Julie Morgan MP

Supermarkets: have your say

At the tail end of last year I wrote to the Competition Commission about the Groceries Market Inquiry which it is currently undertaking, looking at the effectiveness of the Supermarket Code of Practice, the planning regime, local competition and the effect of supermarket entry on established local retailers and the local population.

This is a big issue for us here in Cardiff North. Recently we've been fighting off applications from supermarkets like Tesco for stores in places like Birchgrove Road; traders and residents fought that application strongly, and won the day. The Competition Commission is taking evidence on these kinds of campaigns and I would encourage constituents to write in to the consultation about the position in Cardiff North and their concerns about supermarket developments in the area. You can write in confidence to: The Inquiry Secretary, Groceries Market Investigation, Competition Commission, Victoria House, Southampton Row, London WC1B 4AD.

Some of the issues that come up on these occasions — such as traffic problems associated with the developments — are outside the Commission's powers to solve. But it is so important to consider in the round the impact which supermarket developments are having on our village communities.

Radical welfare review aims to help thousands back into work

Message from John Hutton, Labour's Work and Pensions Secretary

I wanted to drop you a line about the independent report on the next stage of welfare reform that Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and I published today.

Thanks to Labour's measures like the New Deal, changes to incapacity benefit and tax credits to make work pay, we have made real progress since 1997 — with 2.5 million more people in work, 900,000 fewer on benefits, and 700,000 children helped out of poverty. Compare that to the way Britain suffered under the Tories, when unemployment hit three million twice and one in three children were growing up in poverty.

But we all know there is a lot more to do, so it is vital we now find new ways to support the hardest-to-help into work.

The recommendations in David Freud's report, "Reducing Dependency, Increasing Opportunity", include:

• A central role for Jobcentre Plus with greater use of private and voluntary sector resources and expertise so harder-to-help benefit claimants receive more employment support, with a new focus on long term mentoring once people are in work;
• Greater personalisation of employment support, with higher financial incentives for organisations to target resources at the hardest-to-help;
• And matching increased support with greater obligations on claimants to look for work. In particular placing greater responsibilities on lone parents with older children to look for work once their youngest child reaches 12, rather than the current age of 16.

I think the report sets out a compelling framework for the next stage of welfare reform which we must now carefully consider and discuss. You can download it here — I would really welcome your views on the welfare reform issues he addresses.

Yours

John Hutton MP
Work and Pensions Secretary

Hope on occupational pensions

There is hope that there will be progress on the issue of occupational pensions after a promising statement in the House today from Pensions Secretary John Hutton. Here's the text:

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. John Hutton): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I want to make a statement on yesterday’s judgment on the Government’s response to the ombudsman’s report concerning the security of final salary occupational pension schemes. Given the importance of the issue to many right hon. and hon. Members, I want to inform the House of the position that we have reached both in the light of that particular ruling and the decision last month of the European Court of Justice on the implementation of the insolvency directive.

The High Court yesterday made five rulings in its judgment. I want to take each in turn. Its first ruling was that the ombudsman was entitled, on the evidence available to her, to reach the conclusion that official information published on the minimum funding requirement for pension schemes was inaccurate and potentially misleading, and therefore amounted to maladministration. The Court particularly criticised the then Government’s guide to the Pensions Act 1995, which was published in 1996. This, it concluded, gave the clear impression that following enactment of the new law, scheme members could be reassured that their pensions were safe whatever happened.

The Government had, in good faith and acting on proper advice, taken a different view from that of the ombudsman, on the basis that the leaflets concerned were not a full statement of the law and were for general guidance only. However, we clearly now need to study the Court’s ruling very carefully. In particular, we need to consider the possible implications across government of the Court’s significant proposition, on which this ruling was based, that findings of fact made by the ombudsman are binding, unless they are flawed, irrational or peripheral, or unless there is fresh evidence.

