a back-to-work scheme appointment owing to illness. Her sister had rung two days beforehand to say that she could not attend and arranged another date, when she did attend.

An epileptic man had his JSA sanctioned for four weeks because he did not attend a back-to-work scheme meeting as his two-year old daughter was taken ill and he was her sole carer that day. He rang the provider in advance, but was told this would still have to be noted as “did not attend”. During the four-week sanction he suffered hunger, hardship, stress and an increase in epileptic attacks, but he was not told about hardship payments or food banks or how to appeal the sanction decision.

Lastly, a man in Yorkshire and Humber was sanctioned for allegedly failing to attend back-to-work scheme events. He had in fact attended, and the provider had no record of any failures. His hardship request was not processed, his housing benefit was stopped, and he fell into rent arrears and had no money for food, gas or electricity.

These are not isolated or exceptional cases.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me?

[Mr Meacher]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman because I respect his concern about these matters, but I will not give way again because we are short of time, with the Government having put on two statements before this debate.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Is there any rational reason why in any of those cases the Jobcentre or others should not have reversed the decision if it was clear that the wrong decision had been taken? Why is it necessary to go through a full appeals system when clearly human inspection can say this is wrong?

[Mr Meacher]

I very much agree with that. Jobcentres Plus have the right to “reconsider”, which is a euphemistic term, and they sometimes do, but I agree that appeals often take three or more months, and are extremely bureaucratic, long-winded and difficult. Far more effort should be put in before the decision is taken to sanction, so that we get sensible decisions and long appeal procedures are not required.

Before I turn to what should be done to change policies and procedures that are patently not working properly, I want to make two wider points. First, everyone who can do so should seek work. The overwhelming majority of the jobless are desperate to find work. However, when 2.4 million people are on the dole queues today and there are only 558,000 vacancies, three out of every four simply cannot find a job whatever they do. A report in the Financial Times this week says that there are 3 million under-employed people who would be keen to work full time if only the jobs were available. The real problem in Britain today is not people failing to try to get work, but the Chancellor’s obsessional austerity policies that contract the economy and fail to provide the job opportunities that people are desperately looking for.

I do not object to the use of sanctions in the tiny number of cases in which they might be needed as long as they are proportionate and reasonable. However, I do object to the hounding of some of the most vulnerable people in our society, often for trivial, ill-considered or utterly unjustified reasons, and driving them into destitution when those who caused the financial crash and the longest recession in this country for 140 years get no sanction at all. It is a classic case of one law for the rich and another for the poor.

What should be done? Plenty. Sanctioning is being used on far too large a scale. The practice is not only unduly harsh and, obviously, causes severe hardship, but is often counter-productive. The YMCA cites three people’s comments about its effects. One says:

“I was unable to look for work as much as I could before”.

Another says:

“It stopped me from searching for work as I had no money to get to different employers”.

A third person says:

“My focus turned to survival rather than gaining employment”.

Citizens Advice makes the crucial observation—I think this was the point that the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) was making—that front-line advisers do not have sufficient time to get to know a claimant and understand their needs. That explains why there are so many reports of cases such as that of a person with no computer skills being required to apply for work online, a person with no driving licence who is required to apply for a job for which driving is essential, and a wheelchair user who is required to apply for a job that is physically demanding.

Benefit off-flow—a horrible bureaucratic phrase that treats human beings like counters—is, perversely, the key performance measure used by Jobcentre Plus. Disallowances—that is the euphemism used by the Department for Work and Pensions—are included in the off-flow data for people coming off the unemployment list, so staff have an in-built incentive to use them to achieve what they perceive their management expect of them.

Much more could be done to prevent situations that cause sanctioning from arising in the first place because it is clear that in a great many cases people simply do not understand what is required of them. Regrettably, there is a toxic yet pervasive culture in Jobcentre Plus of “Sanction first; think later”, as is shown by the shockingly large number of sanctions against young people—there were 39,000 last year—that are subsequently overturned or, to use that wonderfully euphemistic word, “reconsidered”. Serious, thoughtful effort is needed to do everything possible to secure compliance, with which we all agree, without a sanction being necessary. There should be more common-sense discretion and much less of a rush to action: action should be taken only as a last resort.

Much more attention should be paid to the impact of sanctioning on claimants. An Oxfam report published last May estimated that 500,000 people were reliant on food aid—I suspect that that figure has now nearly doubled—and that more than half of people who turned to food banks did so as a direct result of having their benefit payments delayed, reduced or withdrawn altogether. In 21st-century Britain, can forcing hundreds of thousands of people onto food aid, which is usually associated with third-world countries, conceivably be justified when the root cause of the problem is the Chancellor’s failure to grow the economy and create jobs because of his obsession with prolonged austerity? I think not, which is why I submit to the House that there is an urgent need, as my motion demands,

“to review the targeting, severity and impact”

of sanctioning as it is currently applied.

Welfare Reforms and Poverty

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2014 Commons Chamber

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

That was an interesting speech. I am glad to support the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) in his suggestion that we have a commission to provide comprehensive, unbiased measures of how action changes levels of poverty—absolute and relative poverty. That should include what people spend their money on and what makes people more likely to find themselves in poverty. We know about disability and the dependency of people before they get a job. We know about people in retirement, family deformation and mental health issues. A whole range of considerations should be taken into account.

The hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) is no longer in the Chamber, but he made some comments about the national debt. Most of us know the difference between a deficit and a debt and could talk for ages about gross Government debt, public sector net debt, unadjusted measures of public sector net debt and UK net borrowing, whether as a percentage of gross national product or not.

It is better to understand that the previous Labour Government had some merits. In their first three years, they stuck to the Conservative spending plans, net debt did not go up and we all benefited. From 2001, there was a massive expansion in public sector employment of 30% that was, I think, associated with the structural deficit exposed by the recession and the bank crisis.

I started in public policy in the early 1970s when I ran a thing called the Family Allowance Movement, trying to introduce family allowances for the first child. A Labour Chancellor asked, “What is the point of having a family allowance? I am going to increase the married man’s tax allowance.” Those are the arguments we come back to 30 years later in a rather different sense. Balancing people’s resources and needs at any one time and over a life circle is how I prefer to look at it.

Let us not make any comments about any individual, as my hope is that many of the people who follow us will make fewer mistakes than we did, but if, for example, the time of family formation comes later on average and more children are born into households that can make some reasonable provision for them, we will be better off. At one stage, I looked to see who was most likely to smoke, a habit that takes £60 or £70 out of post-tax income. The answer was lone parents on income support. We would be able to give a lone-parent family an extra £50 or £60 of disposable income if a third of our teenagers did not take up smoking. As those who are most likely to take up smoking are those who were most likely to be deprived in their early lives, we could make a difference to people’s lives.

I am not absolutely certain that we should be too keen on a welfare system that guarantees independent housing to young people. My mother used to say that if someone was a lone parent, setting her up—it is normally a her rather than a him—in independent housing at the age of about 18 with a child, alone, is not the best thing as parents need to learn parenting from those who are around them.

What makes a difference to me is how we can reduce the cost of borrowing by households or individuals, which is why I strongly support the mentions of credit unions. I look forward to hearing from the Minister when credit unions will be able to charge a rate of interest per month that might look high to most of us but that is dramatically lower than the cost of door-to-door lending or some of the other sources of credit available to those who do not have assets or reliable incomes and who are in difficulty.

I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) about how it was possible in his day for someone with ordinary earnings to buy an ordinary home. I first got a home in Worthing, my present constituency, in 1966. Almost anybody there who had a job could afford to buy a home. That has changed and it is crazy that we have an economic system in which half the value of a home is the site value. We must find some way of ensuring that ordinary people in ordinary jobs can afford to buy homes.

We can also make a difference, as I did when I was involved in a small electrical contracting business before I came into Parliament. Most people’s earnings were twice their guaranteed earnings and by putting people almost on salaries I made sure that they could have guaranteed income for the year. Three quarters of my colleagues were able to buy their own homes for the first time. There are some mechanical things that matter.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that that is also a problem for agency workers? As they do not have a long-term guaranteed income, they are unable to get mortgages.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention and I appreciated his speech, too. We ought to try to ensure that we have sources of lending in which people understand the industries in which people are working. That is where the building society movement came from—originally, it was about building homes. If we could get some mutuality back into the agency area, people would be able to decide who could be lent money and who should be deferred.

The last point in my mind concerns how we can go on preparing people for the jobs and occupations of the future. Many people’s futures will be as entrepreneurs, as they set up their own businesses; others will be in employment. I remember with pleasure Peter Thurnham, one of our former colleagues. When he was made redundant, he used his redundancy money to buy two machine tools, set up an engineering business and eventually employed 150 to 200 people. People sometimes say to me, “MPs shouldn’t have outside interests.” I would far prefer to have in Parliament people such as Peter Thurnham, who can tell us how business and employment work and how to get more people off welfare and into the kind of jobs that make them pretty independent for most of their life.

Many of us will require some support at some stage in our life; relatively few of us need support all the way through our lives. Before this Government came to office, we were getting to a stage at which too many families were in dependency from generation to generation; Keith Joseph told us quite a lot about that. Statistics show that only 10% of people who were in the bottom decile—the bottom 10%—10 years ago are in the bottom 10% this year. There is a great deal more movement among those who are poor or very poor than most people understand.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

indicated dissent.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head; when he speaks, perhaps he can give his statistics. We need a commission, with statistics that we can all rely on from the Office for National Statistics, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Office for Budget Responsibility.

Pensions Bill

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore]

I do not know off the top of my head, which is why I am asking for a review. We might be talking about 40,000 women who clearly will not be getting a full pension, but certain of them will have made some contributions; it is not that they will have no contributions. The Work and Pensions Select Committee looked at this and recommended transitional arrangements for those within 15 years of the state pension age when the new arrangements came into force. It is not for ever, it would not go on and on, with a very long tail; but it would provide for those who quite reasonably made plans on the basis of particular expectations.

I have heard two arguments from the Government. The first was a generalisation about how the world had changed. Yes, of course it has changed, and we are not talking about most or all women doing this for ever. Just saying, “Well, the world’s changed”, is not a good enough answer to the fact that some women will suffer detriment if transitional arrangements are not put in place. The second argument was that apparently—I am not sure any figures have been offered up—an increasing number of these women were living abroad. It conjured up images of women much younger than their husbands and living abroad—I do not know whether the Minister had Filipino brides in mind. Nevertheless, it cannot be beyond the ingenuity of the DWP to ensure that people do not take undue advantage. Like I said, these arrangements would not last for ever.

