Work Capability Reassessments

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for contributing that example. We must look at such situations carefully.

The process of reviewing the new descriptors is finally under way—although I suspect that we will return to it in due course—so I will concentrate on appeals and the time between assessment and reassessment. One of the most common stories that I hear from constituents is that they are found fit for work, wait several months for an appeal, get ESA and are then called back for a further assessment, sometimes just weeks and often only two or three months later. That is one of the most visible flaws in how the system works.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that not only is the waste of money enormous, given that so many are granted benefit on appeal, but that given all the cuts to citizens advice bureaux, it is difficult for people to get the right support going into a frightening tribunal situation?

[Sheila Gilmore]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. There is evidence that people who are represented are more likely to be successful than those who are unable to get representation.

That is the context for the issue of reassessment: the high volume of appeals means that people must wait long periods for a hearing and a decision. In answer to a written question last month, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) said:

“During the period 1 April to 30 June 2012 (the latest period for which data has been published) the average time taken from receipt of an ESA appeal by the SSCS Tribunal to disposal was 19 weeks”.—[Official Report, 19 November 2012; Vol. 553, c. 307W.]

However, that 19 weeks is not the average waiting time for an individual making an appeal but merely the average time it takes the Tribunals Service to process the appeal after it receives the papers. Before it even receives the papers, an appeal must be lodged with the DWP, the relevant decision maker has to perform a series of checks and the Department must prepare and submit its response.

There is no time limit for DWP to prepare its response to an appeal. In a written answer to a question from me in February this year, the then Justice Minister, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), indicated that between June 2010 and May 2011, the average time it took from the submission of an appeal to DWP to receipt of the papers by the Tribunals Service was 8.1 weeks. If we add that to the average of 19 weeks, we are looking at about 27 weeks. Over and above that, individuals will have submitted an application and undergone an assessment. In 2011, they had to wait seven weeks for the result of that assessment, although I know from talking to my colleagues that many people encounter much longer waits.

What does all that mean in practice? I raised an example during Prime Minister’s questions on 2 March last year. A constituent of mine had a young adult son who was severely autistic but had been found fit for work, and who appealed successfully. The process took 10 months, and he was told that he would have to be reassessed in six months. I do not think that the Prime Minister understood the question that I was asking; he gave me an answer about disability living allowance rather than employment and support allowance.

Before the Minister says, “That was then; that was 2011, and we have made so many improvements that it isn’t happening any more,” only two weeks ago, I visited a constituent whom I had not met before who told me a similar story of having applied, being refused and appealing, and who within a relatively short time had to go through another assessment.

Ford UK (Duty of Care to Visteon Pensioners)

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Caton.

We need to remember the utter devastation that the goings-on at Ford and Visteon visited on some of our constituents. Having worked all their life and put by their money, they do not expect to be treated in such a way that their pension is 50% down on what they had hoped. In the days when workers could choose which factory to work in, some might have chosen Ford specifically because it was a reputable company, with a decent salary and a decent pension contribution scheme, only to be told a few years later that the figures did not add up and that they were not going to get what they thought.

Workers were told that they had no option but to transfer their pension. They were told that it was not legally possible for Visteon UK employees to remain in the Ford pension scheme post-spin-off. They either had their pension frozen until they were 65 or they transferred it, being told that it would continue to grow as per the existing terms and conditions. There has therefore been a terrible betrayal. Again and again in the documentation, we read sentences such as:

“Your accrued pension rights will be protected”.

Workers were told by Ford that their “pension benefits are guaranteed”. That was also stated in an e-mail, in which the answers had been approved by the director of personnel for Ford Britain. A letter dated August 2000 from Brian Smith, the human resources manager, clearly stated:

“For employees transferred to Visteon from Ford on 1 May 2000, the new Visteon Scheme will provide exactly the same benefits as the Ford Fund, now and in the future”.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Is the hon. Lady aware of a question-and-answer document circulated particularly to employees in the Swansea plant? It included the question:

“If I stay with Visteon will my pension be secure?”

The answer was:

“Visteon has committed to mirror the terms and conditions of Ford. This means that…your pension”

will “be secure”. Is that not a case of deliberate misinformation or, even worse, deception?

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed. We often hear the word “mis-selling” used in relation to financial products, but that is far too kind a word, which suggests some kind of mistake. I call it a complete rip-off, a complete betrayal and an absolute disgrace in relation to what people were told and what the reality turned out to be. Clearly, somebody knew what was going on.

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

Is the hon. Lady saying—if she is, I agree—that the people in Ford knew that the Visteon pension scheme was not as soundly based as the Ford one? Does she think that the main board in the United States is aware of this history in detail?

