Closure of Sovereign House, Newport

Gerald Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Paul Flynn]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We must not fall into that trap. If we are going to take a decision, let us see all the facts laid out. Making people’s jobs convenient for their homes is of paramount importance —it is at the heart of the Welsh Government’s policy and I believe that they would say the same. They do not see this mania for super-hubs and bringing everything together as the answer.

There are fashions. There is a fashion for devolution and for economy of scale, and then we go in the other direction and there is a fashion for concentrating activities. These things go on, and we should not be borne along without making a reliable, scientific assessment of the advantages and disadvantages in this case.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the possible closure and relocation of the offices in his constituency and in mine, in Merthyr Tydfil, will have a massively detrimental effect on the local economies in small towns across the area? Does he also share my concern that the added burden on staff having to travel much longer distances—in some cases requiring up to six bus journeys—would put undue pressure on workers travelling to work in those new hubs?

[Paul Flynn]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although it is Newport that is mentioned in the title of the debate, the threats are spread right around—Merthyr and Caerphilly, the Newport service centre, Cwmbran pension service and the Gabalfa DWP centre in Cardiff. They are all under threat. It is difficult to get on a balance sheet what being told that they have to travel miles further, with more awkward bus routes, means to someone who is already struggling to get to work—particularly women with parental responsibilities—and who may just be managing to cope at the moment.

We know—not from the Government but from elsewhere—that there is a plan for a hub in the Treforest trading estate, which was set up after the slump in the ’20s. It has seen the success, and has been the graveyard, of many enterprises over the years. We do not want to see the Government go down this path without fully considering the human consequences.

One of the great successes that we have seen in employment is in making buildings accessible to the disabled, including people in wheelchairs. It is now possible in many jobs for people to use the lifts and the desks, and to use the public services. We are going to add to those problems. Where do we put that in the equation?

The Government might talk about big being beautiful and the benefits of having a large group of people together, but modern technology teaches us that it is as easy to talk to someone in Australia, or indeed in any part of the world, using various computers methods, such as Skype, as it is to talk to someone sitting at the desk next to you. The location is therefore not that important, and nor is the idea of a hub.

Will the Minister assure us that the Government have made a full assessment of the alternatives to changing Sovereign House? It is an old building and I am sure that it is run down—they all are—but they should not just dismiss it and say, “We can’t do anything with it. The hub is the only object we are considering and the only way we are going.” There should be a proper, full assessment of the costs of bringing Sovereign House up to standard. I hope that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee will look at these issues. I have had the pleasure of being on the Committee for many years, and I will be going back to it. We must consider locations for the civil service in the future. There has not been a glorious record of unparalleled success recently—far from it. We need proper parliamentary surveillance of such decisions.

Has the Minister consulted fully with the Welsh Government on the closures and relocations? This seems to be in conflict with the policy of the Welsh Government, who have the motto, “better jobs closer to home”. They have gone that way, and we can all see the advantages. There are problems with the flow of traffic going into and out of Cardiff and Treforest—the bottom of the valleys—at that time of day. It is far better to expand Sovereign House than to move the jobs further away.

Has the Minister completely ruled out any compulsory redundancies? What is the situation? There is great anxiety among those involved. Some people are already at their limit of travel, and others may have already moved from another location. Can we guarantee that they will not be put under pressure? Have the Government looked at the equality impact of their proposals? Do they realise that women will be unfairly penalised by the change? Have they carried out an impact study of how the closures will affect the local Newport economy?

Jobcentre Plus: Closures

Gerald Jones Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Let me be clear. We do not expect claimants of employment and support allowance to attend jobcentres regularly. We are not looking to reduce the number of health assessment centres. This is very much focused on jobseekers, but we must also ensure that we rationalise the estate and use our resources as effectively and efficiently as possible.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

The closure of local services will have a hugely negative impact on the local economy in towns such as Merthyr Tydfil. It will also have an impact on the quality of life of employees with caring responsibilities, who will have to travel longer distances. What consultations and impact assessments have been carried out with staff, customers and trade unions? Will the Department change direction if the consultation does not support the planned closures?

[Mr Gauke]

There has been comprehensive consultation. As I set out earlier, an announcement was made in January. There will, indeed, be further consultations to the extent that any redundancies are necessary.

