Pensions Bill [Lords]

Richard Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Gregg McClymont]

That was not so much an intervention as a speech. The fact remains that the difference between the Government’s proposals and ours is £10 billion over 10 years. That is £1 billion a year. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that a saving of that kind cannot be found in a more sophisticated way, without placing an unfair and disproportionate burden on those women? I do not agree, and nor does any other Opposition Member.

The Prime Minister was right when he suggested that if you put eight Conservative men around a table you would get some interesting answers on pensions, but you would not get the right answer. The Prime Minister was right then, and the Government are wrong now. The Minister’s amendments are welcome, and I am sure that he would personally like to go further, but he does not sit at the Cabinet table, although perhaps pensions Ministers should be in the Cabinet. This concession thus remains too limited. Some 500,000 women will still have to wait up to 18 months longer before reaching state pension age.

Turning to a point the Minister made earlier, this is not an easy issue, and there are great challenges, including that of longevity. As people live longer, the state pension age needs to rise to ensure a decent state pension for all. Labour set in train the Turner consensus: the state pension to rise in line with earnings; the retirement age to rise to 68 by 2046; and private pensions to be opt-out rather than opt-in. Labour also maintained the timetable for equalisation set out in the Pensions Act 1995.

Members on the Government Benches ask why we did not implement that, but Labour made great strides on pensions. Some 1 million pensioners were lifted out of poverty between 1997 and 2010. That is a real achievement. The poorest pensioners were lifted out of poverty. No pensioner lives in absolute poverty any longer. I must also point out that we had to do that because the previous Conservative Government left the pension system, and particularly the poorest pensioners, in a very difficult situation.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman takes us back into the mists of history, but surely today’s announcement can be warmly welcomed by all Members on both sides of the House? The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) describes this announcement as “just a sticking plaster”, however. I cannot think of any other sticking plaster in history which has cost £1.1 billion and helped 250,000 people. That cannot have been the case even when the right hon. Gentleman was at the Treasury.

[Gregg McClymont]

Perhaps because I have a historian’s perspective, I do not consider 35 years ago to be the mists of time. I think that that era is relevant to our discussion of pensions today.

We cannot sit still and do nothing on pensions. We accept that changes have to be made; we have no complaint about that, and we accept the Minister’s point about rising longevity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregg McClymont]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that very important point. This all bears on the fact that, for all the talk, the Government do not understand the difference between a deficit and a national debt. That is pretty clear from our discussion so far.

[Richard Graham]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gregg McClymont]

No, I will not.

Let me restate our case. The Bill fails our two tests: first, it fails to give fair and due notice of the rise in pension age to the 500,000 women concerned; and secondly, the burden falls disproportionately on this group of women.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alok Sharma]

rose—

[Richard Graham]

rose—

[Gregg McClymont]

In the event that a modification in the timetable is necessary, and in answer to the questions about where the savings would come from, it may well be that the Government would do better to speed up the timetable for a state pension age of 67 and 68. That is something that we would consider. It is a much more sensible option than this disproportionate, unfair and unjust hit on women aged 57 and 58, of whom there are 500,000.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

The right hon. Gentleman has much experience in these matters. However, may I put it to him that the reason why he voted in 2007 for the increase in the pension age was simply that the statistics to which he referred had changed so much? In 1911, when the first pensions were introduced—to be paid at 65—the average life expectancy of a male in the United Kingdom was 66. He made the point that some people today still die before the age of 65. Back in 1911, the vast majority of males died before that age. Life expectancy today is now 87 for the average male. Does he not agree that the changes in the state pension age reflect a huge change in longevity, and that the pension age has actually risen very slowly?

[Malcolm Wicks]

I am bound to say that life expectancy is not 87. On average, a girl born in the UK will live to 82 and a boy to 77. Obviously, however, once they have survived to the age of 65 many people are likely to live into their 80s, so I understand the broad point being made.

I shall conclude later by talking about a sensitivity that we could introduce into the system that might meet some of those problems, although the Minister has so far resisted it. However, now I want to refer to the association between social class and location, which various colleagues are interested in and knowledgeable about. This is not just about the broad difference between living in Kensington and living in parts of Glasgow; even within many of our big cities there are huge class differences in mortality. Across Sheffield, for example, there is a difference in life expectancy of more than 14 years between different parts of the city, and even in Kensington and Chelsea—the borough with the highest life expectancy—there is a difference of eight years between the most and the least deprived wards—which, for those of us who know Kensington, is not so surprising. Those differences and unfairnesses are reflected in terms of where people live in our cities.

Before I mention the idea that I have been trying to persuade the Minister to accept, I want to apply some pressure elsewhere: where will the jobs come from? We are living through a period of rising unemployment, and many people, including graduates with good degrees, in their 20s, 30s and 40s, cannot get jobs. Are we confident that if we make these accelerated changes—as the Minister knows, the acceleration is the difference between what the Labour Government did and what the coalition Government are doing—the work will be available?

Now 39% of 62-year-old men and 52% of 64-year-old men are not working, which means that huge proportions of men approaching what is meant to be their retirement are effectively retired from the labour market already. Furthermore, 36% of 58-year-old women are not working. I fear that we will be extending a kind of benefit twilight zone, in which people who are ineligible for their state pension—because we are raising the pension age—will jog along on incapacity or other benefits, with no one in the jobcentre pretending that those folks will get work—even the Minister will not be able to pretend that they will—and a huge army of people living in a state of desperation in that twilight zone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat Glass]

I absolutely agree.

The Chancellor has told us that he will not balance the books on the backs of the poor abroad, so why is he prepared to balance the books to a disproportionate degree on the backs of 500,000 women who just happen to have been born between 6 October 1953 and 5 March 1955? Why is it okay to do that to those women? The Government need to listen to the women of this country and accept Labour’s amendment so that no woman will have to wait more than an extra 12 months to reach their state pension age.

[Richard Graham]

I am delighted to be called to speak in the debate. I welcome amendments 13 and 14, which show that the Government have listened to their people, and I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Pensions Minister on successfully providing some relief to women in their 50s in my constituency. I pay tribute to all those from Gloucester who came to see me about this issue, led by Patsy Toleman, and to those who were encouraged by the campaign led by Age UK to write to me about it.

Like others on both sides of the coalition Government, I have been very active in writing to and making the case personally to the Secretary of State and the Chancellor, and I am sorry that the Opposition have been less than generous in their recognition of the value of capping at 18 months the increase in the wait for their pension for 250,000 women. They should perhaps be reminded that Age UK has said that

“we can’t emphasise enough the great achievement that this change represents as it will cost the Government £1 billion in lost cuts to expenditure.”

[Fiona O’Donnell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Graham]

I will be more generous than the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) was earlier; I will give way.

[Fiona O’Donnell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity. He might find us ungenerous, but I wonder how many of those women who came to see him have been in touch over the past few days to tell him that the Government have gone far enough.

[Richard Graham]

I have not heard specifically from any of those who originally lobbied me on this issue. No doubt they will be hearing this debate, and I think that they will recognise, as all Members should do, that the Government cannot simply brush aside the issue of expenditure as those on the Opposition Front Bench did when they were in government. The interest that all our families are having to pay on the mountain of national debt built up by the hon. Lady’s party over the past 13 years means that an amount greater than the entire education budget is being spent on debt interest alone. That affects every woman in her constituency and in mine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman has rightly said that the Government have listened to the case that has been made, that they have made additional money available and that they will give people some notice of the changes in the pension age. Does he accept, however, that for many people who are carers, for example, or who are in part-time work or in and out of work for other reasons, the time horizon that is now being made available to them will not give them much chance to plan for their retirement?

[Richard Graham]

In a perfect world, everyone would have liked the changes to have gone further, but I believe that capping the additional waiting period at 18 months represents a significant step forward in providing time for preparation. We are not, alas, living in a perfect world—

[Pat Glass]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Graham]

I should like to finish answering the previous intervention before I take the next one.

I am sure that the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) would agree that tonight is all about a welcome change for all of us.

[Pat Glass]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. We have heard several Members on the Government Benches talk about a perfect world, but does he accept that we did not have a perfect world in 1909, when the first pensions legislation was discussed, and that we certainly did not have one in 1945? Other Governments nevertheless saw that it was right not to take this kind of action, despite the very difficult financial circumstances in which they found themselves.

[Richard Graham]

I do not believe that that analogy is relevant. As I pointed out earlier to the right hon. Member for Croydon North, any analogy that stretches to compare today’s announcements with those in the original pensions legislation in 1911 is inaccurate, because it leaves aside the critical factor that life expectancy back then was hugely different from what it is now. In fact, the vast majority of people then did not live long enough to collect their pension, whereas today people will be living for 40, or possibly 50, years beyond their pension age—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) is chuntering away, but the reality is that there are people in the public service who are drawing their pension in their 40s or early 50s, and it is not inconceivable that they will live for another 40 years.

[Lyn Brown]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Graham]

I will not give way on that point.

The arguments of the Opposition, who tabled amendments 1 to 7, have been extremely disappointing. My constituents will have heard three main points from the Opposition Front Bench. First, the Opposition have opposed the changes made by the Government on the basis that they do not go far enough. Secondly, the Opposition have strongly intimated that if elected in 2015, they would not implement the changes that they recommend tonight, which reeks strongly of hypocrisy. Thirdly, they have made it clear that they are not concerned about the additional £11 billion costs of their proposals, as they could be dealt with in the future and, therefore, should not affect our debate today. That is an entirely irresponsible attitude, which is entirely in keeping with the words of the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury when he announced that he was sorry there was no money left. It is very disappointing that the same philosophy is still strongly in evidence from the Opposition Front-Bench team.