[Nia Griffith]

I am coming to that point. In fact, it was the Ford actuarial team that decided the amount of the transfer. The initial £49 million deficit in Visteon’s pension funding was clearly determined by Ford.

Can anyone imagine that there were not already thoughts, in some big boardroom in Ford, about how it could get rid of its liabilities—that nobody had in mind the thought that its biggest problem was the pension deficit and how to fund it for the future, and wondered what it could do to get rid of that? Can anyone tell me that they really believe that Ford had not already thought of hiving off the bits in the supply chain for which it could get cheaper prices, thinking that it could use its 90% purchasing power over Visteon UK to force down prices, before it embarked on the separation plan? It seems clear to me that Ford was determined to drive down prices even further than what it had agreed in the separation plan.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there was a very determined plan from the beginning. To me, it seems that there was a cunning plan: Ford wanted to maximise profits and to drive down costs on the backs of the workers in Visteon UK plants. Once it had managed to hive off certain sectors and to form Visteon, we heard that Ford was starting to drive down prices to ones that were significantly lower than those in the original separation agreement.

We also found that Ford tried to source components elsewhere. There were the dreaded confidentiality agreements: “Don’t tell Visteon that you’re making the bits that we get from them now, and that you’ll stockpile them so that we have them ready for when we get rid of Visteon altogether.” Do not tell me that somebody was not already thinking about that right back before 2000. If we look at the whole thing from beginning to end, there was a distinct plan of maximising profits for Ford and trying to get rid of the parts of the company providing components that it could find more cheaply elsewhere.

For Ford to do that on the backs of workers who worked loyally for it for 20 or 30 years is absolutely despicable and totally morally reprehensible. I fully concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who said that people have to make ethical choices about from whom they buy products. People need to know how Ford has treated the Visteon workers.

[Geraint Davies]

People should also know that the lot of Visteon workers in the UK is far worse than those in Germany or the United States. That suggests that there has been a carefully choreographed judgment about where Ford can get away with ripping off workers. The view was that it could do it in the UK—covertly lining up alternative suppliers, and telling them not to tell Visteon that that was done to knock Visteon out—and the whole thing really stinks.

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. With Visteon workers elsewhere not being treated in the same way, we must question what went on. It seems to me that there was a massive cover-up and a real attempt to drive down prices in a way that, as I have said, was completely morally reprehensible.

Universal Credit and Welfare Reform

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The money is being cut by 10%, so councils must somehow come up with a scheme that will save 10% and will be introduced on a local basis. It will be chaotic. Many councils are saying that they will not be able to do it in time, and it will certainly mean that there will be no national taper that everyone can understand.

However, that is just the start of the problems. The project is not on schedule, despite what the Secretary of State said earlier. According to paragraph 21 on page 37 of his White Paper of November 2010, between October 2013 and April 2014

“All new claims for out-of-work support are treated as claims to Universal Credit. No new Jobseeker’s Allowance, Employment and Support Allowance, Income Support and Housing Benefit claims will be accepted.”

I believe that that is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) was told. It is absolutely clear, but it is no longer true. A newsletter appeared on the Department for Work and Pensions website over the summer announcing that, in fact, that timetable will apply in only one Jobcentre Plus district per region. In all the other districts, the change will take place some time after October 2013 and by summer 2014. The timetable has slipped; it has been delayed from what was stated in the White Paper—I am delighted that the Secretary of State is back in his place. On the budget, to the end of the last financial year the project was due to spend £400 million. In fact, it spent £500 million. So it is already over budget, too.

I welcome what the Secretary of State said about online claims: he told us that the Department expects that at the beginning only about half of claims will be submitted online. That is a very significant change from what has been said until now in respect of the digital-by-default proposal. It would be helpful to know what will happen to the 50% who do not apply online. How will things work for them? When people have problems, who is going to help them? As my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) rightly pointed out, the introduction of universal credit will coincide with a drastic reduction in the availability of advice, just when people are supposed to be grappling with these new processes.

What about people’s documents? At the moment, people applying for housing benefit present their documents to the local authority. Where will they present them in future? Will people start turning up at jobcentres with their documents or will they be expected to post them somewhere—or will we no longer have the fraud checks that are currently built into the system?

This is supposed to be all about work incentives, but large numbers of people will find that their work incentives are worse. The Government apparently plan a simple income cut-off for free school meals. If people earn less than X, their children will be entitled to free school meals, but if they earn more than X, they will not. That is a disastrous new cliff edge—far worse than anything in the current system. It means that someone with three children who earns less than X will suddenly have to start paying out over £3,000 in school meal charges per year if their income increases above X by just a pound or two. That is a massive disincentive to people to increase their income.

We have been asking how Ministers are going to tackle this issue since March last year. We asked the Secretary of State when he would make up his mind when he gave evidence to the Welfare Reform Bill Committee. He said that

“during the Committee stage we should be in a much stronger position to make it much clearer how we will do that.”––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 24 March 2011; c. 155, Q299.]