Personal Independence Payment: Regulations

Gerald Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

As someone who spends a great deal of time on work to improve care and support for people with mental health conditions, I will begin my remarks with a couple of contextual points before moving promptly to talking about the question of PIPs.

I am thankful that mental health has never been a higher priority for any Government. The Prime Minister has made it clear that it is a priority for her. We have the “Five Year Forward View for Mental Health” and extra funding for mental health. Campaigners, charities and professionals that I work with in the mental health sector have said to me that right now is a golden moment to improve mental health care because of this unprecedented commitment by the Government to mental health.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Whately]

I will just make a little bit of progress. I will then be happy to take interventions, if there is time.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Minister for Disabled People share the commitment to mental health. It is shown in the recently published Green Paper on work, health and disability and, for instance, in the Stevenson and Farmer review of employment for people with mental health problems.

There is strong evidence that PIP is a better benefit for people with mental health conditions than its predecessor. My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) has already mentioned some of the statistics, so I will not reiterate them, beyond saying that it is important to note that people with mental health conditions are far more likely to receive the mobility component of PIP than its equivalent under DLA. Some 28% get the enhanced mobility component, compared with 10% getting the equivalent under DLA. That is relevant to this debate.

We should reiterate that the whole point of PIP, as the Minister has said in the Chamber before, is that the award is based on how the condition affects someone’s day-to-day life, not on their diagnosis. It is based on their needs and the consequent costs.

[Gerald Jones]

Does the hon. Lady agree that for the Government to suggest that mobility impairments caused by psychological issues are not relevant is an insult to anybody with a mental health condition? Does she also agree that mental health conditions should be treated no differently from physical ones?

[Helen Whately]

I do not agree with the first of the hon. Gentleman’s two points. He should continue to listen to what I have to say. I agree with his second point and, if he listens to what I have to say, he may find that we are aligned on that.

I thank the Minister for being exceptionally assiduous in responding to and discussing my concerns on these matters. I have had several meetings with her in which she has emphasised her commitment to achieving the original aim of PIP, which is to support people to live full and independent lives. I have questioned her about the regulations in my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on mental health, and as a local Member of Parliament. For instance, we have discussed the case of a lady I met in Maidstone a few weeks ago who had been set on fire on a bus. That lady told me that she has been unable to go out of the house without being accompanied by somebody she trusts since then. Throughout the discussion about the regulations, she has been worried that the welfare system might not treat her the same as someone who has been unable to leave the house because of a physical disability. The Minister has assured me that that is not the case and that people are, and will continue to be, given payments based not on their diagnosis, but on their needs.

Will the Minister now clarify to us all that somebody suffering with severe psychological distress such as post-traumatic stress disorder, who needs to get out and about—for instance, to go to work or take their children to school—but finds it impossible to do so without significant assistance, could and would receive the enhanced rate mobility component of PIP, if their needs justified it?

Given the concern about the issue and the regulations, I also ask for the Minister’s reassurance on three counts regarding implementation. First, will she ensure that the guidance to PIP assessors is absolutely clear that people with mental health conditions can and should receive PIP awards based on their needs and costs, and that that may well be the enhanced level? Secondly, will she ensure, through the audit system that she has told me about, that this happens in practice? Thirdly, will she draw on the evidence provided by recordings of PIP assessments, the trialling of which I welcome, having pressed her and her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon, who is sitting behind me, on recording PIP assessments?

Under-occupancy Penalty

Gerald Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) on securing this debate.

The spare room subsidy, or the bedroom tax as it is more commonly known, is causing stress and hardship across the country. It is the most unfair and pernicious tax since Margaret Thatcher’s poll tax. We are here to debate the regional impact of the tax, so I will outline some of the issues it is causing in my consistency and in the south Wales valleys more generally.

The principle of providing larger properties for families and smaller properties for single people and couples is understandable. People often decide for themselves to move to a smaller property when their children leave home or their circumstances change, but that is a choice. Unfortunately, there are not many one and two-bedroom properties in many communities in my constituency, so people affected by the bedroom tax must decide either to stay in their property—thereby incurring a financial penalty that places great strain on their ability to manage—or move to a smaller property in a village or community some miles away.