There are a variety of reasons why somebody might not have contributed. They might have made a positive choice not to contribute or they might have been doing voluntary or care work before credits were allowed or without appreciating that they were allowed—we know that a lot of people are eligible for carer’s credits who have not claimed them. There are a variety of reasons. Others will have been in very low-paid or short-hours part-time work and earning below the level of contribution, and they might have concluded that it did not matter too much because of the derived right.

We debated this matter in Committee and I hope that the Government will this time be prepared to accept my new clause. Then, when we have carried out the review, a decision could be made about whether to proceed with transitional arrangements.

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

I hope the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) will forgive me if I do not follow her line of debate, but we have less than 50 minutes left to deal with something that is complicated, important and a matter of justice.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for saying in the Commonwealth that the Commonwealth is about fairness and justice, and I am going to argue for a significant review of what we do with overseas pensioners. I hope the House will forgive me for reading out a paragraph from Lord Hoffmann in the Carson case concerning regulation 5 of the Social Security Benefit (Persons Abroad) Regulations 1975:

“The general rule, subject to limited exceptions, has always been that social security benefits are payable only to inhabitants of the United Kingdom. A person ‘absent from Great Britain’ is disqualified: section 113(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. But there is a power to make exceptions by regulation. Regulation 4 of the Social Security Benefit (Persons Abroad) Regulations 1975 (SI 1975/563) (deemed to have been made under the 1992 Act) makes such an exception for retirement pensions. But regulation 5 makes an exception to the exception. In the absence of reciprocal treaty arrangements, persons ordinarily resident abroad continue to be disqualified from receiving the annual increases.”

The House might expect that pensioners abroad who do not get the increases are the exception; were the House to think that, it would be wrong. Some 650,000 overseas pensioners get the increase, and they include pensioners in countries such as the United States and Jamaica. More than 500,000—it could be 530,000 or 570,000—do not. They are predominantly in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, India and Pakistan, with Yemen and Japan being two others in the top ten. No one can claim that there is rhyme or reason in that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

Does my hon. Friend know whether the requirement to uprate in the European Union countries is a European requirement that the Government can do nothing about or a Government choice?

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The Government chose and Parliament endorsed that we would have free movement of people and of benefits in this sense, but the Secretary of State will no doubt be able to answer my right hon. Friend with greater certainty. The essential point is that as a country joins the EU—or even EFTA—the entitlement to increases in pensions comes with it.

When preparing my thoughts on this matter, I might have anticipated that the Prime Minister would say that he would give consideration to calls for a wider review of the issue. I might also have expected him to conclude that he was not minded to pursue such a review at this time. That is the gentlest form of saying no that I have come across.

I suspect that, as and when we extend voting rights to British nationals living overseas, either for a period of 15 years or for even longer, as many other countries do, our Members of Parliament who represent those overseas resident voters will start putting the pressure on, and that change will come. The Prime Minister might be anticipating that. He might see the sense and justice of such a change, but, given his position, he has to say no to a lot of popular causes. Perhaps the justice element for which is so rightly praised in the Commonwealth has not quite come to his mind yet.

In fact, I received a letter from the Prime Minister about half an hour ago confirming what I had anticipated. He has said that

“the case for not departing from the position of successive Governments is clear.”

I have already pointed out how the position has changed in respect of the reciprocal arrangements. His letter goes on:

“To do so would cost hundreds of millions of pounds at a time when the pressure on a welfare system is considerable and when we are asking many people who live in the UK to make sacrifices.”

That could be an argument for cutting off increases for all overseas pensioners, but that is not going to happen. The anomaly will continue. It has carried on from 1972 to 2013. If I am still here in 20 years’ time, will Ministers still be trotting out the same arguments that they used in 1972? I jolly well hope not.

I pay tribute to the leaders of the International Consortium of British Pensioners in Canada and Australia. They have had work done by Oxford Economics to make the case for the health care savings. We all know that the majority of costs to the national health service are incurred by people in the last years and weeks of their lives. Which of the people living overseas are the most likely to return to this country for their end-of-life health care? I suggest that it is those living in the United States, whose insurance might have run out and who cannot meet the costs, and people in Europe who might want to return to this country to be treated in a health service they know and in a language they are used to. I doubt that many people would come back from New Zealand, Australia, South Africa or Canada.

The health care question was what prompted us to call for the whole of Government review. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), who came with me last week when the Prime Minister very kindly gave us the opportunity to put some of these points to him.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has already paid tribute to the leaders of the campaign in Canada and Australia. Jim Tilley has told us of the case of an English lady in Australia who is living on £6 a week. The rest of the money that she has to live on is provided by the Australian Government, because our Government cannot give it to her. Does that make my hon. Friend feel proud?

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I find that shaming.

One of the reasons to be active in public service is to identify injustice and to work against it. It might take months, years or decades, but this is a fight for which I would like to see more support from the Opposition and from those on my own side. My hon. Friend has mentioned Jim Tilley. I want to mention John Markham, the director of public affairs for the International Consortium of British Pensioners, who is based in Toronto, in Canada. He has pointed out:

“Approximately 10% of all pensioners live abroad, roughly 1 million people. Of that million, 50% receive annual increases to their state pension, and the other 50% do not, solely based on country of residence.”