Some 18 months have now passed, and today the Secretary of State told us he is talking to various people about it. All this is supposed to be in place within 12 months from now and Ministers still cannot tell us what they will do, but it does appear that that very damaging feature will be part of the system.

I have asked about the publication of the business case. I believe that Ministers will not publish it because it projects that there will be no increase at all in the total number of hours worked as a result of the introduction of universal credit. In other words, the whole basis on which this project is being taken forward is flawed. That is partly because of the situation for second earners, which has been mentioned. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) asked the Secretary of State what would happen to hours worked. He did not answer, and I think I have just explained the reason why. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) pointed out, second earners in a couple face sharply worse work incentives than in the current system. We are going back to an outdated male breadwinner model, where the second person in the couple is not expected to work.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) pointed out, incentives for self-employment are terrible, too. Tax credits have encouraged self-employment, but, under universal credit, the DWP will assume after the first year that people are earning at least the minimum wage for every single hour they are working in self-employment.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the Federation of Small Businesses is saying that this will be a disincentive to people to get up off their backsides and start their own businesses and get going? That suggests that something is fundamentally wrong.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is because of the design that has been chosen. In July, the chair of the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group called for a rethink. He said:

“In many cases the income of self-employed earners will fall sharply making it, in some cases, uneconomic for them to continue to work.”

That is the opposite of what everybody in this debate has said universal credit is supposed to do, but that appears to be where we are heading. It is, I am afraid, a mess.

As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, a great deal of care was taken over the design of tax credits to ensure that mothers receive cash support for their children. All those safeguards are deliberately being removed from universal credit, which will cause serious problems.

I very much welcome what the Secretary of State said yesterday about refuges. As we know, Refuge has been saying that it will have to shut all its domestic violence shelters. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) was able to secure a pledge from the new Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), that he will lobby DWP Ministers on that point, but how are the costs of other kinds of supported housing to be met? The Government concluded a consultation on that in October last year. Another year has passed, and nothing definite has been announced, and in one more year this is all supposed to be up and running.

As has been said, we do not know anything about how in-work conditionality will operate. I have not even mentioned Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ real-time information system for pay-as-you-earn. That is supposed to start from next April. Every company in the land is due to start reporting PAYE to HMRC not, as now, once a year after the end of the financial year, but every single month. The Government say it will all happen automatically through everybody’s computerised payroll systems, but what about small firms that do not have a computerised system? The Low Incomes Tax Reform Group says:

“Businesses will have to draw up two sets of accounts—one for HMRC, the other for DWP—and the latter will have to be done monthly, thereby massively increasing bureaucratic burdens.”

This is a mess. It has not been properly worked through. Key decisions have not yet been made. It is no wonder the Treasury and No. 10 are so worried. The House should be too, and should support our motion.

Employment Support

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is right. In this day and age, we need to recognise that disabled people want to live independent lives. We are committed to that as a Government. To do that, we need to help more disabled people into work and we are more likely to achieve that if we can ensure that that money is used most effectively. The proposals that we are discussing will help an extra 8,000 disabled people into work.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

As the Under-Secretary knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) has been very successful in getting public bodies locally to buy furniture from the Swansea Remploy factory. Now that that factory’s order books are full, will she look again at its potential to be cost effective and drop her plans to close it?

Work Capability Assessments

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Tom Greatrex]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is no good having someone go to an assessment if the fact that they can sit in a chair or pick up a box and move it once from one part of a room to another means that they are considered able to carry out a task that they may be asked to do repeatedly or continuously in a potential job. That point has been made by a number of organisations that have contacted me about the work capability assessment in the past few days.

I will put to the Minister a few more questions, to which I hope he will respond. They arise from concerns that have been raised by individuals who have contacted me to pass on their experiences of the work capability assessment. Can the Minister confirm whether Atos approved health care professionals are bound by the Official Secrets Act? If they are not, can he confirm whether there are any legally binding conditions, aside from the normal patient confidentiality rules, that prevent Atos approved health care professionals from discussing their experience of the work capability assessment?

As the first Harrington review pointed out, audio recording of the work capability assessment could drive up the quality of assessments by improving assessor and claimant behaviour. Late last year, the Minister advised that he was considering the outcome of the trial in Newcastle of the audio recording of assessments. Will he update the House on when he expects to reach a conclusion on that and whether he will publish the outcome of the trial to ensure full transparency on the issue? He will be aware of the freedom of information request submitted to his Department. Given that many other organisations routinely record their conversations with members of the public to ensure that they are meeting the necessary standards—those organisations range from banks to train companies; I think that even the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority does it—it should be considered. We need to move on from the trial as quickly as possible. Will the Minister update us on the outcome of the trial?

