---

 
26 Apr 2004 : Column 617
 

House of Commons

Monday 26 April 2004

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

WORK AND PENSIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Civil Service (Relocation)

1. Hugh Bayley (City of York) (Lab): If he will make a statement on how the Lyons review on relocation will affect his Department. [167675]

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): Eighty-two per cent. of the Department for Work and Pensions' work force is already located outside London and the south-east, compared with 71 per cent. of the population. Taking account of the Lyons review, we are planning to relocate some 4,000 posts. As the Department substantially reduces its total work force over the next few years, we intend to concentrate activity on a smaller number of sites. Work relocated is likely, therefore, to be moved to existing DWP sites.

Hugh Bayley : Is my right hon. Friend aware of how well York has coped with a number of Government Departments wishing to move additional jobs into the city, including his own Department, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? Is he willing to ask his officials to meet representatives of the York inward investment board—and perhaps some senior managers of Government agencies that have moved to York—and to look at York's feasibility as a location for the redeployment of some of the 4,000 jobs to which he refers?

Mr. Smith: As the House would expect, my hon. Friend is a persuasive and energetic advocate of the case for inward investment in his constituency. At the risk of setting our officials up for an entire sequence of meetings with similar bodies elsewhere, I am happy to agree to the meeting that he suggests. I do, however, offer one word of caution. As the House will be aware, our Department is scheduled to reduce total staff numbers by some 40,000—a net 30,000—by 2008, so it is likely that there will be staff reductions in a number of parts of the country.

Sir Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD): That is exactly the point. As the Secretary of State
 
26 Apr 2004 : Column 618
 
points out, the Budget that followed the Lyons review announced yearly reductions of 6 per cent. between now and 2008, which will have a very serious effect on staffing throughout the Department and its agencies. The Lyons review asked for a timetable for the implementation of the redeployments proposed before the Budget. When will it be available, and when will he look at the irreducible core of the 2,500 London-based civil servants in his Department?

Mr. Smith: On the last point, of course, all such matters are a feature of the review of our overall staff numbers. On the timetable, I shall make further information available on overall staff reductions, and on relocations in the light of the Lyons review, following the spending review. The hon. Gentleman and the House will understand that managing change on this scale—it is virtually unprecedented in the white collar public sector—has to involve the most careful planning, and careful consultation and discussion with our staff and trade unions, as well as with the managers who must carry it out.

Mr. George Osborne (Tatton) (Con): The Secretary of State says that there needs to be careful planning and consultation. Did it take place before he made his announcement?

Mr. Smith: As the hon. Gentleman will know, of the total number of reductions announced, some 18,000 had already been discussed with the trade unions and were being planned by the Department. Of course, as I said in answer to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood), before any decisions are taken concerning the announcement's implications for individual centres or members of staff, further discussions with the trade unions will take place.

Carer's Allowance

2. Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion) (PC): If he will make a statement on his policy regarding the interviewing of partners of those in receipt of carer's allowance. [167676]

The Minister for Work (Jane Kennedy): From April 2004, partners of those receiving prescribed working age benefits—the income-based jobseeker's allowance, income support, incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance—in Jobcentre Plus areas will be asked to attend a work-focused interview when the benefit claim is 26 weeks old.

Mr. Thomas : I thank the Minister for that reply, but she must be aware that many carers and their partners are concerned about such interviews. Can she confirm that in order to look after their partner, carers receiving the carer's allowance must be working 35 hours a week, and that their partner must be accepted as severely disabled and in need of frequent or continuous care? In that context—and in the light of Government support for carers and of the Carers (Equal Opportunities) Bill—what can she say to carers in my constituency and throughout the country to alleviate their distress at the prospect of this series of interviews? Also, can she say
 
26 Apr 2004 : Column 619
 
something about her staff, one of whom told a constituent of mine that "35 hours a week is just a day and a half; you still have five and a half days to work"?

Jane Kennedy: If distress has been caused, I regret that, but it is worth pointing out that there is no suggestion that people should give up caring in order to work. We recognise the important work that carers do, and we acknowledge the debt that we owe to them.

Some carers do combine work and caring, and caring responsibilities do come to an end. What we are doing is offering those who want to consider work the opportunity to do so. The benefits of economic growth and record levels of employment have not been shared across households. We put forward these proposals as a result of our intention to help carers who wish to consider their options.

David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): One of my constituents is the partner of a person receiving one of the benefits that the Minister mentioned. Although she was still working full time, she was asked to attend such an interview. What was the purpose of that, when the original flagged up intention was that interviews would take place only in cases where the partner contributed in some way towards the benefits of the recipient?