That arbitrary, historical decision is unjustifiable.

I am not going to quote back to the Minister what he said about this before he became a Minister. Some people have to go through that embarrassment, but I do not want to subject him to it. I will say, however, as we approach Remembrance Sunday and Armistice day, that the countries in which we have shared war memorials are those most likely to be affected. They are the countries whose people served in the former British empire and Commonwealth armies, and those people are the ones who are not getting the increase.

John Markham goes on to say:

“The recent select Committee on the new single tier Pension Bill declared it to be an anomaly that should be fixed.”

I have mentioned the Oxford Economics report. The Department for Work and Pensions might say that that was just a small survey, and that the benefits would take years to accrue. Well, the sooner we start, the better. The argument for doing it is not that it will pay this country, but that it is right.

I could go through the other arguments used by Julian Ridsdale, but there is restricted time for the debate, and it would be interesting to hear what the Labour Front-Bench team has to say. I know, too, that others wish to speak on this issue and to other amendments in the group. Let me declare the best judgment at the end of this debate. We will say no to clause 20, but we will not force a walk-through Division. That is a way of illustrating what we feel, without unduly taking up the House’s time, when Third Reading is also ahead of us. I hope the House will understand that.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who has spoken passionately about the importance of fairness and justice. I believe that those very same principles underlie the issue I want to raise this afternoon. I want to speak to my new clause 6, while confirming my support for new clause 8. Those new clauses both relate to the group of women who will not qualify for the single-tier pension, whereas men with the same date of birth will.

One of my constituents, Catherine Kirby, has been a passionate and tireless champion for women in her position. Understandably, she feels that she and others in her situation are faced with a dual disadvantage of being subject to an increase in the state pension age under the 1995 Act, while being denied eligibility for the single-tier pension. Not all, but some of these women will be left with a lower weekly state pension compared with men of the same age. No wonder my constituent, like many others, believes this creates unnecessary and unjustifiable inequality and discrimination.

The Minister has said in the past that women in the position of my constituent should defer, but for those on low incomes who are unable to work and do not have a convenient pot of money, that is not an option. He has explained in the past that because the new system excludes additional benefits such as for bereavement, it is not possible for the Government to tell women what would be best for them. For some women, however, that is simply not relevant to their situation. They already know that they would be better off—by £15 a week, in Catherine’s case, which is significant.

The Minister has said that, over a lifetime, most of these women would get more than the average man with the same date of birth, but theoretical lifetime averages are simply irrelevant to the difficult financial situation faced by my constituents and others in the real world. It is their weekly pension income that matters, and I believe that that is what should occupy our attention as their representatives.

I will support Labour’s new clause 8, which calls for a review of whether all women born on or after 6 April 1951 should be included within the scope of the new pension arrangements. That is not my preferred option, however. Not all will definitely lose out, and I do not think we necessarily need a review to find a solution that works for the relatively small but important number of women who may lose out.

My new clause 6 simply gives these women the right to choose to receive their state pension and associated benefits under the new state pension system set out in part 1 from its introduction in April 2016, if they judge it to be in their best interest to do so. It would not require the Government to tell them what to do, merely to ensure that information about the full range of entitlements under the old state pension rules and the new state pension is available to allow women to make a comparison of total weekly income. The responsibility for making a choice would rest fully with the individual.

I believe this group of women deserve a much better deal, and if that means upgrading to the single tier, that should be permitted. If the Government do not do that, it will be an example of blatant discrimination. It would not be difficult to remedy the situation and it would make a huge difference to the women involved. This group of women certainly deserve better. They are the generation who campaigned for equality for women. They began their working lives being discriminated against; the Government can and should give them the right to be included in a new single-tier pension to ensure that they do not end their lives feeling discriminated against, as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

Indeed. The hon. Lady is right. Some women are in that position, but a significant proportion of them have had very limited contact with this country. This is the point that she touched on. Derived rights arise to people who have never even been to the country. They can get a 60% pension or a widow’s pension because their spouse is part of the UK pension system. She is asking us to keep, for another 15 years, an extraordinarily complex bit of the system rolling into the new system. We are trying to deliver a simple and effective new state pension system and we have already introduced transitional protection for the most obvious group, the married woman’s stamp pensioners, which we think needs to be protected. We could have kept the whole of the old system rolling on for another 15 years, but that would have created enormous complexity when we are trying to move to a simpler system.

Were we to follow new clause 5 and the Select Committee’s recommendation and choose 15 years as the cut-off, we could be as sure as anything that we would be under judicial review for someone who was 16 years shy of the line. In other words, if we have a cut-off date, we must have an objective basis for it, and we can find no objective basis for choosing 15 years. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South that because 10 years is the de minimis, 15 years is a bit more than 10. I get that, but so is 16 or 14.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh East said that someone some years ago was told not to buy missing years and now it is too late. I stress that the ability to buy missing years has been substantially relaxed by HMRC so people can buy back as far as 2005-06 on relatively favourable terms. Even by the end of the decade they will still be in a position to buy back missing years. If they have spent the money and they do not have it any more, they cannot do it, but that aside, the ability to buy back missing years still exists. Although buying 10 years costs a lot of money, very few people will be starting from zero. So to reach the 10-year de minimis would not necessarily involve a huge outlay. Many will be over that level already and for those who are not and who have been in this country, the chance to buy one or two missing years will be important.