Individuals who undergo the work capability assessment complete a quality survey to rate the performance of Atos. The survey takes place after the assessment has been completed, but before the claimant is made aware of its findings, which is rather like asking someone for a product evaluation as they leave the shop, before they have had a chance to use the product.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unacceptable that people have to travel 20 miles from the sizeable town of Llanelli to Carmarthen, a local town, where they then find themselves in a lift that does not reach the correct floor, and has a step that leads to a floor without adequate fire escape facilities? Will he ask the Minister what inspections are made of the premises used by Atos with regard to their accessibility for the vulnerable people who have to use them?

[Tom Greatrex]

My hon. Friend makes an important and pertinent point that I hope the Minister will address. It is a real concern if some of the facilities used by people undertaking a work capability assessment are in such a state.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. I do not think that anyone would doubt that there is pressure on advice services. Organisations for individual conditions, such as Parkinson’s UK or the Multiple Sclerosis Society in my area, will talk about their concern that, although they can help so many people, there are others they cannot reach. I know from my case work that more people are coming to me to raise their concerns. They want to be put in touch with advocacy services to help them with appeals; my office cannot take on the job of representing people at every appeal, on account of the numbers involved.

[Nia Griffith]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the evidence we have heard today, and our own experiences, the DWP should seriously consider what to do about people with long medical histories of degenerative disease who are continually called in? It seems a complete waste of taxpayers’ money and it is a disgrace that we do that to those people. Will my hon. Friend suggest to the Minister that we might consider some way to exempt such people?

[Cathy Jamieson]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case, and I am sure that the Minister is listening. On the point about people with long-term degenerative conditions, another constituent called at my office in great distress, when I happened to be there. The lady could hardly open the door to come in without assistance. She was extremely upset having just had a phone call to tell her she was deemed fit for work. She told me that she had had MS for 20 years. She has poor eyesight, mobility and memory. I was so concerned about her plight that I immediately contacted her GP, who assisted with taking up her case. He subsequently wrote:

“I have today issued Mrs E with a Med 3 for 13 weeks stating she is not fit for work (as she is patently NOT”—

he underlines that—

“fit for work). Like her I have not received any written communication stating that she is fit for work, as I would have expected. She should receive such written confirmation and the way to appeal clearly outlined in that letter. My role is twofold, firstly, to continue to issue a Med 3 (medical statement) and secondly to provide written information for her appeal Tribunal.”

He has done that. I do not think that we can overestimate the stress and worry that that incident has caused my constituent.

Remploy

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on forcefully making the case to the Backbench Business Committee to secure this debate. The debate has been extremely well attended, particularly by the Opposition, considering the many other distractions on a Thursday afternoon, including an important by-election.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) for his fantastic work with the Fforestfach factory. He brushes over it lightly, but the work of going out to get all the public procurement, simply from a meeting back in March and in just three months over the summer, to change the situation of having virtually nothing in the order books to having those books absolutely full and going out to big purchasers, such as the national health service and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, to ensure that there is work for that factory, shows what can be done.

I endorse the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), who said that there is no divide between the factories and other schemes to help people get into work, and we need both mechanisms. In theory, nothing stops a worker in a Remploy factory from finding a job elsewhere, but the reality is defined by the shocking unemployment figures—an increase was announced yesterday, and further increases are predicted in the new year. Many Remploy factories are situated in unemployment hot spots. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who was present earlier, 20 people are chasing every single vacancy, and I know that many hon. Members have similar situations in their constituencies.

Remploy workers find themselves competing with a whole range of people who have been made redundant from public sector jobs and private sector companies that rely on securing sales contracts, which have been drastically cut, with the public sector. Many in the private sector are not surviving the economic disasters that we are encountering at the moment. All those people are looking for jobs, and people from Remploy factories find themselves in a difficult position, particularly if a large number of them are made unemployed at the same time. I am not patronising Remploy workers, because the same would be true if any other factory in my constituency were to close. If a large number of people with similar skills enter the jobs market together, they will have many difficulties in finding employment.

The key is economic growth. We are currently looking for mechanisms to create more jobs in the private sector, but we have seen little in the way of strategy from this Government. We have not seen an upsurge in the private sector, which is not creating jobs in the way it was supposed to. There do not seem to be any Government strategies for doing so. Where we have Remploy factories, infrastructure, machinery, products and some markets, why are we throwing all that away? It is nonsense. Every individual factory needs to be looked at carefully, and strategies need to be developed for each factory to maximise its potential, so that its products can be marketed properly.

