Mental Health and Unemployment

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I am extremely interested in what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and agree with all of it. In some cases, however, work itself can be the cause of mental health issues—for instance, when there is bullying or poor management. The work that we do in the Chamber makes us feel good about ourselves, and work can do that, but it can also be a cause of mental health problems.

[Paul Burstow]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is why I chose my words carefully. I said “Good work can be good for people’s health”, but, equally, bad work can be bad for people’s health. Poor employment practices and bullying cultures can indeed make a difference to the quality of a person’s mental health.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Disabled People (Mr Mark Harper)]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. In fact, the latest labour market statistics show that disabled people are sharing in the jobs that are being created, with more than 258,000 more disabled people in work over the last year, including 75,000 in the south-east, which will cover his constituency, and there are particularly sharp rises in the number of those with learning disabilities getting jobs, which he specifically asked about.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

T3. The former Minister for Disabled People, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), repeatedly assured the House during the passage of the Mesothelioma Act 2014 that the planned 3% levy on insurers to fund pay-outs to victims was not “going anywhere”—in other words, it was not going to change. In a written ministerial statement on 28 November, however, the current Minister announced that the levy would amount to just 2.2%. A 3% levy could have funded more generous pay-outs, helped to fund research or covered more asbestos-related diseases. Is it not disgraceful that the Minister has put the interests of the insurance industry ahead of the interests of victims?

[Mr Harper]

We have introduced a scheme, and introduced a levy to pay for it. This continues the work that we agreed on when the previous Government introduced a similar scheme under the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008. I am proud of the scheme we have introduced. It will go a long way towards helping people who have been affected by this dreadful industrial disease.

Pension Schemes Bill

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Lady will be aware that there was a decade between the first stirrings of the Turner report and the implementation of automatic enrolment. She will also be aware that there is a risk—this is an important point and although I would not accuse the hon. Lady of doing this, perhaps it is relevant to her more partisan colleagues—of rewriting history on this issue. Had we implemented automatic enrolment as envisaged by the Opposition, it would have crashed and burned. Let me explain why I say that, because it is very important.

Had we auto-enrolled people into schemes without any prospect of a charge cap, they could have been exposed to something the Opposition call rip-off pension charges. When in government, the Opposition proposed no consumer protection on charges. Secondly, they would have auto-enrolled people the second their earnings were a pound above the threshold, so people would have been enrolled into pension schemes into which literally pennies were being put by employers and employees. That would have created derision and undermined auto-enrolment. Thirdly and crucially, auto-enrolment was envisaged without any reform of the state pension, so we would have had a state pension of about £5,000 a year and a means test of about £7,000 a year. Therefore, the first £2,000 a year of private saving would have been largely clawed back by means- testing. There would have been stories in the press of mis-selling and of people saying, “Why did I bother saving for a small pension?” I still remember a national newspaper journalist telling me that only when we reformed the state pension did we remove the fundamental objection to auto-enrolment for people on a low wage.

We would, therefore, have had rip-off charges, nugatory amounts going in and means-testing of savings; if we had not addressed those things, auto-enrolment would have failed. I believe that the coalition made that policy work and were right to do so.

As well as making sure that we have mass membership of workplace pensions, we have had to address a number of other crucial issues, including, as I have mentioned, scheme quality and ensuring that people do not face excessive charges. From next April, default funds for auto-enrolment schemes will be capped at 0.75%. Certain forms of charges over the coming years will be banned altogether. The so-called active member discounts, which mysteriously increase charges when someone is no longer an active member of a pension scheme, and commission charges and consultancy charges are all banned by this coalition Government. We are putting in place new measures to ensure quality governance of schemes—not just trust-based schemes but contract-based ones—with independent governance committees acting in the members’ interests for the first time.

This is a huge, positive agenda, but there are two big areas where further work is needed. The first is the move from defined benefit to defined contribution—a long-term, decades-long trend transferring risk from being wholly on the employer to being wholly on the individual. We remain concerned that that transference of risk causes problems for individuals and that we need to enable, encourage and foster risk-sharing models, and that is what this Bill does.