What we are trying to do is, yes, recognise where we need transitional protection, but we want to avoid such great complexity that we recreate the complex old system for well over a decade in the new one. That is why we reject new clause 5.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Did not the Minister’s last point—that we do not want to continue the kind of discrimination that we had in the past—answer why he should accept amendment 1 and drop clause 20?

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend, as ever, is sharp on these matters. Amendment 1, which stands in his name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), would delete clause 20. As the Chair of the Select Committee pointed out, that would do nothing for any of the overseas pensioners who have contacted us as their MPs; it would only remove the freezing for single-tier pensioners. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) understands that point, but I just want to be clear that if we voted for the amendment, all we would be doing is creating a new anomaly.

In a sense, the Chair of the Select Committee urged us to create that new anomaly. She said that we cannot defend the old one and that we should at least not carry on with it, but by doing that we would create a new anomaly. It is not just about which side of the Niagara falls one happens to live on, because single-tier pensioners would get indexation but nobody else would. I think that we all know what would happen: we would end up back in court. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West referred, quite properly, to the extensive legal background to the issue, because it has been tried and tested by the International Consortium of British Pensioners in a range of courts, and all have found that in many cases what the Government are doing is implementing the law of the land as it has stood for decades.

My hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West and for North Thanet went to see the Prime Minister, and I am grateful to them for doing so. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West referred to the reply he received today from the Prime Minister—I am pleased that he replied in advance of the debate—who stated that, having reflected on their arguments, he did not feel that a further review was appropriate at this point. Obviously, the context he referred to is the £700 million cost of indexing those pensions. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet said that they were not asking for that to be backdated, but I speculate that as soon as we start indexing pensions and stepping them back up to where they would have been, the next court case will come when someone says, “Hang on a minute. Since you froze my pension I have missed out on X amount of money, so I expect that to be paid back as well.” These wedges have a knack of having thin ends. The cost of addressing this, at £700 million a year, is already substantial, but backdating would lead to far more substantial costs, which is difficult to justify at present.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

In addition to the issue of people who will subsequently be bereaved is that of people who will flow on to savings credit, and nobody can possibly know whether, at some point during the course of their retirement, they will move on to that. Although I understand the concerns that have been raised, that group of women have actually benefited from the triple lock that we have introduced. Far from doing them down, as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) has suggested, we have improved their pension position. On his more general point about the position of women in the pension system, this whole Bill is about improving that position. That is why I urge the House to reject the amendments and to support the Bill.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Am I right in saying that, under the procedure of the House, amendment 1, which would remove clause 20, will not be called because of the guillotine?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am not calling it. Unfortunately, that is the procedure of the House, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.

Universal Credit

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The original plan to have an “Agile” process meant that by 2011 the plan would be formulated and could be delivered against. In 2011, I was concerned about the failure to deliver—that was meant to be part of the process—and that is why I instituted the changes in 2012. We will have that plan ready. It will be announced to Parliament, it will be stuck to and it will deliver in time and on budget, so the NAO is right and I fully agree with it.

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

We understand that the aim is to give support to the right people at the right time in the right way and to help make their lives better. Will my right hon. Friend remind us of the additional benefits of the reduction in administrative costs and in fraud and error?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The costs overall and the savings are enormous. The total benefits to individuals and in fraud and error will total up to perhaps £38 billion. The point is that those savings are real savings. Yes, there is a problem about some wasted money in this programme that is quite unacceptable, but set against the big savings the key point is that it is a big and important programme.

Pensions Bill

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

No. I am not sure how the hon. Lady arrived at that conclusion. It is not the case. The vast majority will get more in decades to come. We are happy to discuss that further if she has some information that she wants to share with us.

In 2020 three quarters of new pensioners will get the higher state pension, following the introduction of the single tier, particularly benefiting those who have historically had poorer state pension outcomes. There will be better provision for the low-paid, including 60% of the lowest income pensioners who will have higher incomes in retirement by 2040, compared with rolling forward the current system. There will be better provision also for the self-employed—this is a big plus—who for the first time in about 40 years will be treated the same as employees for the purpose of state pension entitlement. That is a genuine gain.

There will be better provision for those with broken contribution records, especially women and those with caring responsibilities. I hope that this will be seen in all parts of the House as part of a rolling process to try to include them in the process and reward them for doing a hugely responsible job in society. More than 700,000 women who reach state pension age in the first decade after single tier is introduced will receive on average £9 a week more. That is quite a significant change. By bringing forward implementation to 2016 rather than 2017, an additional 85,000 women will retire under the single tier. That was a debate that took place previously and I hope the measure will be welcomed in all parts of the House. However, this better provision will be sustainable only if we get to grips with the unprecedented demographic shifts reflecting and affecting our population.