Before being elected to this place, I was cabinet member for housing at Caerphilly Council, which covers a third of my constituency. In that role, I met a number of people who wished to remain in the homes they had lived in for many years. They did not want to move to a smaller property miles from their family and friends. Unfortunately, the strain of paying the bedroom tax in addition to their utility costs and household bills meant that they often had little money left to put food on the table.

[Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend is rightly highlighting the practical difficulties and the unfairness of the policy. Does he think that the fact that there is not a single Government Back Bencher present suggests that there is not widespread support for its implementation, even if it is Government policy?

[Gerald Jones]

As my hon. Friend says, the vacant chairs on the Government side of the Chamber speak volumes.

I know that the Government will say that they have provided discretionary housing payments, but that is only a temporary fix to an ongoing problem. I would like to reiterate the practical difficulties of moving miles away from family and friends. Many communities in the south Wales valleys are geographically isolated, which, coupled with public transport challenges in semi-rural areas, means that people often feel very lonely and isolated if they are moved to unfamiliar surroundings away from their families.

Last week I spoke to representatives of voluntary organisations that work with people affected by poverty and the welfare changes. I was told the story of a lady who, after being affected by the bedroom tax, was forced to move from her home village to another village some miles away. The isolation caused her to become depressed, which led to her taking her life. Tragically, that is not an isolated case. It is the reality of what can happen and is happening as a result of this unfair tax.

I have talked to the local authorities and housing agencies in my constituency, and I have heard about a number of situations that are causing great concern, not least to the tenants themselves. In one such case, a couple who are joint tenants of a two-bedroom house are under-occupying by one room and are thus affected by the bedroom tax, which reduces their housing benefit entitlement by 14%. They are on the transfer list and are eager to move to any one-bedroom property. They both have health issues and have lived in the same close-knit community all their lives. Staff at the council housing department have visited and have applied for discretionary housing payments to assist the tenants in the short term. The tenants are concerned about how they will pay the charge, because they are trying to repay rent arrears that have accrued on their account. They would like to stay in the same area, but, as I outlined earlier, the local authority have few one-bedroom properties in their areas of choice.

I recently spoke to staff at my local citizens advice bureau in Merthyr Tydfil who told me about the many people who come through their doors on a regular basis. People have nowhere else to turn. Such clients often have several other significant issues going on in their lives and, to add to that, they are now in rent arrears due to the bedroom tax. These people could lose their homes, leading to massive consequences. For those who are physically or mentally disabled, it could bring about even more severe issues, such as homelessness, suicidal thoughts, substance misuse or further debt. It just becomes a downward spiral.

In parts of my constituency, the demand for three-bedroom properties is not great. The local authority often advertises them for rent in the hope of getting tenants, yet people are being forced out of these properties and into smaller homes, creating more vacancies. I appreciate that that is not the case everywhere—certainly not in larger cities—but today we are considering the regional impact of the bedroom tax, and that is the reality in parts of my constituency. Of particular concern in my area is the view that the disability living allowance and personal independence payments should be disregarded when considering DHP applications. A recent court case resulted in a ruling of indirect discrimination when DLA or PIP is taken into account as income. It specifically quoted section 29(6) of the Equality Act 2010 and article 14 of European convention on human rights. The DWP’s discretionary housing payment guidance manual of February 2016 also refers to the court case. My local citizens advice bureau feels strongly that DLA and PIP should not be treated as income for DHP applications.

Another example involves a single tenant living alone. The tenant does not want to move, as he has lived in the property all his life and classes it as not only a council house, but a home. The property has three bedrooms and the tenant is affected by the spare room subsidy charge, which reduces his housing benefit by 25%. The tenant has to pay an additional £23 a week out of his welfare benefits to cover the charge, leaving him with £50 a week to buy food and pay for all other essentials, including utility bills. The tenant also has support needs, which are provided by his family, who live in the same area. Staff from the council have visited and applied for discretionary housing payments to assist the tenant in the short term. They also arranged for a food parcel to be delivered because the tenant was cutting back on food to pay the shortfall. The property was cold when the visit took place in late December because the tenant could not afford money for the prepayment meter. That is the reality of what is happening across our country.