Secondly, what happens at the end? What happens when someone has accumulated a pension pot? What can they do with it? Again, the previous Government failed to address the fact that, all too often, people with a pension pot defaulted into an annuity with the provider they had already saved with and did not get the best value for money—they made a once-in-a-lifetime retirement choice that all too often resulted in poor value for money. That is why the Chancellor’s groundbreaking Budget announcements, which the Opposition are still fundamentally ambivalent about at best, were so important. They gave people freedom and choice in what to do when they have accumulated a pension pot. This Bill and the amendments that will follow provide for guaranteed independent guidance for people making those choices, which is something that far too many people do not have at present.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The Minister talks about poor value for money, but essentially is the problem not the private pensions market? A universal state scheme would be incredibly efficient, give much better value for money and could be underwritten by Government. Such a system would make it possible to have defined benefits as well as defined contributions, and would be infinitely better for everyone involved.

[Steve Webb]

I always enjoy it when the hon. Gentleman intervenes to make that point. In a sense, he has been consistent: he simply thinks that we should tax people more to pay higher state pensions. That is an entirely credible left-wing position. It is not his party’s position.

Sharing future state pension rights between the state and the market is sensible risk sharing, which is relevant to the Bill, for the following practical reason. Although the hon. Gentleman may live in a world where Government promises are immutable, and where someone who is 25 is told by the Government, “Don’t worry: I will tax you a lot more to jack up the state pension, and in 40 years it will all be fine because you’ll get a fat state pension”, Governments—obviously not the present one—do rip up pension promises.

I do not think that individual citizens should rely wholly on something that is unfunded. That is what it would be, because such people are essentially hoping that their children and grandchildren will pay them a generous pension. However, by the time those people are pensioners, there will of course be many times more pensioners and many times—relatively—fewer workers. That is a very insecure basis on which to base retirement income.

We are making sure that there is a single, simple, decent state floor—to that extent, I agree with the hon. Gentleman—built on by the ownership of capital assets, an employer contribution, tax relief from the public purse and individual contributions invested in the productive wealth of the economy, so that as the economy grows pension wealth grows. There is therefore a capital right as well as a pension promise from the state, which is how I would want to share my risks.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I would like the opportunity to answer every point made by the Minister, but let me ask him one simple question. If the economy gets into very serious trouble and the private pensions market gets into a real financial crisis, as happened with the banks in 2008, what will happen then, without Government underwriting?

[Steve Webb]

But the idea that if the economy does very badly tax-funded pensions are secure is implausible. If the economy does badly, public expenditure on benefits must rise, tax receipts will fall, the deficit will rise and the ability of the public purse to pay the generous state pensions wanted by the hon. Gentleman will fall. We need a strong economy come what may, and a strong economy will generate the money for state pensions and for private pensions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am in discussions with colleagues from various countries in the European Union. Many of them, including the Dutch and the Germans, have made it clear that they essentially support our direction of travel and that some kind of change must be made to the regulations. The German Chancellor made Germany’s position clear, saying that the EU is “not a social union” and there cannot be de facto immigration into other EU social systems.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

19. What estimate he has made of the number of people who will receive face-to-face guidance at the point of retirement in 2015-16.

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

From April 2015, we expect over 300,000 individuals who retire each year to be able to take advantage of the new pension flexibilities and access the offer of free guidance. The Government have recently consulted on the delivery framework for the guidance, to ensure that it is designed to give consumers the support they need to make informed choices in the way they choose to access it.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

How will the Government ensure absolutely that retirees who cash in their annuities are not exploited by private sector financial vultures in the guise of advisers?

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We already hear anecdotal examples of people getting cold-calls that say, “This is your Government guidance offer.” We want to make it clear that that is not based on Government guidance, because that has not started yet. We are trying to make sure that instead of people making retirement choices with no information or advice, which often happens, they will have a right to go to a reputable provider and get information and guidance from someone who does not have a commercial interest in selling them something.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

Legislation on compensation for mesothelioma sufferers went through the House last week, and I was pleased to see the Bill receive its Third Reading. As I said at the time, it is not perfect but it will help as a fund of last resort for those who have had nothing from the system because they could not trace their employers or insurers. I hope that Her Majesty will grant it Royal Assent at the earliest opportunity.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

T4. The Government’s auto-enrolment pension scheme will provide relatively poor and insecure returns, based as it is on the private pensions industry and subject to stock market vagaries. Is not the only long-term solution a comprehensive and compulsory state scheme for all, with defined and guaranteed returns, in line with schemes overseas?