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

When my right hon. Friend gets on to that topic, the House will listen with interest. He has talked, rightly, about the anomaly of the self-employed, and the measure will be greatly welcomed, as will the attention to some of the women affected, but may I draw his attention to clause 20 which, if it is not passed, would unfreeze the pensions for people in the old dominions? Were I to be asked to serve on the Committee, I would do so with pleasure, with the intention of getting the Government to stop this historic immoral anomaly, to start negotiating bilateral treaties and to give people the prospect that they will not have to live on pensions of £6 a week when others are on £106 or £160 a week.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I hear my hon. Friend, and I would simply say to him that that would cost a sum knocking on the door of between £650 million and £700 million a year. Other Governments have considered it. I would be happy to discuss the matter with him, however, and to reflect on it. I am sure that those sitting further down the Bench will have heard his desire to serve on the Committee, although whether my hon. Friend the Minister of State would want that is another matter altogether.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Friday 22nd March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

No. The numbers of people living in overcrowded accommodation rose. The housing waiting list doubled. It was a shambles and a mess, and we are doing more to put it right. The plans in the Budget, which I will come on to, will improve the situation even more.

Let me make some progress. The Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed that we are on course to meet the fiscal mandate one year early. The deficit has already been cut by a third to a forecast 7.4% this year, and it is predicted to fall every year in this Parliament. The likelihood of meeting the supplementary debt target has decreased. Public sector net debt is forecast to be 75.9% of GDP this year, and to peak at 85.6% in 2016-17. However, we have made a £31 billion saving in the debt interest payments predicted two years ago—almost as much as the whole defence budget.

Borrowing is down to £115 billion and forecast to be £87 billion by the end of this Parliament. Even excluding Royal Mail pensions and the asset purchase facility cash transfers, it is already £39 billion lower than the £159 billion peak for borrowing under Labour, and will be £63 billion lower—a reduction of 40%. I remind the House that Labour’s prescription is to borrow more, not less. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that in the absence of measures taken by the Government, total borrowing would have been £200 billion higher between 2010-11 and 2015-16.

It is important to note that since the beginning of this Parliament, issues in the eurozone have made matters very difficult, and in the current economic climate the challenge is harder than anyone could have predicted or hoped. As the OBR, OECD and others have explained, there are real risks to our stability and to others, in particular the financial storm in the eurozone, which shrank by 0.6% last quarter—the largest fall since the height of the crisis. With Europe accounting for 40% of our exports, it is no surprise that weak net trade has impacted on our GDP. In the words of the OBR, the

“unexpectedly poor performance of exports is more than sufficient on its own to explain the shortfall”.

Although the eurozone is expected to remain in recession throughout the year, the UK is forecast for a slight increase in growth. This Budget will, I believe, stimulate growth further still, so let us look at a few of its important measures. We are further reducing the main rate of corporation tax, which we had already lowered to 21%, to 20% from April 2015, down from the very high 28% inherited from Labour. It will now be the lowest rate in the G20. We are also—this is really important for my right hon. and hon. Friends, and for me it is the most important measure in the Budget—merging small company and main rates of tax at 20p. That had been asked for, but as I think Mr Frost said, it goes way past what was actually asked for. It is a real boost to small businesses.

We are increasing capital spending by a further £3 billion more than our existing plans from 2015-16, meaning that the Government will never cut capital to the levels planned by Labour which, I remind hon. Members, would have reduced spending by 7% more than our plans. We are taking measures to dramatically reinvigorate both house buying and the construction industry in this country by extending the excellent right-to-buy scheme, building 15,000 more affordable homes and increasing fivefold the funds available for building for rent. I remind colleagues that one of our biggest problems in getting housing benefit under control is due to the failure of the previous Government to allow enough houses to be built for rent, so that measure will be a huge help. We are introducing Help to Buy—a two-part scheme set over three years, committing £3.5 billion into shared equity loans for new builds, and offering new mortgage guarantees to support £130 billion of mortgages. That is really important.

I was watching the news programmes yesterday, and it was quite amusing to watch the shadow Chancellor run around. More and more he reminds me of the film “Toy Story”, and that rather angry Mr Potato Head who wanders around shouting, screaming and being very angry to absolutely no effect at all. Disaster, chaos, crisis, U-turns—I wonder what he does in his private life when anything goes wrong. He is certainly not much help to his wife I expect.

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

Was that before or after the shadow Chancellor heard that people would not trust him with the economy?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

It is despite the fact that he knows nobody trusts him with the economy, which is why he looks more and more like an angry Mr Potato Head. It really is appalling and the idea that the alternative to the Chancellor is the shadow Chancellor is, frankly, enough to make one leave the country.

Ford UK (Duty of Care to Visteon Pensioners)

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Metcalfe]

I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. That aspect of the case will be tested in court, to see what promises were made and how they were communicated to the work force. What I am championing in Westminster Hall today, with other colleagues, is the case that Ford must meet its moral obligations to its former employees. However that is achieved, I believe that Ford has a moral obligation.

We have heard about other allegations of unilateral price changes, which of course Ford denies; of the pension fund being underfunded, which could be explained as a technical issue involving different valuations; and of Ford moving work away prior to the collapse of Visteon to ensure that its supply chain was not interrupted, and it is interesting to note that Ford never lost a day’s production because of the collapse of Visteon.