Organisations such as Citizens Advice and others want to make a difference to their clients’ lives. There is a feeling that people are being penalised unfairly. With further reforms in the pipeline, many people’s ability to cope will become increasingly uncertain. I urge the Minister to take on board the real concerns about the bedroom tax policy and to recognise the hardship that this pernicious charge is causing. This charge—or tax; whatever you want to call it—is discredited, indefensible and should be abolished.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Gerald Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to be given the opportunity to speak in this debate. I consider myself to be a proud and loyal member of the Conservative party, and as such I believe it is my duty to hold the Government to account and to help them when they lose their way. I am very proud to have had a number of conversations with the Minister for Employment, who is very happy to listen and talk. She is very welcoming and tries to work with others to achieve change. I was very happy with some of the reassurances she gave me, but I am sure that Opposition Members will be delighted to know that I will join them in the Lobby when we vote on Lords amendments 8 and 9 in about half an hour, because I am not happy with all the assurances I was given by others in the Department.

I want to clarify a few things. On the ESA WRAG and ESA support group, we are talking about 500,000 people who have been defined as being too ill to work under the measures introduced by the coalition Government in 2010. They have already been assessed as needing more support to go into work.

The fact that one in 100 are leaving that group and going into work is our failure. Something has gone wrong with the back to work programme. I am not proud of that. I was very keen to support the back to work programme, and disabled constituents of mine were very happy when we introduced it, because they felt that, for the first time in their lives, they would be given the opportunity to get out there and get real, practical support to get back into work. They do not want training sessions or to be taught new skills that are of no use whatsoever to them by a company that gets paid to do so. They are interested in getting back to work, and that is what I and the Government are interested in, too, but the problem is that, although we all want the same thing, we differ on how to get there.

The ESA support group consists of people who are just too ill to work. We are effectively saying, “We’re not writing anybody off, but if you’re in the support group you don’t need to find work, we won’t really give any support and we’ll just leave you there.” I am concerned that, by abolishing the ESA WRAG for new claimants—the Minister has been clear that that does not apply to existing claimants—from April 2017, we will push more people into the support group. Someone with a progressive disease such as motor neurone disease, which is getting worse and worse, will end up being pushed into the support group as fast as possible. I have a problem with that.

The Disability Benefits Consortium has said that almost half of those in the ESA WRAG have mental and behavioural disorders, which include mental health issues, learning disabilities and autism. Before the debate, we had an urgent question about the Government providing an extra £1 billion for mental health. Almost half—248,000—of the 500,000 people in the ESA WRAG have mental health issues. With that £1 billion going to the NHS, we have to wonder what we can do to support back into work those who have learning difficulties, autism or a variety of other issues. Some employers simply do not want them. Some small businesses find it very difficult to employ them. How do we go out and find them that opportunity? How do we find them a real job, as opposed to a fake job?

Parkinson’s UK, Rethink and Mind jointly say:

“This policy is poorly conceived. It will ultimately cause unintended harm and push sick and disabled people further from employment.”

Scope has said that the changes will disincentivise disabled people from finding work and will create a greater incentive for people to want to be placed in the support group. Macmillan has said that the changes will have a significant, detrimental impact on people affected by cancer. The bottom line is that the charities with which the Government will work in the taskforce to help to deliver the changes that will be in the White Paper are very concerned about the changes and do not see how they will work.

I do not accept that £30 a week is an incentive for somebody not to go to work. Most Conservatives do not accept that. Most Conservatives consider it to be their proud duty to look after the disabled. Ideologically, we have no issue about providing a welfare system that is a safety net for those who need support when they fall on hard times, to help people back into work. My concern is that the way in which the Bill will be perceived, and its practical implications, will lead some people who have disabilities to feel as though they are being pushed into the support group or into work.

I have a technical question for the Minister, which I hope she will be able to answer later this evening or in the next few weeks. If some of the original 500,000 people in the ESA WRAG find work but cannot cope with it, will they be able after April 2017 to go into something like the ESA WRAG, which will no longer exist? Or will they just have to push themselves towards the support group? Will there be an incentive to do so?

There are lots of other points that I would like to make, but as we are running out of time I will make one quick point. We have heard that £100 million is being reinvested, but we are taking £640 million away, so £540 million is going. If we are that keen on it, why do we not reinvest the whole £640 million into helping people back into work?

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

I will be brief, because other Members have covered some of the points that I wanted to make. The Welfare Reform and Work Bill will create hardship across our country and push people further into poverty. Child poverty is rising, and independent projections from the IFS show that the fall in child poverty rates that we saw under Labour is at risk of being reversed. We hear from the Children’s Society that if the proposals in the Bill are enacted, we should expect child poverty to rise even more steeply.