[Steve Webb]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his consistency on the issue. His view is that he wants his income in retirement to be wholly dependent on a promise that future taxpayers would fund it. I must say that I would prefer to spread my risks by having a decent, simple state pension, such as the single-tier pension that we are introducing, and a stock market-linked investment that will benefit in the long run as the economy grows and, crucially, will benefit from a contribution from the employer, too, which is not the case in the state scheme.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Friday 22nd March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate. My speech will relate largely to my constituency and my city, but overall the Budget will increase inequality in this country, rather than reduce it. It also contains many inconsistencies, such as spending on a carbon capture scheme while at the same time reducing restrictions on emissions and environmental costs in other industries. We need to be careful about that. If we are serious about protecting the environment, it needs to be an international initiative rather than what I suspect the Chancellor is trying to do, which is to reduce restrictions and conditions in this country, as he is doing with corporation tax. That will lead to a race to the bottom with very damaging consequences for our social infrastructure.

According to the latest unemployment count, 3,700 people in my constituency are on jobseeker’s allowance, 1,000 of whom have been on it for more than a year. Nearly 1,000 young people are also looking for work. At the same time there are enormous problems of inequality throughout London and, indeed, society. If Members look at the tax tables helpfully produced by a number of newspapers, they will see that there is no benefit whatsoever in this Budget or the planned tax changes over the next three years for most people on below average, average or even above-average incomes, and that those who earn more than £500,000 a year will gain at least £2,000 a month in most cases, while some will gain considerably more depending on their own personal circumstances.

There is no question but that this Budget will lead to greater inequality in our society, not less. At the bottom end, a lot of people are trying to survive on frozen or reduced wages in part-time work or on zero-hours contracts. At the other end of the scale, those on very high salaries or with large levels of unearned income will do extremely well out of the Budget and they are able to place their money somewhere where they pay much less tax on the savings that they manage to muster. We have to do better than that. I look to a future Labour Government to commit themselves to the principle of reducing inequality in our society, partly through taxation and partly through investment and expenditure that will help the poorest people through social spending.

My main concern—I think this is true of all other London Members—is the housing problems and the housing crisis in London. My borough of Islington is one of the smaller London boroughs, but it has at least 13,000 families on the priority needs list. The council, to its absolute credit, is doing a great deal to build new council housing, which is of high quality, innovative, energy efficient and imaginatively designed, often in restricted and small spaces. However, it is nowhere near meeting the demands and needs of large numbers of people in priority need. Therefore, my borough, like every other borough, puts people into the private sector, where rents are not restricted. The benefit cap will make it impossible for tenants to pay those rents and they will be asked to make a contribution themselves.

A local authority report notes that a large number of our schoolchildren—1,000 of them—are affected by the benefit cap and that, in the worst-case scenarios, some families are being asked to find £200 a week to contribute to their private sector rent. If they are on benefits, it is obviously impossible for them to find that money—it is £10,000 a year. The only way they can be accommodated is to move them out of the borough. Those in my borough are always offered a place in Greater London. Nevertheless, that means disruption for children in schools, and the break-up of family and community networks, which is damaging and corrosive to the whole of our society.

Other boroughs far less concerned about human needs than Islington dump people outside London. A good friend of mine who lives in north Kent tells me of the misery and poverty of large numbers of people who have been dumped in seaside towns such as Margate, in very poor quality, private rented accommodation, far away from their communities, and with obvious damaging effects to children and families as a whole.

How do we deal with the housing crisis in London? One way not to deal with it is what the Chancellor suggested this week: a charter for those with great money and resources to be subsidised into yet more purchasing of private sector homes. It is yet another escalator on the house price index, using housing as a form of investment and return on capital, rather than meeting the social needs of people in constituencies such as mine. I ask the Government to think seriously about how the housing benefit cap is being introduced and operated, and about how it acts as an agent for the social cleansing of poor and vulnerable people throughout central London to the London suburbs and further afield. It will not be long before the same process starts to happen in every other constituency in the country. This will not start and end in London; the whole process will go elsewhere.