[Brandon Lewis]

I was in the Chamber when the shadow Minister commented on £1 billion a year being only one thousandth of the debt, thus implying that it was a small amount of money. If we are talking about people being in touch with reality, surely my hon. Friend would agree that people outside this place will wonder about the economic credibility of an Opposition party that says £1 billion is not a lot of money.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. As an American economist once said, “A billion here, a billion there, and sooner or later you have a large sum of money”. It is disappointing to hear such an irresponsible approach to spending and to the interest being paid by everybody in this country on our vast mountain of national debt.

Let me conclude. Tonight, I shall vote in favour of amendments 13 and 14. I recognise the significant achievement, to which Age UK has paid tribute, represented by the welcome changes that will benefit large numbers of women across the country. I pay tribute again to those women in my constituency who lobbied me on the issue, for whom I fought a long and quiet campaign with Ministers. I shall not vote for amendments 1 to 7, and I greatly regret the fact that the Opposition continue to table motions that they would not implement were they in power.

[Dame Anne Begg]

The Government’s amendments are an admission that they realise, at long last, that they got it very wrong about the acceleration of the new state pension age for women. On Second Reading and in Committee, there was always a promise that the Government would come up with some sort of transitional arrangements for the group of 500,000 women who will have to wait more than a year, and particularly for the group of 33,000 women who will have to wait for two years before qualifying for the state pension. However,all they have done is to shift the timetable six months later. Why cannot they go the whole hog and take the anomaly out of the system altogether? If they were to do as the Opposition ask and delay all the increases to the age of 66 until after 2020, once the initial transition is over for women between 60 and 65, there would be no anomaly that would require transitional or any special arrangements at all. There would then be no unfairness specifically to women—it is, of course, only women who have been affected by the changes—and that would also answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) about the lack of time available for the group of women affected to prepare for the new pension age.

If the Government have recognised that issue, it is a shame that they could not go further. I suspect it is probably because the Minister, to whom I pay tribute, has found that getting anything out of the Treasury is like getting blood out of a stone. I recognise that getting just over £1 billion is a huge achievement, but in the overall scheme of things, and given the effects of the change, it would have been better—it would have been better if acceleration had not been proposed in the first place—if the problems had been properly recognised.

Before Government Members applaud themselves and welcome the change too much, perhaps we should think about the enormous campaign that was waged against the proposals. Would that campaign have existed if the Government had proposed at the outset what they propose now? In other words, when all this started, if it had been proposed that there would be an acceleration of the women’s state pension age up to 66 before 2020 so that 300,000 women would have to wait 18 months longer—on top of the delay they were already facing because of the timetable already set—would there have been the same outcry and the same campaign? I think that the answer to that question is unequivocally yes.

Just because the Government have made something bad slightly less worse, it does not mean that what is being proposed is not particularly bad. Someone who, after an accident, is told by a surgeon that they will lose both their legs, and who finds out after they come out of the anaesthetic that they have lost only one might feel a degree of elation that this was better than they had expected. However, someone going into an operation expecting to lose a leg who does lose one would still feel disappointed. In other words, the amendments that we are being asked to vote on still do not amount to a good deal for the group of women concerned.

[Richard Graham]

I simply want to observe that if any of us went into an operation expecting to lose both legs and a doctor managed to save one of them, surely we would feel that the doctor had done rather a good job. The analogy with the Minister’s announcement this evening is not irrelevant.

[Dame Anne Begg]

The hon. Gentleman has just made my point for me. Yes, we would feel a lot better, but if we had gone into the operation not expecting to lose either leg, but discovered afterwards that we had lost one, we would be absolutely devastated. The result would appear to be the same, but the emotional trauma caused in the meantime is quite different. That is exactly the position faced by these women.

The women we are talking about are not rich; they are not people for whom a billion pounds here or there amounts to pennies or not much money. These are women who have made the financial calculation that they will be able to get their state pension at a particular age. Some of them are still making the calculation that they will get the state pension at 60. I received an e-mail today from someone who could not understand why her pension age had gone up by 30 months. It is because she had not taken into account the original equalisation. That is no fault of the Government, but it illustrates the fact that people need a lot of time to prepare for the change, and even if they have had the time, they are not always prepared for it.

For the group of women who had not realised that the state pension age was going up to 65, it is a double whammy to discover that it is now going up to 66 and that they must face waiting that extra time, perhaps with no income at all. Many of these women will be in that position, even if they have taken early retirement for one reason or another. We know that by the age of 65, only about 40% of women are still in work; they might have fallen out of work for various reasons. Those women will have been depending on getting not just the basic state pension, but probably pension credit and all the other passported benefits that were mentioned earlier. For these women, there is a big hole in their financial planning. We have heard much about the Government’s debt meaning that they cannot possibly afford to do right by the group of women concerned, but the effect will be on those women’s personal debt. They will have to borrow money or in many cases live in pretty dire circumstances if they do not get the pension when they were expecting to get it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Graham Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend definitely may. We are working closely with BIS in all it tries to do and my Department is doing quite a lot to help small employers. We listened carefully on auto-enrolment, we made a change to give a little more time and that helped small businesses enormously.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to address incentivised transfers out of defined-benefit pension schemes.

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

We recognise that employers need some flexibility to manage their scheme liabilities and that well-managed transfer exercises can be a useful tool, but we are concerned about scheme members being offered cash inducements to encourage them to take a transfer that might not be in their best interests. We have discussed the issue with a number of industry groups and we are actively looking to see what action needs to be taken to combat any bad practice.

[Richard Graham]

As the Minister knows, I support him on the principle that enhanced transfers do not necessarily advantage many members of pension schemes. What does he think about the other side of the equation, however? In my constituency of Gloucester, we have at least a dozen very successful family-owned manufacturing firms whose ability to grow is impeded by the residual liabilities of their closed DB schemes. How does the Minister think we can balance our responsibilities to members of the scheme with the desire to help such companies grow?

[Steve Webb]

I enjoyed my visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency, when we discussed pension issues with local employers. The important consideration is fairness, as he says. We have no problem with people transferring out of such schemes in a fair exchange, but because these are complex and difficult financial transactions we must ensure that people have the proper advice and information on which to make such choices.

Pensions Bill [Lords]

Richard Graham Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Byrne]

The Minister gave an interesting answer, because those costings say that if, for example, we increased the retirement age to 67 by 2035—that is, if we accelerated the reform by one year—that would save £6.9 billion. However, if the retirement age was increased to 67 by 2034, by accelerating the increase by two years, that would save £13.7 billion. Therefore, the question for us this afternoon is: how much will be saved by accelerating the reform for those women who are now having to retire later, and who therefore confront trying to find all that money magically, in the space of just four or five years? Has that been traded off against other options, such as introducing advances in the retirement age later on? That is the question that we have to get to the bottom of in this Second Reading debate.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

rose—

[Ben Gummer]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Byrne]

In a moment.

We are talking about women in the age group that was asked by a Conservative Government in 1995 to set in train the equalisation of the state pension, a reform that we accepted, because it came with time to plan. However, that cannot be said of today’s proposal. This morning, Age UK warned that

“a sizeable minority are not even aware of the 1995 changes with nearly a fifth expecting to receive their State Pension at the age of 60.”

The Secretary of State’s proposals will now make that worse.

[Richard Graham]

rose—

[Harriett Baldwin]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Byrne]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, because I think that that was news to the House. We would certainly expect that legal guidance to be published before we get to the Minister’s winding-up speech. That guidance is a material point in a debate that is important to many people, as well as many right hon. and hon. Members, because this Bill has such a poor effect on women in this country—the people we represent.

[Richard Graham]

rose—

[Harriett Baldwin]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Byrne]

Of course. The hon. Lady makes an extremely fair point, and that is why, after the Turner commission met and the Pensions Act 2007 went through this House, a clear timetable was set for how the state pension age should increase. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is muttering from a sedentary position about how the longevity assumptions have now been increased. That is perfectly fair, and we should have a national debate about how the state pension age should be brought forward; indeed, the Pensions Minister has issued a consultation. It is just a shame that it closes on Friday, after this debate is concluded.

[Richard Graham]

The right hon. Gentleman made two comments about how the Bill treats women. He estimated that the cost of the changes to some women would be £10,000. Does he not recognise, however, that the change in the value of the basic state pension as a result of this Government’s commitment to linking it back to earnings will be worth more than £15,000? Will he also acknowledge that, as a result of the new flat-rate basic state pension being applied, a lot of women who would previously have lost out because of their caring responsibilities will now benefit hugely? Does he not agree that women will benefit from the changes in the basic state pension in those two ways?