Research by End Child Poverty identified that 4.1 million families and 7.7 million children have been affected by below-inflation rises in child benefit and child tax credit over the past three years. One in five families said that they had cut back on food and heating because benefits have been increased below inflation. The Government’s attempts to mask the impact of child poverty by removing income as a measure will fool nobody. Child poverty should be something that we all recognise and want to combat. Sadly, the Government seem to be trying to bury the effects of their social security policies on child poverty; it appears that the Government are far from taking the situation seriously.

The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission has indicated that 1.5 million children live in poverty because their working parents do not earn enough to secure a basic standard of living. As was mentioned earlier, the commission stated in its December 2015 report that

“it is not credible to try to improve the life chances of the poor without acknowledging the most obvious symptom of poverty, lack of money.”

I believe that the Government’s position is just not credible.

I turn to the Government’s proposals to cut ESA in the WRAG. If clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill are accepted, the financial support for claimants in that group will be cut by 25%, from £102 to £73. That will have a drastic impact on both disabled people who are in work and disabled people who are out of work. In view of the fact that the Government have committed to protecting support for disabled people, that is deeply worrying. This cut will not incentivise people, which is what the Government say they want to do. The cut has been opposed in the other place, and I hope that the Government will now listen and scrap clauses 13 and 14.

Work Capability Assessments

Gerald Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) on securing this important debate.

Work capability assessments are one of the issues most commonly raised with me, and I am sure with many other Members on both sides of the House. The system is flawed and discredited, and it has caused undue stress and hardship for too many claimants. Recent academic research estimates that for every 10,000 assessments carried out between 2010 and 2013 there have been six suicides, which is truly shocking. That alone requires the Government to undertake a complete review of the current system.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that cases such as that of one of my constituents, who is disabled and does not drive and who has had to attend centres four times, only to be told that the assessment would not go ahead, exemplifies the administrative and financial shambles of the current work capability assessment scheme?

[Gerald Jones]

My hon. Friend illustrates a valid point that is replicated across the country.

I am sure that hon. Members are as concerned as I am when they hear that, according to the DWP’s own figures, around 50% of assessments are overturned on appeal. That surely calls into question the reliability of the initial assessments and raises the question why we are putting people through such unnecessary stress, which has undoubtedly had a negative impact on the mental health of many claimants.

I am also concerned that the work capability assessments do not seem to take account of individuals who have a limiting long-term illness that means their condition often fluctuates, such as kidney dialysis patients or people with Parkinson’s. I visited the kidney dialysis patients support group in Merthyr Tydfil last weekend, and a number of people told me of their concerns about the work capability assessment and the lack of understanding of their condition. Dialysis patients often feel reasonably all right on certain days between dialysis, but on the day following treatment they can feel very low, which means that if they are receiving treatment three days a week, the number of days when they feel okay are few and far between. The Government need to address that lack of understanding.

If the original clauses 13 and 14 of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill are reinserted, financial support for new claimants in the work-related activity group will be cut by around 25% from £102 to £73, which will have a drastic impact on disabled people. The Government have said that they are committed to protecting support for disabled people, so the clauses are deeply worrying. The cut will not incentivise people, as the Government say they want.

[Neil Coyle]

Could the Government’s proposed cut to half a million people, including people with learning disabilities or cancer, have the perverse incentive that those people will then try to go into the support group when there is already a 280,000 backlog due to the Government’s incompetence in handling that contract?

[Gerald Jones]

I agree, and it shows how ill thought out the Government’s proposals are.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

On the Government’s justification for the measures in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill to cut the work-related activity group rate by £30 a week, the Government have said that that is to remove the financial disincentives that could otherwise discourage claimants from taking steps back to work. They have not produced any evidence for that disincentive in practice. Why does my hon. Friend think the Government are addressing a problem that is not there and ignoring the problems that are there and that hon. Members have raised over and again?

[Gerald Jones]

I will try to address my hon. Friend’s points later in my contribution.