The Government say, quite rightly, that the housing benefit bill is too big: I agree. The previous Government said it was too big: I agree. Why is it too big? Is it because council rents are so high? No, it is because of the high level of private rents in this country, and the lack of any control or real conditions on the private rented sector. We need legislation to control rents and ensure a fair rent strategy, security of tenure and decent housing for people who desperately need it.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I agree with everything my hon. Friend is saying, but does he agree that a significant proportion of the private rented sector should be municipalised so that it can be improved and proper rents charged?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My hon. Friend is right. We need controls on the private rented sector and on the levels of rent charged, but to deal with this housing crisis—and it is a crisis—we must empower local authorities to take over private rented accommodation that is badly run or ludicrously expensive, and also give them enhanced powers to take over the large numbers of empty properties that are part of land banking throughout London. We have the insulting aspect of people in desperate need living in overcrowded accommodation while nearby properties are often deliberately kept vacant by wealthy, often foreign, investors, who see it as land banking for some speculative gain in the future. What is going on is simply wrong. Housing must be a priority and a right for everyone. If every child had somewhere decent, safe and secure to live, that would be a real legacy, not this gift to those who wish to make a great deal of money out of housing speculation, which is what the Budget offers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I watched the Chancellor carefully during his speech and he looked to be a very worried man, as if his whole political life was flashing before him because it was not going to last much longer. He was particularly worried when he had to say that the Budget was “fiscally neutral”, when what we need is an expansion for growth and employment.

Labour Front Benchers kindly describe our current situation as the economy “flatlining”. Actually, we are in an ongoing recession. Some 2.5 million people are unemployed. I am considerably older than everybody else in the Chamber and remember the days of full employment. In my youth, unemployment of 2.5 million would have been seen as a catastrophe. At times, unemployment fell to a tenth of its present level. Let us not be too kind to the Government. The economy is not flatlining; we are in an ongoing recession.

We must focus on the continuing economic illiteracy of the Treasury. Its consistent mistakes over decades have put us in this situation. Two years ago, I made a speech in this Chamber in which I referred to the view of Paul Krugman, among others, that the Government were going in precisely the wrong direction. I agreed with him then and I keep repeating that because in politics, one has to repeat things to ensure that they register.

It is instructive to look at the history. There was a similar situation in the 1920s. After the first world war there was big government debt, and the Government introduced what became known as the Geddes axe—pubic expenditure cuts—which drove up unemployment and poverty, and resulted in low growth. At the end of the 1920s—surprise, surprise—deficits were bigger, not smaller. In the 1930s, we had a period, similar to now, when the Conservatives and their friends were in charge. In Prime Minister’s questions, I asked the Prime Minister whether he wanted to be remembered as the President Hoover of our times, whose draconian cuts drove the world, not just America, into the great depression. He made a sarcastic reply—I suppose that was understandable; I was being slightly humorous with him—that I understood later to be a reference to Benny Hill. I would rather refer to John Maynard Keynes and to Paul Krugman, but obviously the Prime Minister is more inspired by the wisdom of Benny Hill.

By contrast, in 1945, government debt was three times what we have now, but we had a sensible Labour Government who ran a full-employment economy. The debt at that time fell dramatically because we had full employment. I have to give credit to the Conservatives, because in the 1950s they carried on with the same sorts of policies. In the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, we saw full employment most of the time. We had the occasional hiccup, but essentially it was a full-employment era. We saw living standards rise and poverty fall, and a much better world than we had ever had before. Indeed, the world was being run so well, I thought we should carry on like that. Instead, somebody reinvented the 19th century, and went back to the kind of neo-liberal policies that were pursued at that time.

Extraordinarily, at that time of full employment, Labour and Conservative Governments competed to build hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of council houses. That all seems to have disappeared now, but it was a very fine and productive competition.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the impact of a house building programme on growth and jobs?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

A house building programme is exactly what we need. We do not want to increase demand for houses, but supply. If we increase demand without supply, we get house price inflation.

[Michael Ellis]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, under 13 years of the Labour Government, less social housing was built than at any time since the early 1920s? We are now having to catch up.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Throughout that time I was a member of a group called Defend Council Housing, and time and again I urged my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, as indeed did a number of my hon. Friends, to build more council houses, so in a sense I accept that point.