[Mr Byrne]

Let us take the hon. Gentleman’s second point first. I understand that the proposal for a flat-rate pension is included in a Green Paper. It is therefore an early statement of the direction of Government policy. Given what the Government have managed to do to commitments in their coalition agreement, I am not sure how much water that proposal holds. The hon. Gentleman’s first point was more interesting, because he was comparing the benefit for someone on a pension under the lock introduced by the Government with a pension that is linked to prices. Going into the election, no party proposed to keep the pension linked to prices, so his calculation is purely fanciful. Indeed, the Pensions Commission said that we should re-link pensions to earnings in 2012. That was in our manifesto, and that is what we would have done if and when we were returned to office. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman cannot make up fantasy numbers comparing the reality—

[Richard Graham]

The right hon. Gentleman is generous to give way again but, with all due respect to him, I am comparing the fact of what was delivered by one Government over 13 years with the fact of what has been delivered by this new Government within one year. The Gloucestershire Pensioners Forum, which was created by members of his own party precisely to campaign against the de-linkage made by the late Mrs Thatcher when she was Prime Minister—[Hon. Members: “She is still alive.”] Indeed she is. I meant to say “the former Prime Minister”. The Gloucestershire Pensioners Forum has now fully recognised the value of re-linkage, which this Government will introduce. It is a shame that the right hon. Gentleman does not recognise these facts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Today’s debate takes place more than 100 years after the Old Age Pensions Act 1908 was introduced by a slightly different coalition Government, led by Lloyd George, but including Churchill in his Liberal phase. The most important change since then is clearly in life expectancy. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) and other speakers this evening have already tackled that in forensic detail.

I think it would be helpful if I detailed a couple of salient facts as an introduction to my views about Second Reading. A hundred years ago, life expectancy was slightly less than the pension age of 65. That would imply a pension age of about 87 today. To put it another way, 10 million people who are alive today will live to be 100. Clearly, something must be done, and I am afraid that it falls to this coalition Government to do it. The Labour party had its chance. In 2002, the Labour Green Paper fudged the issue and, two years later, the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions clearly told the TUC that raising the pension age would not happen. The message today from the shadow Secretary of State and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), who is in her place, blithely recommending as an alternative to some aspects of the Bill a speeded-up increase in the pension age beyond 2020, can therefore be treated with a huge bucket of salt. Their paymasters, the trade unions, simply would not let it happen. As is so often the case, it falls to this Government to tackle the difficult questions and decide how to balance the interests of future pensioners with those who are earning, paying taxes and paying for those pensions.

The most critical issue of fairness that the Bill must tackle is intergenerational fairness. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduced the Bill, he highlighted several aspects that are worth mentioning. He referred to life expectancy, and I hope that I have covered that point. He also mentioned fairness between generations, which is the basis for the main provisions of the measure. He talked about the importance of savings and their not being frittered away through a means-tested system. I echo that strongly. Correspondence from my constituents in Gloucester constantly reflects the unfairness between people living next door to one another, some on means-tested pensions and others not, owing to their small amounts of hard-earned savings.

The other key aspect is auto-enrolment. I pay tribute to the Labour party for the previous Government’s work on auto-enrolment, but once again this Government will have to implement the scheme. We have examined the details of simplifying the administrative aspects, ensuring an opt-out, not an opt-in, getting the self-certification from defined contribution schemes and so on. I welcome those aspects of the Bill as well as the changes to occupational schemes, in which I should declare an interest as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on occupational pensions.

It is notable that no Labour Members referred to judges’ pensions. An extraordinary silence has come upon my friends on the Opposition Benches. Several Government Members have pointed out that having zero contributions to the judges’ pension scheme is surely a massively unfair anomaly, which Work and Pensions Ministers are quite correct to change. That should have been done years ago.

That brings us to the one aspect of the Bill that causes hon. Members of all parties some concern: the effect on women born between December 1953 and October 1954. I have written to the Secretary of State and the Chancellor, inquiring whether it would be possible to introduce some flexibility to tackle the specific problems of women in that age group. I received a letter from the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), which tackles the question in some detail. He said that

“implementation of the increase to 66 between December 2018 and April 2020 is the option that best balances sustainability with fairness in the face of demographic change.”

I recognise that Ministers have a difficult task in trying to balance often conflicting aspects of dealing with pensions. I wondered—the Minister has agreed to consider the matter—whether the same argument could be made even more convincingly for stretching the period from December 2018 to the autumn of 2020 so that the increased period of waiting for their pension for those women would effectively be reduced from 24 to 18 months. I am confident, given everything that has been said today, that Ministers will consider that during the Bill’s later stages. I await what happens on Report.

It is important that our constituents understand that today we are considering and debating the principles of the Bill. The detail will be examined in Committee and again in the Chamber. I believe that the principles for tackling critical issues such as savings, auto-enrolment, occupational pensions, judges’ pensions and changes in life expectancy should occupy our time here today.

I was genuinely disappointed by the contribution of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), who gave a speech that contained a series of stories, rumours and quotes from newspaper articles—admirable soundbites in the absence of any policy. One must conclude that the shadow Secretary of State has no more policy on pensions than he had money left in the Treasury coffers a year ago. Although he said that he was proud of Labour’s pensions record, and the right hon. Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) gave one or two examples, such as the creation of the PPF, which are to be commended, I wonder whether Labour Front Benchers’ pride extends to the 75p increase in the state pension that was offered to my constituents so very recently. It is difficult to be proud of policy, but if Government Members are to be allowed some pride, it is in restoring the earnings link to the basic state pension, added to the triple guarantee that ensures that the basic state pension will always rise by at least 2.5% every year. That is a huge contrast to 75p.

I therefore believe that the Bill has a lot in it to commend to Members on both sides of the House. This issue should be non-partisan and non-tribal. We all want a good, affordable, sustainable pension for our constituents. I shall therefore support the Bill, which will make a significant difference to the 7 million people of both sexes who are currently under-saving, resolve the scandal of judiciary pensions, and allow for sensible reflections on aspects for women born within a particular year.

Welfare Reform Bill

Richard Graham Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I agree with one thing that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) said, which was about taking responsibility. I therefore hope that he can support amendment 26, because it will mean that agencies can ensure that people know their rights and responsibilities following what has been described as the most fundamental change to the benefit system.

One of the first witnesses to appear before the Public Bill Committee said that although universal credit is a simplified benefit, the application for it will not be simple, because of all the different benefits that are rolled up together into it. I am old enough to remember when supplementary benefit changed to income support, and I saw the rise in demand for advice among people worried about what would happen to their income. For people who are on benefit, a small change in income means a lot.

That problem will be exacerbated in the current case, particularly given the fear of a civil penalty for a mistake or omission. People who go to advice bureaux do not want to know how to defraud the system; they want to know how to fill their form in correctly. An online application process will also worry people—particularly older people, but also some younger ones—who are concerned about filling a form out online and not seeing it until three, four or five days later. Support is needed to smooth the transition.

Universal credit will start in 2013—exactly the same time when the proposed changes to legal aid will remove help for the most complex welfare benefit cases. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) said, that is the perfect storm. Local authorities are examining every non-statutory service that they provide, and in some cases local advice agencies are losing funding. In fact, in a survey, 54% of local bureaux said that they were worried that they were unlikely to be around in 2013.

Let us scotch one myth. Local bureaux and advice agencies do not get any funding from central Government. The money goes to the central Citizens Advice, which provides a vital service in support of local bureaux. It provides information, training, support and IT services. Putting more money into local bureaux would mean that more would have to be charged for those services. It would be self-defeating. Local face-to-face advice is vital, along with the advisory telephone service. Many claimants are vulnerable, and such advice, provided locally, is of particular importance to them.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that local citizens advice bureaux are probably one of the most important and good causes to whose funding local government can contribute? Will she therefore join me in applauding my city council in Gloucester for the valuable increase in funding that it has given to our local CAB, and recommend that action to other councils?

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

I have not conducted a detailed survey on that. I am also unsure what the 400,000 or 430,000 who will win approximately £50 say. There will always be winners and losers, but what I like about this policy programme is that there are almost twice as many winners as losers, and they will win an awful lot more money, which helps the transition to the policy.

Let me return to the evidence of parents. The Government document states:

“Many out of work mothers, both lone and partnered, are looking for jobs that will fit in with their children’s schooling—i.e. jobs that are part-time and preferably within school hours.”

That is obvious and self-evident—any parent knows that—but it is important to have survey evidence so that the argument has an element of objectivity. The document goes on to say that out-of-work mothers

“tend to look for work that is local and flexible, so that they can be available if, for example, their child is taken ill.”

All of us parents have been there—have we not?—when our children get sick and we send them off in the morning, tying their scarves up tight and hoping that no one notices. When they do notice, we get a call. I have had to make that run—even though, as I am told, as a man I have no rights in respect of child care responsibilities. Some of us in the younger generation are new men, although I hesitate to apply that description to myself.

The document also states that those factors—locality and flexibility—

“are often seen as being more important than the type of job they move into.”

It is all about flexibility, which we need. All of us parents have been there and understand that. Child care is quite often a nightmare, and always a juggle. Half the time parents are terrified that they will get a call just when they have an important meeting to go to.

The document also states:

“A study of lone parents who had recently moved into work had overwhelmingly chosen jobs where their hours fitted with looking after their children. It was common for interviewees to be working between 16 and 29 hours per week.”

Again, there was almost certainly not the flexibility to have a mini-job. Mini-jobs are important in enabling such flexibility. It is not right for parents, particularly parents of little children, to be forced into endless hours of work, or to work for more than 16 hours. New clause 2(5) is therefore extraordinarily unhelpful, and a retrograde step.

