|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
12. Mr. Ben Wallace (Lancaster and Wyre) (Con): If he will make a statement on the restructuring of his Departments organisation on the Fylde coast. 
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mrs. Anne McGuire): As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Department is a major employer on the Fylde coast, with more than 5,600 staff in the area. Specific plans for 2008 include moving work and staff from the site at Lytham to Peel park, Blackpool, to move work out of the Pension Service at Blackpool pension centre and to move additional disability and carers service work into Warbreck house in Blackpool.
Many of my constituents currently work for the Child Support Agency, and they are in the process of transferring across to the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission. One of the things that worries them is why the new body needs to be non-departmental. On 2 November, I wrote to Lord McKenzie
of Luton, who is a Minister in the Department, to ask him why that is the case. I received his reply just before Christmas, which stated:
It is essential that we mark a clean break with the failures of the past and give the Commission a better platform for success
by removing it from the Department. Does the Minister agree with Lord McKenzie that the Department is viewed as such a failure that the CSAs replacement must be operated from outwith it, and what confidence does that give my constituents?
Mrs. McGuire: I have to say that the hon. Gentleman suffers from selective amnesia, because he has forgotten that the foundation stone of the Child Support Agency was laid by a Conservative Government. Obviously, I have not seen the specific details of the letter to which he has alluded, but if it was written by my noble Friend Lord McKenzie, I am sure that I agree with it.
T2.  Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Peter Hain): Last week, we celebrated 10 years of the new deal, through which more than 1.8 million people have found jobs, which is one person every three minutes every single day. An 80 per cent. employment rate is now within our grasp as we move to the next phase of radical welfare reform, which will see hundreds of thousands more benefit claimants becoming active jobseekers rather than passive recipients. Our imperative is to get as many people off benefits and into work as possible, because that is the way to a better life for them and their families. Our policy is fair, coherent, costed and workable, which is exactly the opposite of Conservative policy. The Conservatives have been left desperately plagiarising our plans, because if one looks beneath the spin, they have no new credible policy ideas.
Lynne Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his good work, but one matter still requires his attention. Did he read the article in the weekend press about Ruby Gassor, who worked all her life but paid only a married womans national insurance contribution in the early years? She will receive only £7 in basic state pension, whereas her friend who stayed at home to bring up children benefited from home responsibilities protection and will receive £83 a week when she is 60. Will my right hon. Friend attend to that important matter?
The Minister for Pensions Reform (Mr. Mike O'Brien): We will certainly address the issues around ensuring that women can claim the pensions that they deserve. In 2007, we introduced legislation that will ensure that 75 per cent. of women can claim a basic state pension after 2010. We hope that, by 2025, 90 per cent. of womenthe figure for men is about the samecan claim a full basic state pension. We are taking serious account of those issues, and I am also happy to discuss with my hon. Friend the wider issues that she has raised.
Ann Winterton (Congleton) (Con):
Bearing in mind the alacrity with which the Government acted last year in bailing out Northern Rock with billions of pounds
of taxpayers money, is it any wonder that pensioners in my constituency who lost pensions through no fault of their own agree with Ros Altmann of the Pensions Action Group? She said that
the continued delay in settling the pension wind-up scandal is totally inexcusable.
Mr. Hain: But Ros Altmann has just welcomed the announcement that I made before Christmas, which established that compensation would be paid to those 140,000 workers. I would have thought that the hon. Lady welcomed that.
As regards Northern Rock, the guarantees that the Government provided are nothing like the burden on the taxpayer that the hon. Lady suggests. It is a matter of ensuring that our financial institutions are not affected by the global financial turbulence that infected Northern Rock, and which spread and infected financial institutions more widely. Any Government who had not acted in such a decisive way would have been regarded as thoroughly irresponsible.
Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen, South) (Lab): Pensioners who were previously workers at the Richards Textiles factory in Aberdeen are very pleased with the announcement that the financial assistance scheme will be brought up to the 90 per cent. level. That announcement was made just before Christmas, and judging by the last question, some people may have missed it. Will my right hon. Friend outline the time scales involved in making payments to pensioners who have lost out in the past?
Mr. Hain: One of the things we will need is parliamentary support for the necessary legislative changesincluding the Pensions Bill, the Second Reading of which I am about to moveand other changes to regulations, to allow us to implement the announcements that I made. The hon. Ladys constituents, along with the rest of the 140,000 people involved, can then get the early justice that they deserve. I hope that every Member of this House will support us in making those changes and that they will support the Second Reading of the Bill this afternoon so that we can make rapid progress with the schemes implementation.
T3.  Mr. Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): Today more than 1 million extra people are facing retirement without a pension from their employer compared with the situation when the Government came to power. Why?