The Court’s second ruling related to the important issue of causation. The ombudsman had found that maladministration was a significant contributory factor in the creation of the financial losses suffered by individuals. She went on to argue that everyone who between 1997 and 2004 suffered losses on the winding up of their pension scheme was the victim of injustice because of maladministration. The Government had argued that that was not well founded. The Court found in favour of the Government on this point, describing that aspect of the ombudsman’s report as “logically flawed and unreasonable.”

The Court’s third ruling rejected the ombudsman’s finding that the Government were guilty of maladministration when they made changes to the pension scheme funding rules in 2002. It decided that the ombudsman’s finding was not logically sound. In its fourth ruling, the Court also dismissed the claim that the Government’s refusal fully to restore the pension entitlements of all affected scheme members was in breach of the European convention on human rights. The Court’s fifth and final ruling concluded that I should reconsider the ombudsman’s recommendation that the Government should consider making arrangements to restore fully the pension losses of the people concerned when their employers became insolvent.

In a clear sign of both the complexity and, yes, the importance of these matters, both sides have sought and been granted permission to appeal. We have not yet decided the precise grounds for such an appeal, but it is absolutely right and proper that we take time to study the judgment and consider its implications in detail.

The judgment of the European Court of Justice in January on the implementation of the insolvency directive has an important bearing on the issue of financial redress for those who have lost some or all of their pension entitlement. The decision of the European Court of Justice effectively requires the Government to reconsider whether the present arrangements offer sufficient protection for people’s pensions when their employer becomes insolvent. The European Court of Justice has ruled that the system of protection that was in place before 2004 did not comply with the terms of the directive, even taking account of the subsequent introduction of the financial assistance scheme, albeit before its 2006 extension. We are already reviewing the financial assistance scheme with that finding in mind. It is now for the High Court to be asked to decide whether damages for breach of the directive should be paid, taking account of the steer apparently given by the European Court of Justice that damages may not be payable.

The Government have already acted to provide substantial financial assistance to people who lost pension rights when their employers became insolvent. The financial assistance scheme, supported by £2.3 billion of public money, has been set up precisely for that purpose. Throughout, we have always sought to ensure that those who have suffered the most should receive financial assistance to mitigate their loss. At the same time, we have sought to strike a balance with the interests of taxpayers, who cannot be asked to accept responsibility for effectively underwriting the total value of pension savings.

In considering the right way forward, we are always prepared to consider practical proposals from both sides of the House. I can confirm also that, so as not to add to their financial difficulty, we will meet the costs of the applicants in this case so far, together with the costs associated with our appeal.

People who have lost their pension rights in these circumstances have suffered a great deal. My aim will be to return to the House with our conclusions and our proposals for how we should proceed, and to do that before the conclusion of proceedings on the Pensions Bill.

The news that there will be a new package for those such as the Allied Steel and Wire workers who have suffered through losing their pensions is welcome. Responding to the statement, I asked the Secretary of State:

Julie Morgan (Cardiff, North) (Lab): I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, particularly his concluding remarks, and I hope that there will soon be an end to the misery that so many of our constituents have experienced. I am thinking in particular of the 800 Allied Steel and Wire workers from Cardiff who lost their jobs, some of whom also lost all their pension. I hope that they can sleep soundly in their beds, confident that the Government are going to come up with something good for them. Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that there are people in my constituency who have worked for 30 years and paid in dutifully for 30 years, as the Government advised, but who have ended up with absolutely nothing under the present financial assistance scheme arrangements? Will he take them into account when he makes his statement to the House during the passage of the Pensions Bill?

Mr. Hutton: We are looking at all these issues in the context not only of yesterday’s High Court ruling but, most importantly, of last month’s ruling of the European Court of Justice.

I am going ahead with tabling an amendment to the Pensions Bill currently before the Commons to improve the position for the ASW workers. I will continue to keep constituents updated on this crucial issue — at last it appears we may have some good news to look forward to.