On parental employment, what happens when children are five and six is telling. This is about the youngest tots. When children are that age, parents are just going out into work, having previously perhaps been full-time parents. Employment of lone parents of children that age is about 55%, but the employment of partnered mothers is 75%, which is the parental employment rate. We can see, therefore, that there has been a massive societal shift into joint working among couples. There has been a move away from the traditional old-style model, whereby the bloke goes off to work and the woman stays at home to mind the kid and the kitchen sink, to more economic sharing and greater equality, which is a positive thing.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend is developing a powerful case for greater flexibility, which is precisely what the Bill proposes, and which the new clause would not reflect. Does he agree that there is perhaps not enough understanding in the wider world of the flexibilities in the Bill that will help single mothers to take jobs on a flexible basis?

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend makes an extraordinarily powerful point. Part of the reason for that is that a lot of scaremongering is going on. The scaremongers deny that the Bill provides that flexibility and say that people will lose out, but we know, from the detailed figures in the Budget and the briefing document to which I have referred, that most people will be far better off under the reforms, that they will have more money, and that work will always pay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

It seems extraordinary that the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), with whom I sat on the Work and Pensions Committee, does not recall the stream of anecdotal evidence from our constituents about how many women are at home on benefits because they have worked out that under the current system it is impossible to take a job and be better off. The whole concept of work paying, which drives this Bill, must surely unite Members on both sides of the House.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I would hope so. New clause 2(1) mentions

“a childcare element for claimants who are in work, except in prescribed circumstances.”

One of the problems with the current system is that 52,000 families already in receipt of tax credits are entitled to, but did not claim, the child care element in 2008-09, whereas 55,000 families were entitled to the child care element but did not claim tax credits in the same period. We need to ensure that real help is available for children. Universal credit will ensure that we do not have thousands of families who do not receive their full entitlement. That is a really important aspect of the Bill.

I am not sure that new clause 2 is the right way forward. I am concerned that it would cost the vast extra sum of £400 million in Government spending. It would be expensive, but retrograde, and it would make life harder for those who want to be in part-time work.

My other concern about the new clause is that the maximum award for the child care element is far higher than was set out in the consultation document. I can only assume that in drafting it the Opposition thought, “What high figure can we come up with that will be a substantial number so we can appear to our constituents to be much more generous in spending other people’s money?” That is not a sensible approach. The right approach is to have the consultation that the Government are having so that the book, when it is written, is slotted into the bookcase and is as effective as possible.

The Government have made a real effort to make strides on this issue and they have come up with a really great plan. They have also gone to considerable lengths to put up various options for discussion. Nowhere in new clause 2 does it canvass the possibility of a different rate for children under five, although the Government have canvassed that possibility. Nowhere does the new clause mention the differences between what people would get with 70% child care costs and with 80% child care costs: it just assumes that the figure should be 80% or 90%—figures that, on the face of it, appear to have been plucked out of the air. Nowhere does the new clause discuss the working of the hours rules, which would create great problems especially for lone parents and the parents of the youngest children who are just starting to find their way back into work. We must support them in going back into the workplace. That is the sort of discussion that we should be having, and I would hope that the Opposition would work positively with the Government to try to achieve a system that works for everyone.

These reforms are important because we need to reduce child poverty. In recent years, the figures have not been pointing in the right direction, if one includes after-housing costs. I will be challenged and told that that is the wrong figure to use and that I should use before-housing costs, but as I said in Committee people have to live somewhere. We cannot expect them to live in a garden shed or on a remote Hebridean island at very low expense where perhaps they could find shelter and the odd sheep. Indeed, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who is no longer in her place, nodded in Committee when I said that this was the right measure.

In 2004-05, some 3.6 million children were below the 60% median for after-housing costs and now it is 3.8 million. I regard that figure as worrying in terms of the mischief that the universal credit and new clause 2 are aimed at combating. The Government’s plans would substantially reduce child poverty. New clause 2 and the Government’s plans are presumably aimed in the same direction, but the latter would reduce child poverty by at least 50,000 in 2011-12. I see that as a positive move. I asked the Secretary of State today about the effect of universal credit on poverty and he said that 90,000 fewer people would be in poverty. That is the right direction.

The Opposition have tabled amendments 23 and 24, which propose that the prescribed maximum should be £50,000. In other words, if someone has £50,000 in the bank but their earnings are very low, they will be able to claim under universal credit. Earlier, I put an example to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore). If a person earns £50,000, has no savings—probably a young person—and pays tax, they will be subsidising an older person on lower earnings but with £50,000 in the bank. If we asked people in the street whether that was really justifiable, they would say no. The reason we save is to have a rainy day fund. The whole idea of such a fund is that when it rains, we should spend it—because we believe in taking responsibility for ourselves.

Today, the Leader of the Opposition gave a little speech about responsibility. He said:

“Labour—a party founded by hard working people for hard working people—was seen, however unfairly, as the party of those ripping off our society. My party must change.”

But I looked at the amendments and saw that Labour wants to give benefits to people who have £50,000 in the bank. Are we being ripped off? Is that a party that believes that hard work brings rewards and that believes in responsibility, in a messianic conversion, or is it a party that simply wants to hand out other people’s money like confetti?

I read on in the speech and I realised that the amendments had been tabled for the sake of a sound bite. The Leader of the Opposition said:

“Just take their current welfare reform bill.

It punishes people in work who save, denying them the help they currently get through tax credits.”

Well, there is saving and there is saving, and if we polled people I am sure that we would find conclusively that someone with £50,000 in the bank should not get any out-of-work benefits. They should take responsibility and seek to get back into work as quickly as possible.

Post Office Card Account

Richard Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Newton]

I absolutely agree. It would be detrimental to the post office network if POCAs were removed, but I do not believe that that is the Government’s intention.

The reduction in the worth of the contract will be felt in the income of sub-postmasters and postmistresses. It is understandable that the DWP wants to drive down the transaction costs of benefits payments and so sees that reduction as a saving—costs have come down to about 50p from about 70p to 75p per transaction—and I understand why the Government want to look at efficiencies in that way, but there are significant implications for incomes, livelihoods and the sustainability of the network. That underlines why it is so important that the future of POCA and banking services more generally is secured. Existing and new customers would very much welcome enhanced services.

Research on POCA customers by Consumer Focus demonstrates that customers want additional transactional features and want to carry on using post office branches, which they know and trust, to access their payments. A fully transactional account could deliver significant benefits in terms of financial inclusion. Consumer Focus research shows that up to 1.75 million people are “unbanked” and could access a transactional account. By not having a bank account, vulnerable consumers can lose out time and again. Not being able to use the internet to buy goods and services or direct debit for household bills means that they pay more. They miss out on safer money management and convenient access to cash through ATMs. They find it difficult to access mainstream credit or insurance, or to save effectively, unless they are fortunate enough to have local access to a credit union or community bank. They will find it increasingly difficult to be paid for work; Consumer Focus estimates that by 2018 only 2% of employees will be paid in cash.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, on a subject that is important to millions of people. Is she aware of the report recently published by the Association of British Credit Unions, which highlighted the opportunities for co-operation between the Post Office and credit unions? Although it is a difficult area and is connected with the mutualisation of post offices, which is taking time, does she agree that it could signify a huge step forward for the millions that do not have access to bank accounts, and will she join me in encouraging the Government to make progress on the matter as soon as possible?

[Sarah Newton]

I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting contribution. I support the work of credit unions. We have an excellent credit union in Cornwall: Cornish Community Banking provides good services for people on low incomes. As the Government consider the future of the post office network, given its reach into our communities, it is important that they fully consider the positive benefits of post offices working with credit unions and community banks, and how that might work with co-operatives or mutuals. Indeed, credit unions and community banks might work alongside post offices and offer their products through the branches. I hope that the Minister will update us on that.

I return to the benefits of an enhanced Post Office card account. It could also offer a genuine alternative for consumers who are dissatisfied with their basic bank account. Figures provided by the Financial Inclusion Taskforce last year suggest that up to 40% of basic account holders either have dormant accounts or, because of the associated penalty charges, opt not to use the full range of transactional features, including direct debit.

As well as the 1.75 million unbanked people in the UK, there are just under 4 million POCA customers, and benefit payments of about £1.2 billion per annum flow through those accounts. Many people on low incomes are reluctant to open basic bank accounts or current accounts because they fear high charges if they go overdrawn. Treasury research shows that, for low-income households operating a conventional direct debit facility, savings are offset by the loss of an average of £140 per annum in penalty charges. The cost is borne disproportionately by low-income households, who have to juggle daily or weekly income and/or benefits payments.

Consumer Focus recently undertook research on a transactional POCA. The account that it tested offered post office counter withdrawals, LINK-ATM access, the ability to receive inward payments and a debit card. Crucially, it also offered a bill payment facility that allowed customers to benefit from cheaper utility rates. Equally crucial is the fact that, unlike other direct debit facilities, it would be for the consumer to determine the frequency and the amount of payments to be made—and the consumer would not be liable for penalty charges if a payment were missed. A level of control that prevents them becoming overdrawn and incurring penalty charges is important to low-income households, as they have to be careful to live within their means.

I understand that the Treasury has recently finished a feasibility study into accounts that have the additional and useful feature of weekly budgeting. Measures that help people on low incomes to obtain the best prices for essentials such as energy, and enable them carefully to budget incomes and expenditure, are to be welcomed. Many low-income families are susceptible to doorstep lending, with its exorbitant interest rates, which can quickly get them into unmanageable debt.

I hope that a new product can be developed before the POCA contract ends in March 2015, and that existing account holders will be migrated on to the new account. Such an account would have much broader appeal to post office customers. It could lead to a customer base large enough to give economies of scale, which would make the operation of such an account cost-effective. The introduction of a transactional POCA with a budgeting facility will be particularly important in helping to secure the migration to universal credit.