I am concerned about the impact of the assessments on people with mental health problems. If the original clauses 13 and 14 are reinserted, the significant cut may mean that people with mental health problems become more unwell. They will be unable to spend money on support and activities that help them recover—things that the personal independence payment does not support—which will affect their ability to move closer to work. Rather than increasing the number of people in work, the change could hinder recovery and push people further away from work. The cut has been opposed in the other place, and I hope that the Government will listen and scrap the clauses.

The current work capability assessment is not fit for purpose. It has lost credibility, and an overhaul is desperately needed. The views and experiences of ill and disabled people must be at the heart of the process. We need a compassionate and effective system that supports people, not one that causes such misery for so many ill and disabled people in our country.

We in the Labour party feel that disabled people should be able to play a central role in monitoring the work capability assessment system and helping to ensure that it is managed with dignity and fairness. There have been concerns about the assessment over a long period, which has resulted in the DWP changing its contractor from Atos to Maximus, which I understand will be paid substantially more than Atos to carry out the contract. I fully support the calls from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley to the Minister to make public the performance of the contractor, which will improve awareness of the situation.

The Government are trying to defend the indefensible. I hope that the Minister will signal today that she is willing to consider what action she and the Government can take to review this appalling situation and bring about some common sense and, above all, compassion.

In-work Poverty

Gerald Jones Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Turner, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing this important debate.

It is hard to justify why so many people live in poverty in a country as wealthy as the UK. I believe that one of the key explanations is that the welfare state, designed to protect us all against risks such as unemployment, illness and old age, simply fails to provide an adequate income for families and others when they are unable to support themselves fully.

It is truly shocking that in 2016, in-work poverty is growing. In some areas, the number of working households in poverty is greater than the number of non-working households. Major factors appear to be low pay and part-time work, and zero-hours contracts are also a major contributory factor.

[Christina Rees]

It was remiss of me not to say in my earlier intervention what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner.

Does my hon. Friend agree that although responsibility for tackling in-work poverty in Wales is a devolved issue, the levers for tackling it lie mainly with the UK Government? He mentioned zero-hours contracts, but I add to that the minimum wage, welfare benefits and, of course, the tax system.

[Gerald Jones]

I could not agree more. Both the Welsh Government and local government have tried to mitigate those circumstances, but the major levers lie here at Westminster.

[Neil Coyle]

May I add a London voice? Specific costs include much higher accommodation costs for many in London, which contribute to in-work poverty. However, the last Government hit something like 30,000 working people in Southwark with reductions in support and left 700 people in work using the local food bank, according to figures from Pecan, which is part of the Trussell Trust network.

[Gerald Jones]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, and the situation he describes is replicated in many areas across the UK.

Can it be right in 21st-century Britain that many people are working hard and cannot afford to live above the poverty line? As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East outlined, 85% of people receiving support from the food bank in her constituency are working people. In my constituency, many working families rely on food banks to be able to put food on the table. That is clearly not acceptable.

Years of below-inflation wage increases, particularly in the public sector, have taken their toll on people’s incomes. In-work benefits such as tax credits are meant to support families against the worst effects of in-work poverty. The current proposals to change universal credit will clearly make matters worse for millions of working families. In Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney alone, about 10,000 working families are likely to be adversely affected by the Government’s universal credit proposals by 2020.

Jobs must be a clear and critical part of any programme to end poverty. Access to jobs, and the quality of those jobs, must be addressed if families are to be able to work their way out of poverty. Low pay is a major factor in in-work poverty and is unfortunately a routine feature of much of the work available to poorer families. The national minimum wage sets a floor for pay levels, but one report shows that a couple with two children would need to work 58 hours a week at the minimum wage to lift themselves out of poverty.

As a county councillor prior to being elected to this place last May, I was proud to be associated with the introduction of the living wage at Caerphilly county borough council, one of a growing number of Labour councils in Wales that pay the living wage. I am proud of the many former colleagues in local government across the UK who are championing the true living wage, as promoted by the Living Wage Foundation, not the gimmick national living wage that the Chancellor has announced.

The low-paid sector is characterised by jobs that often do not provide steady employment. Moving in and out of work on a regular basis is common for lone parents and generates grave financial uncertainty for many families. Limits on the number of hours worked and zero-hours contracts mean that many people might work full-time one week, part-time the next and have no work the following week. Even if they have reliable employment, many find it hard to work enough hours, given their caring commitments and other barriers to employment.