We have seen the policy on the deficit not working—indeed, it will get worse—but we have seen only about a quarter of the promised cuts so far. What will happen in the next three, four or five years—let us say two years, because the Conservatives will only last that long—will make matters worse. The forecasts for the deficit have been out by many billions. The deficit will be £120 billion in each of the next three years, give or take the odd billion. That compares almost exactly with the tax gap, calculated by Richard Murphy, of £120 billion a year. I am not suggesting that we could overcome the tax gap in one year, but we should start to make the billionaires and fat cats pay their taxes properly. We could make a real dent in the deficit and have money to spend to generate the economy.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the question of tax avoidance and places such as the Channel Islands and other British overseas territories? Is he convinced that what the Chancellor has said will mean that those places will be properly taxed, or will they continue to be places where the wealthy can get away with not paying tax?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I remain to be convinced that the Government are serious about dealing with tax avoidance and evasion. We have a revenue problem, not an expenditure problem. We are failing to collect taxes, and what are the Government doing? Successive Governments have cut the number of staff at HMRC. We should be increasing their number, because every additional tax collector collects many times their own salary. We should increase staffing levels at HMRC and start to collect those taxes. That would make a real difference.

The superficial analogy with personal household incomes has been drawn time and again—“You can’t spend what you don’t earn” and all that. If a person’s or family’s expenditure is greater than their income, we get the Micawber effect, because people finish up in penury, but Governments and economies are not like that. One person’s spending becomes another person’s income, and so on, and we get this circular flow of income, which generates jobs, wealth and tax revenues. Economies do not work like family incomes, as Keynes explained many times in very simple terms. I used to try and explain it to my students as well. Economies are not like households, so I hope that we can dismiss this simplistic analogy with personal incomes.

We have to invest, to start building again and to reflate the economy. We will do that by driving up employment in labour intensive areas, and the most labour intensive sectors are those such as construction and public services. We get much more bang for our buck from investing in those areas than from cutting taxes. The money saved by doing the latter leaks away to the better-off and frequently into tax havens, which brings no benefit to the economy, whereas direct spending on building more houses, for example, has beneficial and rapid effects on the economy. The other great advantage of construction and public services is that they have a low import content, which means that we do not get leakages into imports—not in the first round at least. It is a very sensible way of trying to regenerate the economy.

We also need the right parity for our currency. Successive Governments have been obsessed with keeping the pound “strong”, as they call it—in other words, overvalued—which means that we become uncompetitive. The strongest evidence that we are uncompetitive is our a £1 billion-a-week deficit with the rest of the EU. We should use our advantage in having our own currency to find an appropriate—in other words, lower—parity for sterling, so that we can regain our competitive advantage.

There is much more I wish to say, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I fear I have had my time. Thank you.

Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is not often that, when I rise to oppose a Government Bill, as I do again on this occasion—for the avoidance of doubt, I will be going through the No Lobby—I follow six hon. Members in succession with whom I agree. Perhaps that is an indication that no Government Back Bencher is prepared to stand on their convictions and argue the point. Therefore, this is quite a rare occasion.

I am proud to represent the Easington constituency. This is a matter of social justice for me and I have a number of concerns about the Bill. The issue of retrospection is an important and fundamental one. I suspect that the Government are opening a Pandora’s box here. In the debates on last year's Finance Bill, I heard the same Minister warning of the dangers of retrospective measures to deal with tax avoidance and loopholes, so using this route will have consequences. If he was so confident about the quality and strength of his argument, why did he not challenge the decision in the Supreme Court, rather than using primary legislation? Perhaps he might answer that question in his response.

It is not just an issue of retrospection—the Government's arguments are wrong. They are trying to justify this measure, but they have made the mistake. It is an issue of wording. Nevertheless, the Government have made the mistake and they are seeking to sell their argument to hon. Members on both sides of the House by saying that, if the funds are not recovered from those who were incorrectly sanctioned, they will have to be recovered from elsewhere in the welfare budget. That is outrageous blackmail; I am sorry if that is not parliamentary language, but I find that deeply offensive. It goes against every grain of fairness in Members on both sides of the House. The view I am expressing is the view that has been unanimously expressed to me. I have received numerous e-mails and messages from my constituents over the past 48 hours, all of them asking me to vote against this Bill as it is unfair and unjust.

The Government, and especially Government Back Benchers, have characterised jobseekers who have been sanctioned as workshy and feckless—the sentiment expressed was “Are you really suggesting these people shouldn’t be sanctioned?” Let us have a look at the Work programme, however. It has gone from chaos to farce. We talk about “workshy”, but what about wage-shy employers who exploit the unemployed, with the connivance, approval and funding of the Government?