I have been an MP for a limited time. I can see that, despite their good intentions, Governments can find it challenging to work across Departments on joined-up policy. The delivery of an updated POCA or similar new product is one such policy. It needs to be given thoughtful consideration by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions. However, I understand that, as in so many policy areas, there are conflicting priorities. I realise that the DWP will want to reduce transaction costs for benefit payments. The Department also has the key aim of lifting as many people as possible out of poverty, and the improved POCA could help with that.

I realise that 2015 seems a long time away. However, sub-postmasters, the vast majority of whom are self-employed small business owners who work long hours for low returns, need to know that the Government are committed to introducing an enhanced POCA or a replacement, and that they are on track to deliver a product that will not only benefit customers but give them certainty of income. The recent decision to award the green giro payment contract to PayPoint, with savings going to the DWP but with losses going to the post offices, is a concern to many sub-postmasters.

The post office network has reached a critical point. The previous Government’s closure programme, the withdrawal of Government services and major social and economic changes have resulted in 7,000 post office closures over the past decade. However, the remaining 11,500 post offices and 500 outreach services still provide a much bigger network than all the banks and building societies combined. Every week, 20 million people visit a post office, and for every £1 transacted, 14p is handled through the post office network.

Post offices are a vital resource for rural communities such as those in Cornwall. Only 4% of villages have a bank, compared to the 60% that have a post office. Between 2000 and 2010, rural areas experienced the loss of nearly 60% of their banks and building societies According to the Campaign for Community Banking Services, Barclays closed 22 banks during the last quarter, 12 of which were the last, or the last bank but one, in the town. HSBC and Lloyds each closed nine branches. That lack of services and competition for small businesses has been recognised by the Treasury Committee and the Banking Commission in reports in April. This could be a real opportunity for new services to be delivered by post offices, as 47% of small businesses already use the post office more than once a week, especially for stamps, mailing and cash.

Although many post offices run alongside shops—in small villages, they are often the only shop—sub-post office income is worryingly low. New work urgently needs to be brought into the post office network to increase income for the remaining post offices and to ensure that they can continue to serve local communities.

Having outlined some of the challenges that face the post office network and the real opportunity of developing POCA in the war against poverty and the delivery of the universal credit, I look forward to being reassured by the Minister that the coalition Government are taking action to deliver the important legacy of a sustainable post office network.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on making an excellent opening speech. She outlined the history of the Post Office card account very clearly, but she also showed that she is way ahead of many other hon. Members in thinking about 2015 and the fact that in order to secure the future of post offices any incoming sub-postmaster will immediately ask, “What will be my income in five or 10 years from now?” They see no hope of any inter-business agreement coming through, as a result of the privatisation of the Royal Mail; very disappointingly, such an agreement has not been enshrined in legislation. Consequently, they will ask, “Well, what of the promise that the post office will be the shop front for Government business? What is going to come of that promise?” So it is very timely that the hon. Lady has secured this debate today.

Labour first introduced POCA as a measure to boost financial inclusion. It was designed to give people who had perhaps always dealt in cash an opportunity to collect their pensions or benefits from their local post office. Indeed, by 2008 4.5 million people had a POCA, of whom 30% had no other bank account. Obviously, therefore, the future of POCA is vital for that particular sector of the population.

Those of us who were here in the last Parliament will remember the box-loads of cards that came in begging us to lobby to keep POCA and to have it extended beyond the finishing date of its first phase, which was 2010. Obviously that renewal of POCA was made by the last Government. They put in place the present arrangements, which will run until 2015. Now we need to look towards 2015 and consider what will happen next.

As has been pointed out, the Royal Mail Group used to earn about £195 million annually from POCA. That figure has now dropped to about £135 million annually, but the income from POCA is still a very significant source of income for post offices. Furthermore, it is not necessarily very evenly spread and therefore some post offices will be disproportionately hit if a lot of Government business is withdrawn from the network.

POCA is important for consumers because it was part of the last Government’s financial inclusion plan. It exists so that customers can obtain their benefits or pensions if they cannot use or do not wish to use any other kind of banking account. It allowed account holders or a nominated helper to withdraw cash free of charge at any post office branch using a plastic card that could not be used for other purposes. It also meant that the problem of people getting into debt, and all the difficulties associated with some types of account, were avoided. The important thing now is to say, “Where do we go next?”

In its 2010 manifesto, the Labour party made a clear commitment to a people’s bank with a full range of competitive, affordable products, and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) mentioned that there was a commitment in the coalition agreement not only to an enhanced Post Office card account but to a people’s bank. The Minister himself stood on that manifesto for a people’s bank, so what is happening about it? Why have we not yet seen any steps towards creating any sort of additional banking services in the Post Office? I hope that the Minister today is able to tell us something about the plans, because at the moment it looks very much as if that coalition promise has been broken. There is no plan for any form of people’s bank at the Post Office, and we do not yet know what sort of enhanced services the Post Office card account will have—perhaps the Minister will enlighten us.

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Lady glosses over a bit of the history of the Post Office card account. My memory is pretty clear that in 2007 the account was put out to tender and that by the beginning of 2008 it was clear that the tender would not be given to the Post Office. The previous Government changed direction only in November of that year, after an enormous campaign that showed the unpopularity of the suggestion.

The hon. Lady is right that in March—I think—of last year, the Government started to recommend that the Post Office card account be extended to cover other financial services, and that her own party’s manifesto included more of the same, but that does raise the question of why, after 13 years in government, her party took so long to arrive at some proposals for extending the account. It would be fair to say—I hope that she agrees—that this Government have made substantially increased commitments. The question, however, which she rightly raised, is how we will take forward those commitments to using post offices as the front office for more Government work.

[Nia Griffith]

It was indeed decisive action by the Labour Government in late 2008 that ensured that the contract went to the Post Office. My question here, however, would be, “What has happened to the green giro?”

I refer the hon. Gentleman back to the letter, with which I am sure the Minister is familiar, that George Thomson wrote to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in September. It contained a list of ways in which he thought further Government business could be put the way of the Post Office, including, among other ideas, assisted applications for all benefits, assisted benefit withdrawals, signing on, payment in cash and various housing benefit validations. He obviously wanted to discuss in detail with Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions his ideas about the Post Office becoming a front office for DWP business—the DWP is probably the Department that would most use the Post Office. Instead, however, what do we find? We see the green giro awarded elsewhere, and that is a very significant blow for the Post Office.

[Nia Griffith]

What we want to know now is what the Government will do about securing more Government business for the post office network. It is absolutely clear that unless there is more business, the worrying situation of hundreds of post offices being temporarily closed—for months, or two or three years—will continue. Post offices are closing because it is extremely difficult to identify people who want to take on a sub-post office. They want to see guaranteed income, but instead they see much less security in what they will get from Royal Mail in the future, both because of the drop in the volume of postal items and because there is no guarantee in the Bill currently going through Parliament of any definite business from Royal Mail for the post office network after privatisation.

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Lady is, of course, absolutely right that the risk at the moment is different from what it was. The risk under the previous Government—the reality, in fact, not the risk—was the Government-led closure of some 8,000 post offices across the country. The risk today is that the network of 11,500 post offices that remain after the Labour closures programme could be weakened—she is quite right about that—if sub-postmasters either retired and no one took over or if they decided that the business was so unprofitable that they had to give it up, again with no one prepared to take over. I must point out, however, that that risk is a very different one.

In Kingsholm in my constituency of Gloucester, a profitable post office was closed. The sub-postmaster was one month short of having served 25 years and wanted to continue in the job, but my predecessor as MP and his Government closed the post office. Under this Government, a post office closed in Quedgeley when the sub-postmaster decided to give it up, but after a while a new sub-postmaster was found and a new post office opened, with the support of Post Office Ltd and the Government. The hon. Lady is right that there is a risk, but it is not the same, and it is much smaller.

[Nia Griffith]

The hon. Gentleman conveniently forgets that although about 8,000 post offices probably met the previous Labour Government’s access criteria we kept 11,500 open, and put in a £150 million subsidy each year to do so. He was very lucky that a new sub-postmaster was found for Quedgeley, but in my constituency, and those of many Members, post offices have remained closed for much longer, and the real difficulty will be in enticing people to take on the businesses if they cannot see a viable future in them. I am so grateful to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth for securing the debate today, because the Post Office card account will be a key part of that viability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Lady has mentioned—with, I think, approval—the remarks of Billy Hayes from the CWU about this Government’s approach. Does her party support Billy Hayes’s mantra of no cuts?

[Rachel Reeves]

That is outside the domain of today’s debate. I quoted what Billy Hayes said about taking the green giro account away from the post office network. I do not think that he supports that. I think that he would have preferred to have kept it in the post office network. That is the context in which I quoted his comment that the Government’s policy is

“about as joined-up as spaghetti”.

[Richard Graham]

What does the hon. Lady estimate would have been the cost to Government of re-awarding the green giro contract, and how would her party have funded that?

[Rachel Reeves]

As the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth has said, it would be good to see the Government working on a more joined-up basis. Savings for one area of government put costs on another area of government, and this is a prime example of that. It also goes against the commitments in both the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat manifestos. They would have put more services into post offices, but awarding the green giro account to PayPoint goes against those principles.