However, I will return to my main point one more time before I finish. I suspect that Ford did not want the hassle, the expense or the reputational damage of shutting down its expensive British parts manufacturers or other expensive plants around the world, so it spun them off knowing that ultimately it would be able to source the parts cheaper elsewhere and knowing that Visteon UK probably had no long-term future. I believe that that was known at the time that Visteon UK was spun off.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I referred earlier to the main board of Ford United States. My reckoning is that five of the present board members were directors from before 2000: Edsel B. Ford II; William Clay Ford Junior; Irvine O. Hockaday; Ellen Marram; and John Thornton. Homer Neal was also possibly a director from before 2000, which would make six current directors who were in that position. Could they be asked what they knew, if they still have the relevant papers and whether they were ignorant of what was going on in a major supplier in this country?

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Yes. That is a very interesting point and one that, as a group, we should pursue. We have been communicating with Ford UK and Ford Europe, but we should take this matter all the way to the main board of Ford in America.

It is interesting to note that the arrangements in the US are different from the arrangements here. The former employees of Visteon in the US have not been disadvantaged in the same way as the former employees of Visteon in the UK, and if this issue was on the doorstep of Ford’s head office and the 3,000 Visteon employees had been so disadvantaged closer to home, we might have had a different outcome.

Welfare Reform Bill

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2011 Commons Chamber

“(za) section 1(2)(d),”.’—(Maria Miller.)

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We now come to a sensible grouping of amendments, to be considered together, on the personal independence payment. The first, amendment 43, refers to clause 78, but amendments 41 and 42 refer to clause 83, which is about a rather separate issue, so I hope that the Chair will take into account the progress of the debate in order to decide whether to allow a vote, if necessary, on amendments 41 and 42.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

We will see how the debate goes, and I am sure that we will look favourably upon the issue when we get there.

Clause 78

Ability to carry out daily living activities or mobility activities

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Curran]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I know that he takes a great interest in this matter. That is exactly the point I am about to address. Our purpose this afternoon is to prohibit the Government from ever taking away PIP mobility from those in residential care. I hope that I can win his support, because I know that he has a genuine interest in this matter. I hope he bears with me, and I will gladly allow him to intervene again.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Just to put it in plain English, are we agreed across the House that the mobility allowance, as it used to be called, should be available to people who happen to live in a residential home, rather than in their own home, whether their home is within a residential home or they are living in a block with others?

[Margaret Curran]

Yes, that is what we agree on. Our amendments would ensure that the Government do not have a blanket power to remove PIP mobility from people because they live in residential care. If Members agree with me, they should vote for our amendments. I will go through the arguments again, and hopefully that point will be clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Whether or not amendment 43 is needed, I am quite sure that the officials and others who do the assessments would not expect people with those conditions to be able to go to work. I do not think that this would be a great problem in practice; however, there is always a problem at the boundary.

When I was getting on the Jubilee line this lunchtime I met a young man in a wheelchair—in fact, he turned out not to be that young, because 20 years ago he was helping to build the Jubilee line. He said, “What do you do?” “I work at the House of Commons”, I replied. “Are there any jobs there?” he asked. “650”, I said. “They come up every five years.” He said, “I’m a cook.” “There’s no reason why a cook can’t be a Member of Parliament as well”, I said. I did not ask him whether he lived at home, in a hospital or in a residential care home, or whether his residence was in a home with others.

Earlier this afternoon, I spoke indirectly—I will now speak directly—about St Bridget’s in Rustington, the place mentioned in the first line of the second verse of “The Gnu Song” by Michael Flanders. For those with long memories, “The Gnu Song” comes when he is talking about someone parking a car across his dropped kurb with “GNU” on the registration plate. There are people in Rustington who live in their own homes, and others who also live in their own homes, but who share it with others. The definitional problem is just as great as it might be at the Princess Marina home—again in Rustington—which is a Royal Air Force benevolent fund home that is dual registered. Part of it counts as a hospital, part of it counts as a home and part of it counts as a residence. Incidentally, “residential homes” are not defined in the legislation; rather, it talks about “care homes”.

In Worthing, in the other part of my constituency, there is Gifford house—the Queen Alexandra hospital home—which is not just for former service personnel, but for many others. Although I have not had representations from them, I do not want to exclude them from consideration. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for kindly coming to St Bridget’s—the Leonard Cheshire home—among her many visits. I pay tribute to the people who live there, their families and my hon. Friend the Minister, because it was one of the best meetings that I have seen for a long time.

I trust my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Minister and those working with them to come up with the right answer. My preference is for amendment 42 to be agreed to, and then for the Government to come forward with their solution to the problem after they have received the result of the review. They can then come back, either here or in another place, and make an adjustment if they choose to do so. At the moment, however, the way I read the Bill is that someone whose residence happens to be in, say, St Bridget’s—this is not exclusive to St Bridget’s or Leonard Cheshire homes generally—could easily be excluded.

I shall not make the sort of speech that I might make in opposition, about how the Henry VIII clause in clause 83(4)(e) allows

“such other services as may be prescribed”

to be covered, nor shall I go on about subsections (5) or (6), which would allow almost anybody to be divorced under their provisions. However, I believe that we can trust the Government and that they are setting about this in a way that is rational. However, unless the legislation is amended or we receive other assurances, this is not a Bill that this House ought to pass.