Many commentators have severely criticised the Work programme as not representing value for money, and so, too, I believe, has the Public Accounts Committee—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong about that. Indeed, it has been suggested that the programme is worse than doing nothing, and I am certainly aware that major retailers have exploited free labour from the Work programme to meet seasonal demand, rather than, as would otherwise have happened, employing temporary staff or, even, giving existing employees additional hours. The programme has therefore had the perverse effect of blocking real jobs, and I agree with other Opposition Members who feel it should be subjected to a root-and-branch review.

What we have is a £3-million black hole, and it seems to me that the only people profiting from it are the privately contracted organisations—some of whom were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell—who have done well out of the programme. I am therefore surprised that one of the Government’s principal arguments here is about the protection of the national economy, when they are seeking to introduce primary legislation to rewrite history and withhold social security payments that were denied because of unlawful sanctions. We must not beat about the bush. The judgment is clear and specific; my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) read it out in her passionate and excellent speech. The Government are at fault here, in how they have implemented things.

I oppose the concept of two nations, as does my party, but what will the consequences of these measures be? The Government are creating two nations. They are seeking to penalise and punish the poor for the mistakes of the rich and powerful, in part of a continuing series of policies that are badged as “austerity”. Those policies are pushing the poorest in society further into poverty.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) said, one of the most galling things is that Ministers have shown absolutely no contrition or understanding of the consequences of their actions. That might be because they do not understand the consequences, because they do not live in the real world where they would rub shoulders with some of the poorest people in society who are suffering hardship. People in my constituency in east Durham ask me, “Why are we suffering for the consequences of this crisis? Was it created in Horden, Shotton, Haswell, Blackhall or even Murton?” No, of course not; the crisis was caused by the mistakes of the banking sector and City speculators. I raise that point not only because I despise the casino bankers for the state they have reduced the economy to, but because there is another avenue that Ministers could pursue to recover the £130 million, which I will return to shortly. In fact, we touched on this issue last year in the Finance Bill Committee. Why on earth do the Government not legislate for a general principle of tax avoidance? Instead of robbing people who have been inappropriately sanctioned, the Government should consider the huge reservoir of unpaid tax that individuals could well afford to contribute to. To my mind, there was a failure by Governments.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and a very good point about where money could be found. He mentioned the tax gap, which, according to Richard Murphy and others, is some £120 billion a year. We are talking today about £130 million, which is roughly one thousandth of that amount.

[Grahame M. Morris]

My hon. Friend, who is very knowledgeable and has a background as an economist, has hit the nail on the head. The general public, my constituents and many Opposition Members do not understand why the Government do not address this problem. There is a relatively straightforward way to do so: by legislating for a general principle of tax avoidance. The Government are quite happy to use primary legislation retrospectively to deprive people who have been illegally sanctioned of £130 million, but they will not use the same route to recover moneys properly due to the Exchequer.

There is a contradiction here. Although the Government have been highly critical of what has happened, they continue to push the case for further deregulation. Just yesterday, in a Delegated Legislation Committee the statutory period of notice for compulsory redundancies for employers employing more than 100 people was reduced from 90 days to 45. This Government are still very much pursuing the Beecroft agenda.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

On the sort of legacy schemes that my hon. Friend refers to, I am pleased to announce that, only today, another provider—Fidelity—has said that fees in its default funds will not exceed 1% and that existing scheme members will have the opportunity to switch out of their current funds. That follows Aviva’s statements that its schemes will have a charge of not more than 1%. It will not allow auto-enrolment into any older-style schemes. I encourage other firms to follow suit.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Auto-enrolment schemes will still be subject to stock market vagaries, the effects of varying interest rates and inefficiencies of scale. Is not what we really need a 100% state system, where we get defined benefits, as well as defined contributions, and efficiencies of scale and best possible value?

[Steve Webb]

Two sorts of risk are associated with pensions: financial risk and political risk. We have had SERPs—the state earnings-related pension scheme—which successive Governments cut and cut again. So that scheme did not provide any guarantee either. I want a balance of risks for people, a state promise and a private sector entitlement as well.