Such situations can also compound problems with in-work benefit entitlements, such as housing benefit. The process for benefit assessment cannot be done efficiently, leaving households falling into rent arrears while things are readjusted and threatening the security of their tenure. Often, due to barriers to employment, people do not have the opportunity to increase their hours and therefore their income. As a result, many low-paid jobs are nothing more than poverty traps.

It is not just a lack of income that causes hardship in poorer families. Evidence shows that they also pay higher prices than others for many essential goods and services. Low-income families are often unable to take advantage of the cheaper prices that are routinely offered to customers paying by methods such as direct debit. The situation has been exacerbated by rising utility bills. With fuel prices coming down, the Government should bring more pressure to bear on utility firms to ensure that they do more to pass savings on to customers.

Finally, many people who are in work discover that their jobs are so low paid or insecure that they are unable to provide an income sufficient to lift themselves and their families out of poverty. The Government appear reluctant to reconfigure the tax system so that the richest households pay more of the burden. Policy changes such as the changes to inheritance tax, the reduction in the 50p income tax rate to 45p, the retention of the bedroom tax and the changes to universal credit mean that poorer families will continue to pay more than their fair share of tax.

To make a positive impact on tackling in-work poverty, the Government have to take action on the issues raised during this afternoon’s debate. Unfortunately, we are seeing very little evidence that they are serious about tackling in-work poverty. In fact, some of the Government’s proposals risk making matters worse. Will the Minister outline what the Government are doing to tackle urgently the unacceptable scale of in-work poverty facing people across our country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Carolyn Harris]

Will the Minister give way?

[Gerald Jones]

It is a long sentence.

[Priti Patel]

I will give way in a moment. I have been very respectful by listening to and not intervening in the contributions of Opposition Members. More people will benefit when the national living wage is introduced in April.

Under-occupancy Penalty

Gerald Jones Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

The bedroom tax is the most unpopular tax since another Tory invention, the poll tax. Given the recent judgment, surely this is an opportunity for the Government to review their position. Why will they not take that opportunity and scrap the tax once and for all?

[Justin Tomlinson]

First, I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that this is not a tax. Secondly, if it was so desperately unpopular, why are we in government?

Universal Credit Work Allowance

Gerald Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in today’s debate. I promise that I will try to be brief.

In his autumn statement on 25 November, the Chancellor trumpeted that he was reversing the proposed cuts to tax credits in full, stating that he had abandoned plans to impose £4.4 billion of cuts from this April. It now appears that he is doing a U-turn on his U-turn, because in the short time since the autumn statement it has transpired that he has lined up similar cuts affecting many of the same working families, this time to universal credit. It seems that he is ushering in a new postcode lottery by pushing ahead with cuts to universal credit, which will leave some families up to £3,000 a year worse off than others in exactly the same circumstances.

We have heard the example of a single mother of two, working full time on the minimum wage and claiming universal credit, whose net income next year will be £2,981 lower than that of someone in the same circumstances who is claiming tax credits. Meanwhile, a single parent of two on a salary of £18,000 a year will see their overall income fall by £2,601 next year if they are on universal credit. As my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State indicated, analysis shows that from April, cuts to the work allowance will also mean an annual reduction of £2,000 a year in support for disabled people in work, which is clearly a particular concern.

My constituency will be hit hard by the proposals, with 2,000 families being affected in 2017, 5,000 in 2018, 8,000 in 2019 and 10,000 by 2020. Across our country, the need for food banks is increasing. I mention that because in many cases, food bank support is provided more to people in work than to those out of work. Perhaps if the Minister and the Secretary of State took the time to visit food banks and talk to the many thousands of volunteers, they would get a better appreciation of the hardship that is being endured. The proposals to cut tax credits will make matters much worse for people and hit working families—people the Government say they want to help and are committed to helping.

I say to Conservative Members that these measures will cause great hardship to many vulnerable families across our country, in all constituencies. The Tory Government have choices. We have seen announcements of billions being allocated to the most well-off by cutting inheritance tax and further support being handed to big businesses by cutting corporation tax.

[Oliver Dowden]

There is a repeated assertion on the inheritance tax cut. Even by 2021, the inheritance tax cut will cost less than £1 billion, which is in no way comparable to the savings that are achieved through the welfare reforms. We cannot magic up the savings by not proceeding with the inheritance tax cut alone.