Dorothy Sayers, in her book “Unpopular Opinions”, distinguishes between the English—by which she meant the British—and, say, the French by saying that whereas they believe in equality, we believe in fairness. There are currently three issues where fairness concerns me, and this is one of them. Another is the question of those women born in the mid-1950s losing more than a year’s pension, and another is overseas pensioners in the old dominions or elsewhere who cannot get pension increases. We have to take those issues one by one. I believe that the Government will solve the problem of the extra unfairness for those women born in the 1950s. I want the Government to find the solution to the problem that we are discussing in this debate, and later we can come to the overseas pensioners.

On the subject of this debate, why should we necessarily risk solving the so-called overlap by taking away the higher-level mobility component, rather than taking away what the county council might otherwise provide, which is a far smaller amount? I met a woman in a wheelchair, like the man I met on the underground—he said that he was interested in politics, so I gave him yesterday’s Hansard to cheer him up—who wanted to go to her father’s birthday party and then attend a college course. Those two journeys by themselves, at the subsidised rate of the St Bridget’s minibus, would have exhausted her money if she had not had the mobility allowance.

Obviously people’s circumstances vary, but rather than make a long speech—we have heard rather too many of those this afternoon—let me end by saying that if amendment 42 comes to a vote, I shall vote for it. I trust that the Government will come back and make things plain in the Bill, rather than our having to rely on positive resolutions on statutory instruments or the results of the consultation or assessment that they are currently undertaking.

[Mr Tom Clarke]

I very much regret that the Minister did not give way to me on the one occasion that I asked her to do so, particularly because I had planned to ask her to make an apology. I also invite the Secretary of State—if he would just listen to the debate for a moment—to join in making that apology to the 80,000 people living in residential homes who have been threatened since the comprehensive spending review with the removal of the mobility element of their disability living allowance.

I first raised this matter in a debate in Westminster Hall on 30 November. The Minister responded to that debate, so she cannot claim that she did not know what the issues were. In a moment, I shall talk about the remarkable review that very few people know anything about. People living in residential homes, and their Members of Parliament, can tell her exactly what the situation is, even in the absence of a review. We do not like the idea that 80,000 people have been led up to the top of the hill and marched down again as a result of the various approaches of the coalition Government.

Disability Allowance

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

First, I declare an interest in the debate as the co-chair of the all-party group on learning disability. My main point concerns Government plans to remove the mobility component of the disability living allowance for disabled people who live in a residential establishment. To put that into context, it is important to establish which members of our society qualify for that benefit. The first, and by far the most common group, is where the claimant is unable—or virtually unable—to walk. The second group consists of people who are both blind and deaf. The third category comprises people with a severe mental impairment, and/or severe behavioural problems. In truth, we could not be discussing people who are more vulnerable or deserving in our communities. I understood that that was what the concept of community care was all about.

As far back as 1921, those who required it received help and support with mobility; a decade into the millennium, we are faced with confusion and fear about what the Government advocate. This House, and millions of people with disabilities, are entitled to expect clarity on the issue. Until today, that is exactly what we have not had.

I will give a few examples. On 10 November, my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions,

“what consultation he undertook with (a) charities, (b) third sector organisations and (c) other disability organisations prior to his decision to remove the mobility component of disability living allowance for those who live in residential care homes.”—[Official Report, 10 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 343W.]

On 16 November, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Miss Begg) stated:

“The comprehensive spending review contained a proposal to cut the mobility element of the disability living allowance for those in residential care. Why did the Government make that decision—because it was fair or to reduce the fiscal deficit?”

The Chancellor replied:

“We sought to identify the savings that we thought were most justified. As far as I understand it—although I am happy to be corrected—the DLA changes have been supported by the Opposition.”—[Official Report, 16 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 740.]

I will attempt to resist the temptation to make political capital, and I apologise if I seem to be doing so. Point scoring is not what disabled people in my constituency want to hear. They want to know the facts and receive clarification on their position and future.

On 22 November, my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr Roy) said:

“Of all the proposals on welfare reform, this is absolutely the most brutal and cruel…What will the Minister do when she has to meet a disabled person in one of those homes face to face, and how will she explain why she is taking away their much-needed lifeline to the outside world?”—[Official Report, 22 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 6.]

It is important to remember that that lifeline gives disabled people access to a freedom pass, a blue badge or a disabled person’s railcard, as well as to the Motability scheme and other important items.

[Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I declare an interest because my constituency contains one of the good Leonard Cheshire homes, which I visited on Saturday. I tabled six questions yesterday, which the Minister will probably be able to see tomorrow. They cover the same kind of ground. Is it not right—rather, is it not accurate but wrong—that someone who currently receives the higher element of mobility allowance and who goes on two journeys, perhaps with the home’s van at a perfectly reasonable cost of 60p per mile, will have exhausted the lower limit and will not be able to make any further journeys? The Government must find a way to ensure that the mobility allowance is still available to those who need and use it. Through the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) I invite the Minister to visit one of the Leonard Cheshire homes and speak to those who are affected.

[Mr Clarke]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point well. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw asked how people would react, particularly if faced by the Minister. At the weekend, I took his advice and travelled around as many residential homes in my constituency as the heavy snow permitted. I can reliably inform the Chamber that people in residential homes are terrified about the removal of the mobility component of their DLA, and they have urged me to make the strongest representations on their behalf. I have no doubt that the same is true for other hon. Members from all parties.