[Rachel Reeves]

As I have said, the Labour Government did not get everything right in relation to post offices. The Labour party is using the period of our policy review process to look at a large number of our policies. I return to the point, however, that both the Liberal Democrat and Conservative manifestos made it clear that those parties were committed to giving more services to post offices, not to removing them. That is why the decision on the green giro was so disappointing, because it went against those commitments.

To return to another point that I made earlier in response to the Minister’s question, although POCA was put out to tender, the previous Labour Government recognised the public concern, ended that process and gave POCA to the Post Office. That decision was welcomed by our constituents and by post offices up and down the country.

[Richard Graham]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachel Reeves]

I will, but we need to get to the Minister’s remarks, so this will be the last intervention that I will take.

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her generosity. It is worth highlighting the fact that the commitment in my party’s manifesto was to maintain the post office network. The commitment by this Government to provide £1.35 billion to make sure that Post Office Limited maintains that network is the single most important example of expenditure to maintain a post office service that I can think of over the past 15 years. Does she not agree?

[Rachel Reeves]

The Conservative manifesto said:

“Nothing underlines the powerlessness that many communities feel more than the loss of essential services, like post offices”.

We all know, however, that removing services such as the green giro from post offices makes it harder for them to be viable in the long term. The Government may be giving money in one way, but they are taking money away from post offices by removing from them services such as the green giro.

Today’s debate has been consensual, with representatives from all parties saying that they want to support their local post offices. We should welcome that consensus and try to work together to support post offices and the people who use them in all our communities. That has been the tone of my remarks. I have admitted that Labour did not always get things right, and it would be good to hear other Members say that not everything that their parties are doing is right in representing the people whom we are here to serve—our constituents.

In conclusion, we have heard useful and interesting contributions from Members who represent both urban and rural areas, who know first hand how important post offices are in their communities. I have set out what I think are the key questions surrounding POCA and some wider questions that the Government must answer on the future of postal services.

I have already quoted the Conservative manifesto, but the Lib Dems also promised a post bank as a central plank of their efforts to keep post offices open. People who rely on the post office are keen to know what is happening now that those two parties are in government. They are keen to hear whether the coalition partners are making POCA part of realising their pre-election promises, both up to and beyond 2015.

The post office is at the heart of communities up and down the country. In an era of falling trust in financial services, the Post Office remains a beacon of hope for restoring trust. I welcome this debate—I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth again on securing it—as an opportunity to lend support to POCA and post offices, and to emphasise that decisions about POCA should be made with the intention of making sure that the post office is a viable and vibrant part of our communities in both urban and rural areas, offering services that pensioners, families and the most vulnerable in society rely on.

Housing Benefit

Richard Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. I am not sure how putting 1.6 million people in the dole queue is part of a grand strategy to get people back to work. At some point, somebody will add those bits of the grand strategy up and explain how they connect together.

On the lack of joined-up thinking, we have been taking evidence in the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government about the impact of the Government’s policy of abolishing the regional spatial strategies. Some people have told us that that is a good thing to do, others have been more critical of the inherent aim of Government policy, and some have said that eventually we will get policies in the localism Bill that explain the Government’s long-term strategy. However, almost every witness has said that in the meantime there is a complete vacuum in housing planning policy. The National Housing Federation has commissioned detailed research and it has been estimated that 160,000 planning permissions that would have been given under the previous planning regime have not now been given. That means that fewer houses will be built when eventually the housing market returns.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned joined-up thinking. Does he feel it is fair that so many families who are not working and who are not disabled receive more in benefits than families who are working and are on the average national salary or less? What would he say to my constituents about the joined-up thinking of the past 13 years that allowed that situation to continue unchanged for so long?

[Mr Betts]

As Labour Members have clearly said, those on the Government Benches are involved in a complete misthinking about the fact that not everyone on housing benefit is unemployed; many people on housing benefit are on low wages and they will be affected by these changes too. There is a real issue to address about disincentives to work and tapers in the housing benefit system. I would appreciate those tapers being flatter than they have been or are now, but we all have to recognise that if the steepness of housing benefit tapers, or of any other benefit tapers, is reduced, the cost is increased. That is a problem and I look forward to seeing how the Secretary of State will solve it when he introduces his universal credit.

I have alluded to the impact that these changes will have in Sheffield. It is not the cap that affects cities such as Sheffield; it is the 30th percentile change that affects us. That is the fundamental problem and it will cost the average family on housing benefit in Yorkshire and Humber about £7 a week. The total cost of the change for the average family in Sheffield will be more than £30 a month, and it will lead to dispersal. There are considerable differences in the rates that apply in different parts of Sheffield, and not only the unemployed, but those on low wages who are renting in the private sector will be dispersed from richer parts of the city, in the constituency of Sheffield, Hallam, to other parts of the city. I did not use the word “cleanse” or “clear”, because “disperse” is an accurate and proper word to use when describing what will happen. The city will become more segregated and more divided. The situation will get worse, because local housing allowances are linked to the consumer prices index but rents rise at a higher rate. Therefore, over time, people will be dispersed from progressively more parts of the city. That is what the impact will be on cities such as Sheffield—that is the reality.

At the same time, housing departments, such as Sheffield city council’s, will face pressure because unemployment will create more housing problems and more homelessness. The budgets of these departments will have been cut, yet they will have to deal with advising or re-housing people in desperate circumstances. What we have not had a clear answer to is whether people who have to move home because they cannot pay their rent as housing benefit no longer covers it will be considered intentionally homeless. That is a fundamental point, so can we have an answer on it please? Can we also have an answer on whether the Government really are going to change the homeless legislation as Lord Freud indicated in order to see their way out of this problem without local authorities having to have the responsibility of housing people? Those are fundamental issues.

Why is it necessary to punish the couple in their 50s who lose their jobs, whose family have left home and who are living in a three-bedroom council house? Why is their home at risk because they have lost their jobs and housing benefit will not cover their rent as they are deemed to be under-occupying? This is simply not fair. It is a vicious and nasty policy that is aimed at hard-working people who happen to be unemployed and who then need to be re-housed too. These benefit reductions are not part of any grand policy on welfare reform and they are certainly not part of any clear housing strategy. They are part of an unfair agenda driven by the Chancellor, who has simply cut the incomes of some of the poorest people in our communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Sandys]

My hon. Friend mentioned £21,000, but the average wage in the south-east is £17,000. The inflationary impact of housing benefit on those families has been huge.

My second point is that these rates have not seen an improvement in the housing stock. Some landlords are interested in the rental value rather than the capital appreciation because that gives them such a high return on their investment. Investing in the properties and in the fabric of them is therefore not a priority.

The third issue is the extreme concentration of housing benefit claimants in pockets in my constituency. That problem was brought up by my hon. Friends the Members for North East Hertfordshire (Mr Heald) and for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott). We create micro-economies that attract a significant amount of housing benefit because property prices are so low and the return from housing benefit is proportionally high.

The current situation has fundamentally distorted housing in my area. The average wage in Thanet is £17,000 and housing benefits for the unemployed stand at more than £8,000 a year. Most working families cannot compete in that market.

[Richard Graham]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the bizarre uses of the word “fair” during the whole debate has been the assumption that it is somehow unfair to people who are not working for them not to have better housing than those who are working? The whole point of this reform is to enable a level playing field in which people can live in the houses that they can afford from their work.

Work and Pensions (CSR)

Richard Graham Excerpts

Thursday 4th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Miss Begg]

I echo that point. In many cases, we are not arguing about the principle but the detail.

The last way in which the Government can save money is to do away with some benefits. This aspect has both positives and negatives, as we heard from my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Mr Heald). Extra money has been identified in the CSR, and £2 billion will be set aside over the next four years for the introduction of a universal credit. That will get rid of many benefits, and probably almost all working-age benefits, which will be subsumed into the universal credit. That is the right thing to do, and it certainly takes us in the right direction of travel, but as with all these matters the devil is in the detail. I look forward to the White Paper, which I hope will give more detail on how things should work. I hope that, within the next couple of weeks, the Minister will give us some indication of when it will be published. We are all waiting with bated breath, as it will make sense of some of the other things that the Government have been doing.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Given the hon. Lady’s approach to the difficult question of restructuring benefits at a time of economic depression, from which we are slowly emerging, does she accept that for some of us the concept that benefits can only ever increase is philosophically difficult? For instance, in my constituency of Gloucester 10,000 jobs in the private sector were lost during the five or six years between 2004 and 2009, wages went down in many companies and people often worked fewer hours and fewer days to enable companies not to cut jobs. Charities prefer to see housing benefit linked to RPI rather than CPI, but RPI went down sharply in 2008-09. Does the hon. Lady not agree that, in that situation, benefits paid from taxpayer revenue have to be tailored according to how much is available—

[Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should be relatively brief.

[Richard Graham]

I apologise, Mr Turner. Does the hon. Lady agree that in this situation, whichever party was in power, it would be incumbent on the Government to find ways of reducing the ever-increasing benefits bill?

[Miss Begg]

There is no dispute about the fact that we would like to see the benefit bill reduced. The best way of doing that is to get those who can work into jobs so that they do not need benefits on which to live. As for pensioners, the Government, with their triple lock, have taken the decision that they do not want to see them getting less benefit. That is partly why the cuts have fallen so heavily on working-age people. The Government have protected benefits and increases in benefits for those who are on the basic state pension and other related benefits. They have made a value judgment and decided that some people deserve increases in their benefits while others do not.