Marketing seems to be key. If the marketing strategy is put right, as seems to be the case in Wythenshawe, Aberdeen and Swansea West, the purchases will come in and the order books will fill up. If we can do that, we can make the factories as viable as possible, and we can help to create jobs. If we do not do that, the on-costs and health costs of people being unemployed will be enormous.

We would do a much better job if we made the factories as viable as possible, while keeping the Government support at a sensible pace. We cannot turn the factories around overnight, but we can make them more economically independent and viable over a period. We would always welcome a mix of workers with disabilities and workers who do not have disabilities. That would bring people together, and we would like to see that mix, which is already happening in many factories. We want viable places, and we want the products that are made to be sold.

That brings me on to public procurement. Assembly Members have a policy by which they purchase their furniture from Remploy factories. I have purchased furniture from Remploy factories for my office. We need much greater awareness. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) asked why it has not happened before. Well, it used to happen, when there was a greater coming together of public purchasing. For example, local authorities once purchased everything for their schools together, before they began to have local management of schools and began to buy their own things in different ways. We need to return to the same sort of consortium purchasing, where we look at what is available or to make what is available more obvious. I have learned, even in this afternoon’s debate, of some products I did not know Remploy was involved in producing. There is a lack of awareness, because an awful lot of people just do not know what can be purchased.

[Dame Anne Begg]

When my Select Committee visited the Neath Port Talbot factory, we discovered that it had had full order books, because it had won a contract for Building Schools for the Future, which was, of course, cancelled by this Government. It was beginning to struggle a bit.

[Nia Griffith]

Absolutely. Remploy factories, just as many other private firms, have suffered considerably in the cuts to the construction programmes and Building Schools for the Future, which have kept much of the private sector going when the construction sector has been in absolutely dire times since 2008. That is an important point.

We need to look at public procurement policies thoroughly. We must encourage every single sector in public procurement to look at the whole range of products available from Remploy and conduct specific marketing on that. I am absolutely convinced that we can make the factories more viable by doing so.

Currently, we need continued support and an individual assessment of each factory to ensure that everything is being done to make each factory the best and most viable business possible. We also need a determined public procurement policy to save our Remploy factories.

Unemployment

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Heald]

I think that this Government are making a serious, determined and honest effort to help people in very difficult times. The hon. Lady talks as though there is no eurozone crisis and the world is not experiencing the problems it is experiencing, but those problems are out there. This is a difficult time politically and economically, yet this Government are trying to help people.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in fact, the increase in unemployment in the eurozone has been much slower than the increase here?

[Oliver Heald]

The hon. Lady should talk to young people in Spain, where youth unemployment is very high—as much as 30%, I am told. The same is true in Italy. The fact is that youth unemployment is a European problem that must be tackled in the eurozone and right across the continent.

The Government are concentrating on a Work programme that, after 12 months, gives people individualised help to look at what skills and assistance they need to get them back into work, and that, for the first time, gives the disabled a chance of getting the help they need. That is a good thing. That programme and the youth contract, with its job subsidies and extra incentive payments, are not signs of an uncaring Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The latest unemployment figures are absolutely shocking: 133,000 in Wales alone; and, in some areas such as the Rhondda, 20 people are chasing every single job vacancy. As we look around our constituencies, we see people losing their jobs because of the Government’s savage cuts to public services, and because private firms that thrived on public procurement are seeing their order books empty. We see people losing jobs in the private sector because consumer confidence is low and demand is down, and we just need to look at our high streets and town centres to see shops closing, including those of big household names and local businesses.

If any programme to get people back into work, such as the Work programme, is going to be successful, and if people are going to have a chance of getting a job, the Government need to get their act together and get a growth strategy—now, before it is too late; now, before any more firms go bust; now, before any more shops on our high streets close; and now, before any more families suffer the scourge of unemployment.

But we see nothing from the Government that will stimulate consumer confidence or demand. On the contrary, we have seen this shameless coalition Government hike VAT up to 20%, despite the fact that just before the election, in April 2010, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems vigorously denied any intention of increasing it. Now, they are ignoring Labour’s calls to cut it.

The Federation of Small Businesses has described the Government’s abysmal attempts at a growth strategy as

“too timid and out of touch with the reality of the UK’s sluggish economy.”

Indeed, back in July the British Chambers of Commerce said that the Government’s deficit reduction plan was

“already dampening demand and adding significantly to the pressures facing businesses and individuals.”

It called on the Government to strengthen their efforts to stimulate growth. Did the Government listen then? No. Are they listening now? No.

We have not seen the long-term strategies or the certainty that firms need in order to invest. Let us take the feed-in tariff fiasco. In my constituency alone, we are losing many jobs, because a new policy has been introduced in only six weeks, just like that, meaning that nobody has the confidence to put up the £10,000 to install solar panels on their roof. What other scheme do the Government have in mind whereby people put up £10,000 up-front to help to secure jobs in their local economy? I do not think they have one other idea.