Jane Kennedy: The purpose is to reach all those carers who, in the circumstances I mentioned earlier, would be interested in taking advice on how to obtain work. I believe that it is important for partners of those receiving benefit to have individual support and advice from their own personal adviser through the interviews. It is worth paying tribute to the willingness and enthusiasm of jobcentre staff in embracing the changes that we asked them to undertake and in undergoing the training necessary to equip them for the interviews. I cannot respond to the specific example that my hon. Friend raised, but I point out to him and the House that a system of deferrals and waivers is in place in respect of those for whom the work-focused interviews are inappropriate. All that is necessary is for first contact to be made and for the carers to explain their individual circumstances. There will then be the possibility of the waiver.

Funded Pension Provision

3. Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West) (Con): What progress he is making towards his target on funded pension provision. [167677]

The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): Our objective is to bolster security and confidence in private pensions so that in the long-term an increasing proportion of retirement incomes derive from private provision. We are doing much to achieve that. There is the Pensions Bill with a pension protection fund and pro-active regulator, which will significantly increase
 
26 Apr 2004 : Column 620
 
the protection offered to pension scheme members. We also have a strategy of informed choice that empowers individuals to take control of their retirement planning.

Mr. Swayne : What assessment has the Minister made of the proposals of the Adam Smith Institute and others to reduce the unfunded liabilities of the state's own employee occupational schemes?

Malcolm Wicks: We consider a whole range of ideas. Rather to my surprise, I was invited to speak at a seminar at the Adam Smith Institute some months ago—not bad for a Fabian. We consider all those ideas, but we are convinced that the proposals in the Pensions Bill will bring much greater security back into occupational pensions, which remains a major priority for the Government.

Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab): Does the Minister accept that one of the best ways of boosting his goal of increasing funding provision would be to ensure that all those who have saved towards their retirement get the pension to which they are entitled? The House has effectively provided a guarantee that when the Pensions Bill returns, an amendment will be tabled to provide compensation to those who have already lost their pensions, reclaiming the moneys through unclaimed assets. To what extent has that strengthened the Minister's hand in his crucial negotiations with the Treasury?

Malcolm Wicks: I thank my right hon. Friend for his helpful question, but I am not in a position today to add to the statements already made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister last week. They both made it clear that the Government are very concerned about the hardship and injustice faced by this particular group. We are examining the position very carefully and we hope to present any conclusions as soon as possible. It is important, however, even at this stage, not to raise expectations that might prove beyond what it is possible to meet.

Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con): Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister did raise expectations considerably when he spoke in the House last week? Can the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister clearly said that serious consideration was being given to making the compensation arrangements in the Pensions Bill retrospective?

Malcolm Wicks: Let us remind ourselves of the context. The Government are legislating to protect the future through a protection fund, which will protect the pension rights of at least 10 million scheme members. That is hugely important. The official Opposition declined to give the Bill a Second Reading, so we should pay attention not so much to what they say, but to what they do about the security of pensions.

In terms of the group that we are talking about, I cannot add to what I said a few moments ago or to what the Prime Minister has said, but our intentions for the future are clear with the protection fund.

Kevin Brennan (Cardiff, West) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that if assistance is to be
 
26 Apr 2004 : Column 621
 
forthcoming, it will have to extend beyond those who were technically compelled to join occupational pension schemes and to all who have suffered as a result of the crisis?

Malcolm Wicks: We need to look carefully at the facts. We are doing that and are collaborating with industry to see just how many people have been affected in the terrible way described, and we need to examine the different groups. I must say again, however, that we do not want to do anything to raise expectations beyond what is realisable. We understand the importance of the matter to the House and will bring forward our conclusions as soon as possible.

Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne) (Con): Does the Minister accept that a new employee now has only a one in five chance of joining a company that has a final salary scheme still open? Does he accept that the Bill will not encourage a single employer to open a new scheme or to keep one open that is already in existence? Is not the Bill just an elaborate memorial service following the demise of final salary schemes in this country?

Malcolm Wicks: We have a wide-ranging strategy including tax simplification, simplifying pension schemes wherever possible, the informed choice strategy, the new regulator to stop things going wrong in the first place, and the pension protection fund. The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed all that in Committee for rather too long, and for him to dismiss as a fig leaf a Bill that will give security to at least 10 million scheme members in future is a piece of social policy illiteracy.

---