Let us not forget the bigger economic argument. Poor people will spend their benefits in the local community. Problems can arise if benefits are cut: the money going into the local economy drops, jobs are lost and shops close. Cuts will cause problems in the local economy. Very often it is the benefits’ pound that keeps many things working in some of the poorer communities. There is not an absolute answer as to whether benefits should go up or down depending on the economic wealth of the country, but there is an absolute measure of poverty in which we should not expect people to live. Sometimes, some of our benefits are at a level that keeps an individual living in poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Begg]

The rich have got richer, which I would have thought the hon. Gentleman would welcome. The poor have also got richer, but the gap is wider because of what has happened at the top end. There is no doubt that those who live in poverty have a relatively higher income than they would have done without the measures that the previous Government put in place.

[Richard Graham]

rose—

[Miss Begg]

I had better make some progress. I was going to read out a list of other organisations, but I need to make some progress. I am sure that other Members have lots of concerns to voice from organisations such as Mencap, the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion and so on. However, I have spoken for longer than I meant to. I thought that I had a 10-minute speech, Mr Turner, so I apologise.

In conclusion, the cuts in the DWP budget are not just to bureaucracy. They are far more profound than that. It is the benefits themselves that have been cut. The running costs of the Department are small in comparison to the costs of benefits paid. The DWP has already stripped £2 billion from its daily expenditure, so it is already quite efficiently run, which is why the big cuts have to come from the money paid out to individuals. None the less, behind the figures that I have mentioned are real people leading real lives. Finding £6 a week to make up the shortfall between the amount received in housing benefit and rent costs might not seem a lot to us, but it is a huge amount for someone who only receives £65 on JSA. That £65 has to cover all other living expenses, utilities and food.

Most people would feel the loss of £50 a week towards their transport costs. How much more acute is that loss for people who live in residential homes? Such people are to lose the mobility element of their disability living allowance. When their total income is only £22 a week as a personal allowance, how will they get out and about at all? I have given just two examples of people who will be directly affected by the cuts, but there are many more individuals who will be hit. Whatever Members believe philosophically about what the Government are doing, such individuals will have less income as a result of these decisions. It is beholden on all of us as politicians to recognise that for some of our constituents, life will be very hard as a result of the decisions in the comprehensive spending review. Even if Members believe that the Government are doing everything right, they should please remember that some of their constituents will have a really hard time in the years to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Turner, I shall try to be brief and build on the points made by other hon. Members, including, most recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod). I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Miss Begg) for securing the debate on a topic that is crucial to dealing with our old, weak and vulnerable, and for all of us who work. The debate is on a subject responsible for a third of all Government spending and, therefore, crucial in that sense as well.

We have been debating the impact of the CSR on the work of the Department for Work and Pensions. What the CSR did, above all, was endorse a radical change of direction in that most crucial of Departments. We have effectively seen a signal to the end of accepting ever more people with very little motivation to work, people who are not working living in properties that they would not be able to afford if they did work, Britain’s ever-increasing number of people on incapacity benefits—there are 2.9 million people on a category of benefit that does not exist anywhere else in Europe—and an ever-increasing proliferation of an array of benefits that no one, not even the distinguished hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), can understand.

[Kate Green]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Graham]

I regret that there is no time to give way.

It will also mean an end to the continuation of the trend for increasing numbers of young people with illnesses and disabilities who do not wish to follow the stirring examples of the hon. Member for Aberdeen South and my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) and for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who set strong examples. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Aberdeen South wishes us to continue to accept those things.

The radical new approach endorsed by the CSR is a philosophy for a 21st-century welfare state and a complete restructure of benefits, which I describe as getting “back to Beveridge”, under a single universal benefit, a single larger basic state pension, which should have been introduced by the previous Government years ago, and the principle that work always pays and benefits should not exceed the average salary. That amounts to an ambitious programme that many of us endorse; indeed, all the voluntary organisations that gave evidence to the Select Committee explicitly embraced the goals, if not the details, of the implementation. As Opposition Members have said, we are close to consensus on the aims—whatever the shadow Secretary of State may have said on television recently—which is appropriate given the sector with which we are dealing.

What differentiates us is simply how much money should go to whom, when and where. Those who believe, as some hon. Members have indicated today they do, that no benefit should ever change, let alone decrease, are missing the point. If we accept the principle behind the goals of the direction of the Department for Work and Pensions, we much also accept that, to get rid of the disincentives to work and to make work worth while, the principle means significant changes to how benefits are delivered.

The natural corollary to the strategy that we all—or most of us—accept is the plan for implementation. We now have the plans for changes to housing benefit, testing people on incapacity benefit, new ways of handling people on jobseeker’s allowance, the introduction of the Work programme and the introduction of the single universal benefit, which, in a sense, is the most important. Those changes are under way. The Minister and her colleagues are aware of the sensitivity of individual issues that will come up as this great programme is put into place, and I believe that they will respond with contingency plans and funding if difficulties come up. We must trust the Minister to do that.

Let me give an example of what can be inspiring from a new approach to work. In Parliament, I employ a woman who is a registered epileptic. She does a fantastic job, and there is no reason why many others like her should not be able to do the same thing. As the programme unfolds, I believe that we will see many inspiring examples coming forth. Therefore, I urge hon. Members from all parties to embrace the strategy and work to make it a success.

There is much that we can do as individual MPs. For example, I will be doing three things. First, I will hold a seminar so that disabled jobseekers can meet employers, and employers can hear from those who work successfully, such as my friends the blind receptionist and the deaf warehouseman. Secondly, I will continue to encourage my jobcentre to experiment with new ways of helping people on jobseeker’s allowance to find jobs. One new experiment in Gloucestershire has halved the number of people on the waiting list over the past few weeks. Thirdly, I am holding an apprenticeship fair for young people, and a seminar on engineering for women.

I would like to hear other ideas from hon. Members from all parties, so that we can go out and do our bit in our constituencies to help people into work. There is an alternative approach, which I would summarise as that of continuing to snipe from the sidelines, saying that things cannot work, complaining that funding has decreased, and effectively letting down young and working-age people in our constituencies. I believe that we should embrace the strategy, hold the Department to account on the scheme’s implementation as it unravels, and make it a success so that we get our country working again.

Jobs and the Unemployed

Richard Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 7th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I will not take any more interventions, as this debate is turning into another Second Reading of the Finance Bill and I want to talk about unemployment and the future jobs fund.

In my constituency of Wakefield—which is well known to my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)—700 places were allocated under the future jobs fund. We are not clear how many have survived the Government’s hatchet job, but I was privileged to welcome 50 young recruits to Wakefield council.

In addition, with my right hon. Friend I met three future jobs fund recruits at the Able project, an environmental scheme that uses a piece of disused land owned by Yorkshire Water that lies next to a sewage treatment works. One could not hope to find a less glamorous environment, but the project has created something very beautiful. Its organisers have worked with Nacro and the mental health trust to get people digging, growing, learning and being out in nature. The land is between a sewage works and a railway line, but it is an area of environmental beauty. The project has become a green business, coppicing the hazel and willow that grows there.

I met two young workers there, and we were able to buy some of the honey that they had made. They told me that they had had an apprenticeship but that the collapse of the business meant that they could not carry on. After six months on the dole, they were desperate to get something.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford and I made the visit in March, and the young workers told us that they did not know what was going to happen at the end of the six months. They asked us to try and make the period a year, as that would mean that they had a year’s experience under their belts. One young man was working visiting schools and showing children how to build nesting boxes.

The Able project is run by a third sector organisation, but I was aware that, at the end of his time there, the young man I had spoken to would have carpentry skills and experience of working with children. He was going to have all sorts of facts about nature and growing things at his disposal, with the result that a range of different organisations in the area could employ him.

I feel really heartbroken that that young man, the person whom I also met who is a support worker at Reconnect, a project that befriends older people across Wakefield who are at risk of isolation, mental health problems and loneliness, and the three people for whom I was trying to find work as wardens in Thornes park, are all now facing an extremely uncertain future.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the challenges for the future jobs fund is that, because the placements last only six months and have been taken up almost entirely by the public and charitable sectors, they do not provide future jobs? I have spoken to several charitable organisations in Gloucester, just as she has in her constituency. They have got people doing things very similar to what she has just described. They make the same points that she does, but they recognise that these are not apprenticeships. They are different: they do not provide jobs, but really just take people off the unemployment register for six months.

[Mary Creagh]

The point is that they are entry-level jobs. The future jobs fund takes people off the unemployment register for six months, but the important thing is that those people then have a CV that does not say, “I’ve been on the dole and I don’t know how to get up in the morning. I don’t know how to set an alarm because no one’s ever taught me. I’ve got used to staying in bed till half past 10 and then watching daytime TV.” Instead, their CVs say, “I’ve been doing something productive and am able to get myself to work. I’m committed and I’ve developed my communication skills.”

The young people involved may have failed at school and may not be academically successful. They need every chance that they can get: they may need a series of six-month placements to build up two years’ worth of experience, because it may take them much longer to enter the employment market than someone with an Oxbridge degree.

[Mary Creagh]

I have not finished, but I will give way to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham).

[Richard Graham]

Does the hon. Lady agree that a real apprenticeship that lasts three years, like the 50,000 new apprenticeships that this coalition Government are committed to providing, is a much more genuine gateway to a real job than a series of six-month benefits and training programmes that has no real guarantee of leading anywhere?