In Wales we can show Members a better way—the one mentioned in the motion before us is being put into practice by the Welsh Government. The Labour Government in Wales are creating 4,000 jobs a year for young people in the private sector through the Jobs Growth Wales programme; helping to create jobs in the construction sector by continuing to build schools and houses; and helping businesses by making £55 million available in grants and loans to them. The problem, however, is that the Welsh Government are having to do this against the background of UK Treasury policies, which are making it very difficult for any business to flourish. We have a Chancellor who is determined to suck money out of our local economies, making it extremely difficult for local businesses to keep going.

We all know that people on the lowest and most modest incomes spend their money most rapidly in the local community, because they have to for their day-to-day needs, so let us look at a few examples of how the Government are squeezing hard-pressed families and sucking money out of our local economies. First, there is the VAT hike, which I have mentioned.

Secondly, there is the winter fuel allowance. Most pensioners, certainly in Wales and in many unemployment hot-spots across the UK, are not millionaires but need that £100, so they are transferring money that they would have spent in the local economy and putting it by to pay for their fuel. That money is leaving the local economy, with the economy in Wales alone losing some £31 million.

Thirdly, we have real cuts dressed up as freezes, such as those on public sector pay and on child benefit, and they are translating into money that people do not have to spend in the local economy. Fourthly, the 3% hike in pension contributions is taking £2.8 billion out of the economy; and fifthly, tax credits are being taken away from people who work less than 24 hours a week. But people just cannot, unfortunately, get those hours, and they are from some of the very poorest households. They are trying to work and to keep the family together, yet they are going to have even less money to spend and less money to stimulate the economy, so there are going to be even more job losses. The Government must do something now to put that right and get growth going.

Benefits Uprating

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming our decisions on the DLA mobility component. Clearly, the decision on CPI was taken in a fiscal context. However, it came after RPI was negative and CPI was positive, so the immediate context was a year in which state earnings-related pension schemes and public sector pensions had all been frozen. I certainly could not believe that there had not been any inflation, and I am yet to meet a pensioner who could.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

As we all understand, with rocketing fuel and food prices these rises are not as generous as they look. Has the Department assessed the impact of the £100 cut in the winter fuel allowance, combined with the fact that those on low incomes spend a lot of money on food and fuel? People will actually be worse off, particularly those with an income that puts them just above the bracket for claiming the cold weather payment.

[Steve Webb]

It was entirely right that we went ahead with Labour’s planned cut to the winter fuel payment. We reversed the cold weather payment cut to prioritise the most vulnerable when it is most cold. I make no apology for that. It was important to put the full 5.2% through for people with no wage because of the pressures on household fuel bills and other costs. That is why it was vital that we stood by the most vulnerable even though money was tight.

Living Standards

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb]

The VAT rise is a fair point. That is possibly 2p, but we have seen duty frozen—11p, in effect, off the price, and frozen for 19 months. When the previous Administration were in power, we saw fuel duty increase by 20p and I did not see any Labour Members express any concern for those living in a rural area such as mine, where people have to travel 20 miles to get to the supermarket. This Government listen. They listen to the concerns of the elderly and of people in rural communities.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Guto Bebb]

I have already taken two interventions.

More importantly, this Government know that the way out of the situation that we inherited is to champion self-reliance and enterprise, and to say to people in Wales, “Back in the 1980s we were creating more businesses than any other part of the United Kingdom. We had more new VAT-registered businesses than any other part of the United Kingdom.” I have confidence in the people of Wales. Unfortunately, the past 13 years have been wasted, but with this coalition Government, we will see change and we will see growth.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I support the motion before the House and I want to bring to the debate the perspective of a rural constituency in Northern Ireland.

There is irrefutable evidence that families, young people, the elderly, low to middle income earners and those in receipt of benefits have all found themselves squeezed, have less money to provide for essentials for daily living, and justifiably feel that they have been unfairly treated by the coalition Government. They also feel that the Government have removed the sense of fairness and equity from their vocabulary.

Proposed punitive regulations and legislation surrounding welfare reform will make the situation worse, making it more difficult for people to access benefits. At the same time they will be unable to obtain jobs. Although the concept is laudable, the jobs are not there because of the economic recession. The spectre of emigration therefore looms again, this time to Australia and New Zealand, and many small rural communities have found that young people who should be making a contribution to the economy through self-help, through the private sector or through the public sector, have simply gone away.

Added to this, the increases in fuel prices are leading to deepening fuel poverty, and the rising cost of motor insurance, particularly in Northern Ireland where it is more acute, prevent many young people from making themselves available to work where a requirement to drive is a pre-requisite on the job application. Levels of youth unemployment have risen, so child poverty has deepened. Levels of deprivation and disadvantage have deepened. We must not let the Government condemn us. We believe in self-help and in collaboration, and we have done that. We have developed our assets to their full potential but still that has not been enough because of the Government policies, which have been an onslaught on our rural economy, particularly in areas such as Northern Ireland where deprivation is at its most acute.