Remploy

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Lloyd]

What is so hilarious is that I have been doing that for a long time. That point was being made years ago, when the previous Government were in charge. Yes, there is a grain of truth in it—of course there is. Remploy is top-heavy and sclerotic, but that is ancient history. I remember exactly the same argument when Labour was in charge. There is an issue and I will come to it later. We need to be smarter in the way we use Remploy, but that particular tack is so ancient, that if it was on the floor it would curl over and die.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Another point that has not been made so far is that disabled people and disabled workers are not a homogeneous group, and disabilities vary enormously. One can see people with mild disabilities in open employment, and they may not require much subsidy, but those with more serious disabilities need protected workshops, such as those at Remploy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Lloyd]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I disagree. We are in a different place from where we were a few years ago. Things will be challenging, and I wish the heck we were not in the economic mess we are in. However, I know from experience that people with certain disabilities would never have been employed 10 years ago, yet some of them are being employed now. None the less, I appreciate that things are challenging.

The reality is that, whether we like it or not, the global economy has restricted the market for Remploy factories, as the National Audit Office identified as early as 2005. As I said, Remploy’s overall corporate business model makes it impossible to generate a workable profit even from the parts of the business that are viable. I therefore accept that Remploy’s model is sclerotic, and it needs to be changed if Remploy is to have any success in the future. I will move on, because a lot of people want to speak.

We must be flexible. The economic climate dictates that, but it is also the right way for disabled people. We all know that we are living in incredibly difficult times, which is why it is even more important that disabled people receive individualised support to get jobs and stay in work. Access to Work is a shining example. Today, every Access to Work recipient brings in, on average, £1.48 for every £1 spent—a real success story.

We can take the steps necessary to prevent upwards of 300,000 people from losing their jobs each year for reasons of disability. Many could keep their employment if they got the right support and if Access to Work were promoted to them better via employers and health professionals.

Making Access to Work available to people taking up internships, apprenticeships and work experience could help to address the scandalously low employment rates among young disabled people, who are twice as likely as non-disabled young people to be not in education, employment or training. At present, they cannot even get their first chance of work, because Access to Work does not cover internships, work experience and apprenticeships. I am convinced they must be given that opportunity.

The reality is that there are many things we can still do, even in hard times, to increase equality. I would go so far as to say that it is even more important in difficult times to push, promote and advocate the case for disability equality. Let me take this opportunity to ask the Minister directly—no, we did not agree this beforehand, believe you me—whether the Government will commit to a clear action plan to improve and promote Access to Work in line with the recommendations of the Sayce review.

The second issue is whether disabled people should be supported in open employment—this is important—or whether there is a place for sheltered employment. Having disabled people living, studying and working alongside non-disabled people is vital to achieving a more cohesive society. Therefore, it concerns me that this might be a debate over whether we should have sheltered or open employment, when it is more than that: it is about equality of access, as well as equality of opportunity; it is about giving more disabled people the tools and the power to run their own lives. For sure, there was a place for sheltered employment after world war two, when disabled people were routinely segregated, and sheltered employment was one of the few means for disabled people to earn an income, but that was almost 70 years ago.

It is worth bearing in mind the goal of Remploy’s founder, the extraordinary George Tomlinson MP.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about when Remploy was first established in the 1940s. During the war, everybody was employed, and there was also full employment for a period after the war. If Remploy was necessary then, it is surely even more necessary when we have high unemployment, as we have now.

[Stephen Lloyd]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. George Tomlinson’s goal was to help disabled people to secure open employment and to lead full lives, and the Remploy factories existed as a short-term solution for rehabilitation and learning new skills. Tomlinson never intended them to be places where disabled people stayed for long. As Andrew Lee, chief executive of People First, who happens to have a learning disability, has said:

“People with learning difficulties want the chance to have the same job opportunities as everyone else. Organisations such as Remploy that segregate disabled people will not provide the opportunities to work that disabled people want for the 21st Century.”

Surely, therefore, in this modern world, there is something wrong—we are back to Remploy—when workers are mostly disabled, but managers are mostly non-disabled. Many disabled people successfully run their own businesses, employing disabled and non-disabled people, so can it be right that we support in 2011—solidify, even—such an old-fashioned, paternalist attitude towards people with disabilities?

Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The reality is that most occupational schemes are disappearing, private pension schemes are often not good value and are subject to stock-market vagaries, and millions of people will not be in any kind of pension scheme in the future. Is not the real long-term solution a compulsory state earnings-related pension scheme for everyone?

[Steve Webb]

We believe that both the state and the private sector have an important part to play. We have published Green Paper proposals for state pension reform that would provide a firmer foundation, perhaps of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. We also believe that many people could be in decent-quality workplace provision with an employer contribution and that is why we will begin auto-enrolment as planned next year.