Mr. Mike O'Brien: It is the case that a large number of people have not seen the full benefit of their pension. There are various reasons for that. First, over a period of time, there were things such as pensions holidays, which were approved by the previous Conservative Government. There was also the pensions mis-selling scandal, which happened under the previous Conservative Government, and there was the ineffectual Pensions Act 1995, which, as the hon. Gentleman might remember, was passed under the previous Conservative Government.
It is the case, however, that this Government have done something about the situation. We have introduced the Pension Protection Fund; we have dealt with the issue of the 140,000 people who had lost their pensions between 1997 and 2004; and we have also introduced a
pensions regulator, who is in a position to ensure that the basis of the running of the pensions system is far better than it ever has been. Those are major social reforms. They have happened quietly, but they mean a big change, and an important one.
T4.  Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): In the context of yet another announcement regarding an initiative to deal with incapacity benefitnot the first during the past 10 years, I am afraidwill Ministers please ensure that they pay particular attention to the remarkable situation of the estimated 100,000 young people with mental health or related motivation problems? Otherwise, those young people will be condemned to a lifetime of joblessness and demotivation.
Mr. Hain: I agree very much with what the hon. Gentleman says. His record of campaigning on those matters is exemplary, and I pay tribute to him. However, questions should be asked in other directions in the House about whether the three strikes and youre out policy will benefit the 100,000 young people he describes, or whether those people need the support of £170 million of psychological therapy that we will provide during the coming period to ensure that they get the specialist support, counselling and therapy they need to make sure that they can get into work. That is what we are doing: introducing practical, deliverable policies, not spin and hype.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab): One of my constituents, who is in his 70s, unfortunately had to have his leg amputated. He applied for attendance allowance, which was agreed to, but he was told that there would be a delay of four months owing to policy. Why is there such a delay? I will write to the Secretary of State, but I would like an explanation now.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mrs. Anne McGuire): I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I would need to ask him for further details and would be delighted to meet him as quickly as he wants, because there is no policy reason why any application for attendance allowance should be delayed. Indeed, we are turning round attendance allowance applications, subject to entitlement and so on, within the target time. I therefore do not understand why there is a particular problem in his constituency, although I would be delighted to look at it.
T5.  Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con): I am sure that the Secretary of State will be aware that since 2000 his Department has spent a total of £1.6 billion on failed IT schemes, namely the benefit card, the upgrade to the Child Support Agencys computer system and the unsuccessful streamlining of the benefits payment system. How can he justify such a dreadful waste of public money?
There is no question but that IT projects have had problems in both the public and private sectors, with a much higher failure rate than they should have. That is why we have put in place the necessary procedures to try to ensure that we avoid that in future, that we secure value for money from all our IT projects and that we continue to achieve record levels of delivery in terms
of getting people into work, assisting them with pensions queries and delivering all the other services that my Department provides.
Danny Alexander (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (LD): Millions of pensioners and other claimants rely on post offices to collect their pensions and benefits every week. As Government-inspired post office closures are rolled out across the country, will the Secretary of State reassure those pensioners and other claimants that they will continue to be able to collect their benefits through the Post Office card accountrun by the Post Office, not some other organisationand that further post office closures will not be inspired by a loss of income?
Mr. Hain: These are not Government-inspired closures. We are putting in hundreds of millions of pounds of support for local post offices, amounting over the period to billions of pounds. Because of many reasons related to lifestyle, peoples personal shopping habits and their use of local post offices have changed. People are not supporting their local post offices in the way that I, the hon. Gentleman and perhaps every Member of the House would like. That has created circumstances in which post offices have closed, as they closed in previous decades under the last Government, but we will ensure that everybody will receive the proper service that they need, especially the most vulnerable pensioners and others who depend on the benefits system.
T6.  Mr. David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): Pensioner constituents are already contacting me to express their anger and fear at last weeks announcement by npower of huge increases in fuel bills. Will the Secretary of State call on Ofgem to look into those increases, and will consideration now be given to implementing the proposal for a compulsory social tariff for all vulnerable customers of big energy companies?
Mr. Mike O'Brien: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government do not normally intervene in the energy market, but in this case Ministers are naturally concerned about the effects that price rises such as those announced by npower can have on vulnerable customers. The Treasury will seek the views of Ofgem on developments that have taken place in the energy market, to see whether such changes as have been announced can possibly be justified. However, the Government are committed to tackling fuel poverty. Winter fuel payments, which last winter helped more than 11 million older people with their fuel bills, and assistance for 2 million low-income households so far, through schemes to improve energy efficiency, are examples of how we have practically sought to help older people in particular to deal with increasing fuel prices.