Against that background, we had the Government’s autumn statement yesterday. Although parts of it may be welcome, there are areas that require clarification. They centre on the cap on public sector pay, the rise in state pension age that goes with it, and the need for spending commitments to be fully subject to the Barnett consequentials. There is no doubt that in the face of the mounting economic recession, the 1% cap on public sector pay, following on from the current freeze, is derisory and unacceptable. It will prove highly controversial in a place like Northern Ireland, particularly in the light of today’s strikes.

[Nia Griffith]

Does the hon. Lady agree that not only will the cutting back on public sector jobs affect young people’s opportunities, but the 3% tax—the £2.8 billion that the Government hope to raise from the increase in pension contributions—will suck money out of the economy across the UK and drive families into poverty?

[Ms Ritchie]

I do agree. In fact, we were the only party in the Northern Ireland Executive that voted against the hike in pensions, which we found totally unacceptable because it will impact on the most vulnerable in our society.

We would also like to know what the Barnett consequentials for the devolved Administrations will be in relation to the announcements in the autumn statement of the £16 billion youth contract and the £400 million for house construction projects.

I and my party colleagues support this motion because it clearly highlights the deepening problem of poverty right across Northern Ireland and because we support our colleagues in the Labour party in Britain.

Pensions Bill [Lords]

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

The Minister may feel that he has heard my speech before, as we discussed his Government’s plans to accelerate the rise in state pension age at some length in Committee. However, as he did not fully address the points I made then, I make no apology for making them again.

My constituent, Lorraine Smedley, e-mailed me on Friday asking if anything can be done even at this late stage. The answer must be yes. The Minister can still change his mind; he can accept our amendment that would ensure that no one would wait more than an extra 12 months to receive their pension. Also, if he chooses not to listen, Members on the Government Benches can still decide to join the Opposition in the Lobby tonight. I hope they will do so, although the contributions we have heard so far suggest that they will not.

Members who were not fortunate enough to serve on the Bill Committee will not know about my constituent Lorraine, so let me explain why she is so angry about the Government’s plans. Lorraine worked for the national health service for many years, but, having put aside some savings, she decided to take a part-time job as she moved towards her expected retirement date. She had worked out that she could supplement her part-time wage until her retirement. She told me:

“I thought I was close enough to my retirement age to know where I stood.”

Even with the Government’s welcome concession, Lorraine is still being asked to work for an extra 15 months, and she says she does not know what to do. Working those extra 15 months before she receives her state pension is not a prospect she relishes. Her job as a community care assistant is demanding, both physically and emotionally, and she is not sure that she will be able to continue; and with the cuts in public service spending and public sector jobs, she may not have a job anyway. The prospect of claiming benefits is anathema to Lorraine. She was determined to pay her own way her whole life, and having left school at 16 and paid into the state pension pot all those years she feels that she should not have to rely on benefits now.

Lorraine’s case highlights the two reasons why the Government’s proposals are unfair. First, they do not give women adequate notice of the change. The Minister has sprung these changes on women in their late 50s without giving them a realistic time scale in which to make preparations for the loss of pension payments that they have earned and expected over many years. In 1995, the then Government legislated for the equalisation of state pension ages. Women who were expecting to retire at 60 learned that they would have to wait until they were 65 to do so. They may not have liked it but they had many, many years to adjust. Yet that same group—those same women—who knew that they would have to work or wait for an extra five years for their pension, are now being asked to accept a further rise of more than a year with just five or seven years’ notice of the change.

The second reason why the Government have got it wrong is that the changes lead to one group being asked to bear an unfair share of the burden. According to the Department’s impact assessment, the proposals in the Bill affect about 5 million people—2.3 million men and 2.6 million women. About 4.5 million people will have their state pension age increased by a year or less, and their position is unaffected by the Minister’s last-minute amendment. An estimated 500,000 people, all of them women born between 6 October 1953 and 5 October 1954, will still have their pension age increased by more than a year. Some 300,000 women will experience an increase of exactly 18 months. No man will have to wait more than 12 months extra to receive his pension. How is that fair?

I accept that there has been a significant upward revision in the life expectancy of those reaching 65 over the next decade and that those benefiting from increased longevity should share in the costs. As we live longer, we need to pay more towards our income in retirement and/or work longer. The women like Lorraine who have written to me do not disagree—they understand that they may need to work longer—but they think that they should pay a fair share. The Minister did not explain in Committee so I hope he will explain now how it is fair that those 500,000 women have to pay a bigger share than anyone else, particularly given that we also know that they, as a group, are not well-equipped to bear a greater share of that burden.