[Mary Creagh]

I think that we should have both. I do not think that 50,000 apprenticeships will be enough; nor do I think that cutting Peter to spend money on Paul is a fair way to allocate resources.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Graham Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman ought to remember that the level of youth unemployment today is higher than it was in 1997, when the Labour party took office. He should also remember that year after year, despite all the last Government’s promises about apprenticeships, which could have provided long-term, sustainable opportunities for young people, the Labour Government consistently missed their targets and promises for apprenticeships. We will take no lessons from Labour about youth unemployment.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

When the Minister is looking at the issues involved in providing more jobs for the young unemployed, will he consider the impact of the Pension Protection Fund, particularly on long-standing manufacturing companies, which may be inhibited from providing new apprenticeships by their future commitments to the PPF?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), will be considering that. It is important to provide the right balance between protecting the pensions of those whose pension provision for old age may be at risk and ensuring that we do not drive businesses out of business as a result. We will be looking at this carefully and attempting to find the right balance.

Tackling Poverty in the UK

Richard Graham Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am not going to announce the Budget today, but it will remain a Government commitment to provide a security or safety net for people who find themselves in difficulties. That safety net must not be a place in which people simply live their lives. No one benefits from sitting at home on benefits doing nothing, whether it is people with incapacities, people with disabilities or lone parents. There is general agreement—between ourselves, and between representative groups outside—that if we can help people into work it gives them a more fulfilling life, and it provides a job for their families. We regard breaking down the culture of worklessness as a huge priority.

The hon. Lady is right about the economic situation, but we must not make the mistake that has been made over the past 10 years. The previous Government presided over a situation in which jobs that were created tended to go not to people who were stranded on benefits in this country but to people moving here from overseas. That must not happen in the coming decade.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Further to the Secretary of State’s comments on the balance between work and benefits, will he take into consideration a letter from a constituent that I received this morning? She is a single mother trying to support her children, but she pointed out she was not eligible for a grant for a uniform for one of them because she works.

“Why”,

she writes,

“should I be penalised for not claiming benefits, for going out to work to try and better myself when I am in fact worse off. I am in two minds to give up my job so that I can get more perks.”

I urge the Secretary of State, in reshaping policy, to take into consideration people such as my constituent who are trying to do the right thing but who find that people on benefits are better off.

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is right. We have to make sure that people benefit financially from going back to work. We will do everything that we can as an Administration to ensure that people who do the right thing genuinely benefit from doing so, and that no one is incentivised to say, “There’s no point in getting a job. I’ll stay at home.” That does not do them, or any of us, any good whatsoever.

We are talking not just about individuals but about whole families: two or three generations of the same family who not only do not work but have never worked. That is not simply the result of a lack of opportunity. In many of our most deprived and challenged communities, the culture of dependency and the sense of exclusion from mainstream society has resulted in a sense of hopelessness and poverty of ambition, as the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside said, which we have to break down. We will do everything that we can to meet that challenge.

I want to set out five key areas that are central to helping people to escape from that poverty trap. First, all the evidence shows that early-years experiences are crucial in determining life chances. A stable home life can make a huge difference to the health and well-being of our children. Family breakdown has been linked to mental health problems, addiction and educational failure, and there is no doubt that the impact of families on life chances seems to be more pronounced in the UK than in neighbouring areas. The earning potential of a child in the UK is more closely related to that of their parents than it is in countries such as the United States, Germany or France. The rate of family breakdown is much higher in the UK than in other major countries, and we have one of the highest proportions of single-parent families in the OECD and the highest rate of teen pregnancies in the EU.

The reality of the links to poverty is clear: 34% of children in families with just one parent in their home were in poverty in 2008-09—a much higher proportion than the national average, which is 22%—and we know that a family with just one parent is twice as likely to have an income in the bottom 20% as families where there are two parents. We want to create a system that supports families, creates a stable environment for children and improves social mobility. That is why we will work to strengthen families by investing in effective early-years provision, including expanding the availability and accessibility of health visitors, so that all parents have access to expert support and advice in the crucial early days of a child’s life. We will recognise marriage in the tax system, and, as soon as we can we will tackle the couple penalty in tax credits. We will encourage shared parenting from the earliest stages of pregnancy, including the promotion of a system of flexible parental leave. We want to restore aspiration, allowing parents to hope for their children and children to dream for themselves. Education plays a central role in that, and it is the second key area that we wish to address.

Education is vital. We know that people with five or more GCSEs at grades A to C earn more than those without, and they are around 3% more likely to be in work. But we also know that of the 75,000 children who receive free school meals every year, almost half do not get a single grade C at GCSE—more than a thousand classrooms of children each year let down by the system. We have some of the most disadvantaged children in the UK. Of the 6,000 children leaving care every year, only 400 are in higher education by the age of 19. Children in care should be a particular priority for us. Every child should have access to good quality education. Too many of the poorest children are stuck in chaotic classrooms in bad schools, so we will give teachers more power over discipline, bring in a pupil premium and provide extra funding for the poorest children so that they go to the best schools, not the worst.

But we are concerned not only about preventing the next generation falling into a cycle of poverty and worklessness. We also have to deal with the challenges that are there right now. So the third area that we will address is the problem of worklessness and welfare dependency. Each week, if one includes tax credits and child benefits, 12 million working-age households receive benefits at a cost of around £85 billion a year. About 5 million people claim out-of-work benefits, and around half of those have spent at least half of the last 10 years on some form of benefit. We know that many of those on out-of-work benefits cannot work for reasons of health, but many with the right help could get back into work.

At its worst, the current system divides people and assigns support based on the type of benefit claimed rather than need. It fails to recognise people who need extra help and it refuses up-front support, allowing people to become so entrenched in the benefit system that they cannot see a way out. Many Members who represent some of the most challenged communities and talk to those people know that we must help them to break out of the environment in which they live, raising their aspirations and showing them that there is a better way forward.

During the last 10 years, an array of programmes was set up by the last Government. They believed that the answer was to create top-down, closely designed programmes, which they imposed on the system. That did not work, so we will do something different. When we introduce our single work programme next year, it will create an environment in which the support that we offer will be tailored to the needs of individuals, not designed in Whitehall by Ministers and officials. Everyone who can work should get the help and advice that they need to get a job and move into sustainable work. That will be our focus and those who deliver that support will be paid on the basis of the success that they have in delivering that support and getting people into work.

Britain is a nation of opportunity. It must be a nation of opportunity. As we tackle the deficit and get the economy back on its feet—I keep returning to this point—we must ensure that the jobs that are created in the next few years go to those who are in the most need, who can get off benefits and make more of their lives. We cannot make the same mistakes all over again. That is what our welfare reforms are all about.

I want to talk briefly about another group—those on incapacity benefits. More than 2 million people claim incapacity benefits, nearly half of whom have been out of work for the last 12 years. They, in particular, need fresh opportunities. Not all will be able to work, but very many can work, and very many would be much better off in work. All of those who work with people with incapacities and disabilities say that if we can get them into mainstream employment, return them to a normal working life, it will do them a power of good, improving their quality of life and making a real difference to them. That can and will be a big priority for us.

As we design the work programme, we will ensure that we have a system and a structure in place that encourages the people who deliver that programme to provide the specialised, tailored support that we need to steer those people who have been on incapacity benefit for so long down a better path and get them into employment. In particular, we recognise that the most disabled, those who have the biggest challenge in their life, will need additional help and support to get into work. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), will no doubt be talking later about some of the ways in which we hope to deliver the best possible support to those people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

I do not know whether my experience in my constituency has been exactly the same as that of my right hon. Friend, but he reinforces the significant role that credit unions can play, and we urge the Government to maintain support for them.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

In my constituency and around the county of Gloucestershire, the three credit unions that still exist—in Stroud, Forest of Dean and Gloucester—are all very small and only scratch the surface in trying to reach those on housing estates who are most vulnerable to loan sharks. Under this Government, we will try, with the help of a community foundation and social enterprises, to consolidate those three credit unions into a county-wide credit union that will be bigger and more solid and sustainable, and will reach more of the most poverty-stricken people.

[Helen Goodman]

I am of course interested to hear about what is going on in Gloucestershire. I do not know whether DWP Ministers have yet had time to engage with their colleagues at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but the regulatory issues mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) clearly need to be addressed in conjunction with that Department.

I should like to turn to the issue of free school meals, on which I hope to be able to offer the new ministerial team some constructive advice. I do not know if they have seen the letter that the Secretary of State for Education sent to my right hon. Friend the shadow Education Secretary on 7 June, in which he says that he plans to discuss the whole issue of free school meals with DWP colleagues. Labour Members are disappointed that the Secretary of State has decided not to go ahead with extending the eligibility of free school meals to the 500,000 children in primary schools whose parents are on working tax credits. He says in his letter:

“I am sympathetic to the arguments for extending eligibility—though surprised that a decision to do so was taken before any evidence on the impact on attainment could be collected from pilots.”

That argument is not wholly unfamiliar to us. However, I would like the Minister to understand that we decided to go ahead with extending eligibility to those 500,000 children not only because we expected it to have a beneficial impact on their performance in school but because it is estimated that it would lift 50,000 children out of poverty and would be a serious improvement to the quality of work incentives. I strongly urge him to ask his officials if he could look at the analysis of the most cost-effective measures for addressing child poverty, because I believe he will see, as we did, that this is one of the most effective things that could be done. As the Education Department team are not here, I point out that another advantage of the measure is that it does not come off the DWP budget. This delay will be seriously disappointing for large numbers of families across the country. I urge the Government not to begin their tenure by repeating Mrs Thatcher’s snatching of the milk.