T7.  Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con):
On 11 December 2005, the Buncefield explosion destroyed a large area in my community. The Health and Safety Executive inquiry has gone on for nearly two years. Will the Minister inform the House when it is likely to conclude and say whether it is true that the oil companies are paying for it, not the British
taxpayer? If they are, there would seem to be a conflict of interest, considering that they were responsible for the explosion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. James Plaskitt): I am aware that the hon. Gentleman and many of his constituents take a close interest in the matter. He and I have already discussed it in debates in the House. As he knows, the decision to investigate the causes of the explosion was made through a major incident investigation board headed by Lord Newton, and we believe that that is the quickest way of finding out exactly what happened.
As I think the hon. Gentleman will understand in view of the complexity of the issues involved, the investigation is still in progress. At this point, the Health and Safety Executive cannot say when a decision will be made on prosecutions. Such a decision is for the HSE and the Environment Agency and not for the investigating board. Until the investigation is completed we cannot say more about it, but it is important for it to continue. As the hon. Gentleman knows, interim reports have been issued and a good deal of information is already available to him and to his constituents. We expect the investigation to be concluded shortly.
Mr. Jim Devine (Livingston) (Lab):
I do not know whether my hon. Friend has had a chance to read the excellent report prepared by the Scottish Affairs Committee and released before the Christmas recess. It drew attention to interest rates charged by not only illegal but legal moneylenders. One company was
charging about 177 per cent. Is any consideration being given to capping interest rates in the so-called legal market?
Mr. Plaskitt: I understand my hon. Friends deep concern, but there is a problem with capping the rates, which might have adverse effects on the availability of affordable credit. I think that our best response to the need to release people from the burden of interest rates at such levelsor, indeed, even higher levels in the case of illegal doorstep lendingis to pursue the policies that we have, financed through the growth fund, to make much more affordable credit available through credit unions and other not-for-profit financial lenders.
As my hon. Friend will know, we have already made a significant investment, and there will be further investment over the next spending round. As a result, tens of thousands of people are gaining access to affordable credit, thus avoiding the problems to which he has rightly drawn attention.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): Will the Government address the bias of the benefits system against two-parent families?
Mr. Hain: I have already addressed it. As I have said, we are investigating the methods that are most cost-effective to the hon. Gentlemans constituents, as taxpayers, and to the rest of us. The truth is, however, that there are more jobs than ever before under this Government, that poverty has been reduced under this Government, and that there is more prosperity and wealth in the country under this Government. The hon. Gentleman ought to applaud that.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (David Miliband): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about recent developments in Pakistan and Kenya. I am grateful to you for allowing me to combine the two statements. Both countries are important to Britain, and rightly important to many hon. Members. I know that the Foreign Affairs Committee visited Pakistan in November 2006, and that it was a key focus of the Committees report on foreign policy aspects of the war on terror in July 2006 and its subsequent report on South Asia in May 2007. I think I am right in saying that several hon. Members are now returning from Pakistan, having gone there to observe the elections that were planned for next week, and will now try to rearrange their visit.
The situations in Pakistan and Kenya are very different, and I shall deal with them separately, but important elements are common to the recent crises that have afflicted both those regional powers. Both countries have experienced strong economic growth in recent years and the middle class is growing, but poverty is widespread and rising inequality is causing frustration and disillusionment. Both countries face violence and terrorism, and both are undergoing political transition. They are working to embed democratic systems and structures, but struggling to overcome the tribal or dynastic allegiances which have fed personality politics.
In these circumstances, there is a temptation to turn away. However, there are 800,000 British people of Pakistani origin; there are an estimated 13,000 British citizens resident in Kenya, and over a quarter of a million British tourists visit each year. The United Kingdom is Kenya's largest foreign investor, and our bilateral trade with Pakistan is worth some £1 billion; and, of course, both Pakistan and Kenya are key partners in the fight against al-Qaeda. That is why the Government are committed to using all their assets to help those countries on the path to peaceful and prosperous development.
I will begin with Pakistan. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in reiterating our condolences to the family of Mrs. Bhutto at this terrible time and to the other bereaved Pakistani families who are grieving for loved ones who were killed or who suffered injuries in the senseless attack of 27 December. There is cross-party condemnation in this House of terrorism and a determination to stand with the people of Pakistan against the power of the bomb and the bullet, and I welcome that.
Whatever the disputes about her periods in office, Benazir Bhutto showed in her words and actions a deep commitment to her country. She knew the risks of her return to campaign for election but was convinced that her country needed her. The target of her assassins are all those committed to democracy in Pakistan and it is vital that they do not succeed. The courage shown by Mrs. Bhutto is now required of others as they take forward the drive for democracy and modernisation.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|