As my hon. Friends have set out, these women are less financially secure than men and are much more likely to be reliant on the state pension. If they do have savings for their pension, those are likely to be much less than those of men. These women are likely to have taken time out of the labour market to care for children, thus affecting their contributions record and their salary level. They are likely to have worked part-time and to have been excluded from an occupational pension scheme until the 1990s. The Department’s own figures confirm this: the median pension savings of a 56-year-old woman are, as has been said, just £9,100, whereas the equivalent figure for men is £52,800, which is almost 600% higher.

Although, like Lorraine, I welcome the Minister’s amendment, it just does not go far enough. Women should not bear an unfair burden, which is why I support the Labour amendments. They would mean that 1.2 million fewer people would have to work longer and would ensure that nobody would be asked to work more than 12 months extra to receive their pension.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

To be perfectly honest, it is disgraceful that the Government are not giving these women enough time to plan their retirement properly and it is clear that the changes that the Government are now proposing do not remedy the situation that they got themselves into with their initial proposals. It is wrong that women who have worked hard—doing all sorts of things, not necessarily paid work—for many years are now being denied their well-deserved pension for an extra 18 months with so little notice.

Nobody is denying the demands of longevity and the fact that we have to think ahead. However, we have to plan ahead properly and in a structured way. That is why in 2008 Labour legislated that the state pension age would become 66 by 2024 to 2026. That time scale was set out to give people 16 to 18 years in which to plan. As hon. Members will recall, the Turner report recommended a minimum of 15 years’ notice for any changes in the pension age and that is a very important point to note. Obviously the Government have brought that forward significantly, leaving many women with very little time in which to plan for a delayed retirement. Some 500,000 women will have a delay of up to 18 months before they get their pensions and about 330,000 women will have a delay of a full 18 months. The Government are determined to introduce this change, despite the fact that before the election we were given promises by both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats that there would be no change before 2020.

The particular women that we are talking about are the most vulnerable. Those who depend most on the state pension are those who have the lowest incomes, those who have perhaps had the least opportunity to make contributions and those who have worked in the least well-paid jobs. As has been clearly expressed by my hon. Friends, women are far more reliant than men on the state pension because their pension pot is usually very small. Very often they have been limited in the opportunities they have had in this regard. They may have taken years out for child care, limited themselves in order to be able to pick up their children after school or limited themselves by geographical location. Often this group of people are enabling their own sons and daughters to work and have a decent income for their families by providing very valuable child care for the grandchildren. We often refer to these women as the “sandwich generation” because at the same time as they are looking after those grandchildren they are often coping with their own elderly parents.

Of course, these women are often more vulnerable to the cuts. An enormous number of cuts are being made in all sorts of jobs, in not only the public sector, but the private sector. The Government’s growth strategy is clearly failing, and often it is not just the lack of public procurements, but the lowering of income levels in the whole of a region or town which is making it harder and harder even for private businesses to flourish. Women are often doing more casual work or are working part-time, and as they are the ones who have often come latest to the jobs they are often the ones facing redundancy. It is often extremely difficult for older women to find new posts, particularly in areas with geographical limitations or not very good bus services, and if they need to be back to collect the grandchildren from school.

A number of these women are widows. My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) has clearly explained the demographics and set out the number of men in certain groups who die young. Some 19% of men in certain social categories die before the age of 65, many of whom leave widows and they, like other groups, are not best placed to face the difficulties of trying to keep house and home together in difficult financial circumstances. If they do not receive their pension until a certain age, they will be losing not only the state pension, but pension credit and the various concessions and entitlements that are limited to people of state pension age.

If there were a genuine growth strategy, the argument about freeing up jobs would not be valid, because as more jobs are generated people who stay in work longer have more money to spend and so it is easier to create more jobs that younger people can take up. When there is no economic growth and the spiral is downwards, there is more bed-blocking—or job-blocking—whereby older people staying in work makes it more difficult for youngsters to get started.

So although Labour Members welcome the fact that the Government have made something of a concession, we are very disappointed that it is only a half-measure. In fact, it is nothing but window dressing. It is the sort of Christmas present that is wrapping with absolutely nothing inside—an empty cardboard box with some paper round it. The correspondence that I have received indicates to me that my constituents are not fooled by it and are worried that they will still be facing much of the same difficulty as they were with the original proposals.

I shall support the amendments tabled by those on my Front Bench to ensure that we try to give the maximum number of women the maximum amount of benefit that we can, rather than the Government amendments, which are, quite frankly, laughable. They are a disgrace because they do not address the main thrust of the problem and they leave a lot of women with a large gap and very little time in which to work out how to deal with it.