[Gerald Jones]

That is one example of the wrong choices being made by the Government but there are others. They have given further support to big businesses by cutting corporation tax. They have chosen to continue the cut in the top rate of income tax from 50% to 45%, allowing someone earning £2 million a year to continue to pay £250,000 a year less in income tax. Those are clearly wrong choices, and they are made on the backs of ordinary working families. Against that background, the decision to penalise working families who are already struggling to make ends meet is wrong in so many ways.

The changes will cause worry and undue stress to millions of families. I therefore urge Conservative Members to support the Labour motion today, and not to turn their backs on working families.

Welfare Benefit Changes

Gerald Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for securing this important debate.

We have heard a number of concerns about the impact of the Government’s reforms to the welfare system. I want to focus on one particular aspect. The Welfare Reform and Work Bill will introduce new conditionality for parents with a three or four-year-old child who are claiming jobseeker’s allowance. In the future, once a child reaches three, both their parents will be expected to look for and prepare for work. That measure should be considered in the context of the Government’s promise to increase the free childcare entitlement for working parents of three and four-year-olds to 30 hours a week in England.

As often happens, the devil of this policy is in the detail. Let us start with England. Thirty hours of free childcare will come into force in September 2016. The increased conditionality for parents will come into force under clause 15 of the Bill in April 2016. That is six months in which parents with very young children will be expected to work, but will not be entitled to the free childcare they need.

Members will know that a legal entitlement is not at all the same as full implementation on the ground. Serious doubts have been raised about whether there is capacity in the sector to provide that extra childcare and whether it would be adequately funded. A recent analysis by the Pre-school Learning Alliance showed that the current average hourly cost of childcare per child is £4.53, with the Government contributing just £3.88. When increased to 30 hours, that means that nurseries would operate at an annual loss of £661 per child. That is surely not sustainable.

It is far from clear whether parents in England after September 2016 will have the benefit of the new entitlement, and I challenge the Minister to respond to this: what consideration has been given to the impact of this policy across the UK? I am not as familiar with the situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but I know that the Welsh Government currently support 10 hours of free childcare for three and four-year-olds, and there is additional support in “flying start” areas. The Welsh Government want to expand availability once the financial consequentials of the plans for England are known, but that is against the backdrop of a significant cut—around £1.3 billion, or 10%—to the Welsh budget by the UK Tory Government.

That brings me on to the serious problem of access to childcare, especially in rural and semi-rural areas, including parts of my own constituency. It is clear that availability of appropriate, accessible childcare that meets the needs of parents and children must be in place before the increased conditionality is introduced.

Lack of childcare is not the only problem with the policy. Conditionality can be extremely difficult for vulnerable parents, as we have heard. Care leavers, young parents, those with addictions and others often lack the skills and confidence they need to fulfil work-related activity requirements. Many need support to return to work, which is not always available. We know that jobcentres often lack the capacity and expertise to provide that support and to enable vulnerable parents to transition successfully into work

Barnardo’s has raised concerns that many jobcentres lack the basic facilities needed, especially for parents with young children, including bathrooms, and that staff can sometimes be unwelcoming when claimants bring their children to appointments. That is especially challenging for single parents with young children. It goes without saying that when increased requirements come into force for parents of three and four-year-olds, it will become even more important for jobcentres to address those issues. Given those difficulties, will the Minister commit to taking action to ensure that jobcentres adapt to meet the needs of parents and their children before the conditionality extension comes into force?

Another concern I have been made aware of is about the online system, which is now being used more and more. The system apparently frequently freezes, causing horrendous frustration, and the early indications are that the helpline is struggling to cope. Will the Minister look into that?

I will end on the sanctions regime. I agree with the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East, specifically about the punitive and regressive impact that the sanctions regime will have on families with three and four-year-old children. We know that sanctions can be hugely disproportionate, and we have heard some horrendous examples of how bad they can be. We also know that the loss of benefits for weeks on end can leave families struggling to feed their children and heat their homes. Members will be aware that parents are being driven to food banks and into debt. For many families in my constituency of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, that is a reality. I urge the Government to take action.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

There are five Members still to speak. I will call Front Benchers from 3.30 pm, which allows everyone to have 10 minutes. I encourage Members to just speak for two or three minutes, to try to accommodate everyone.