Trident public meeting TONIGHT

Julie will hold a public meeting, "Trident: For or Against Renewal", TONIGHT at Ararat Baptist Church, Whitchurch Common, from 7.30pm onwards.

This will be an opportunity to hear the arguments and give your views on Trident replacement. Wayne David, the MP for Caerphilly, will make the argument for Trident renewal, while Kel Palmer, a former nuclear commander, will make the argument against. The meeting will then be opened to the floor, for anyone to put their view.

Summaries of the Government's proposals will be available at Ararat. For more information, give the constituency office a call on 20 624166. Hope to see you there!

Julie to hold public meeting on Trident

Julie will hold a public meeting on the question of whether to renew Britain's Trident nuclear missile system on Tuesday 13 February, from 7pm to 9pm at Ararat Baptist Church, on Whitchurch Common.

Julie said: "This meeting will be a chance for the public to air their views on whether the UK should renew its nuclear deterrent.

"I am beginning from the position that I am extremely sceptical about whether we should replace Trident. But I am keen to hear the views of my constituents. To that end, at the Ararat meeting we will be hearing from a speaker from CND who will put the case against renewal, whilst Wayne David, MP for Caerphilly, will put the case for.

"This will not be a strict debate but just an opportunity for all points of view to be heard. I hope that my constituents will use this opportunity to discuss a critical question for our national defence."

For more information get in touch with the constituency office on (029) 20 624166.

Supporting our Post Offices

There was a controversial statement yesterday from Alastair Darling, the Trade and Industry Secretary, on the future of the Post Office network. The Government is convinced that changes to the network are needed because of changing habits. As the Secretary of State said yesterday,

"Traditionally, the Post Office was the place where people went to post a letter, to pay their utility bills and to collect their benefits. Many still do, but increasingly people choose to send an e-mail or text, they pay bills by direct debit or internet banking, and they pay for their tax disc online and have pensions or benefits paid into their bank accounts. Of the 11 million pensioners in this country, 8.5 million have their pensions paid into a bank account. In fact, most people making a new state pension claim choose to do so in this way."

These sorts of changes inevitably take their toll on the Post Office. But I believe it is crucial that where Post Offices form an important part of our communities — as they do in many villages and suburbs in Cardiff North — then they must be maintained. The Government has invested more than £2 billion since 1999 in Post Offices and will continue to invest large sums of money — but there have still been difficult closures, sometimes because those who run local Post Offices do not wish to continue with their work, and sometimes because it is claimed that Post Offices do not get enough business. I have in the past fought closures in Cardiff North where I thought that they would result in unnecessary hardship to local people.

One of the good features of yesterday's statement was the Secretary of State's announcement that the Post Office Card Account will continue:

"The Government introduced the Post Office card account in 2003 to enable people to get their pensions and other benefits in cash at the post office. The Government remain committed to allowing people to get their pension or benefit in cash at the post office if they choose to do so, and a range of accounts available at the post office make that possible. The current Post Office card account contract ends in March 2010. I can tell the House that the Government have decided that they will continue with a new account after 2010. It will be available nationally and customers will be eligible for the account on the same basis as they are now."

This has been one of the key worries of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, whom I met with recently. I congratulated the Minister on the decision to retain the POCA, while at the same time asking him to ensure that there will not be patchy Post Office provision in the future:

Julie Morgan (Cardiff, North) (Lab): I am very pleased that the Secretary of State has said that the Post Office card account will continue, which will be a huge relief to the postmasters and mistresses in Wales; that was one of their major requirements. Has he made any assessment of how the proposals will affect Wales? When the last round of urban closures took place, the branches that closed in Cardiff were the ones where the postmasters or mistresses volunteered, which did leave a patchy provision.

Mr. Darling: On the last point, as I said a few moments ago, it is important that we do not end up with areas without postal provision because somebody wanted to go. Indeed, the whole point of having national access criteria is to make sure that there is a network, and that branches are within a reasonable distance of where people live. On the card account, I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said because I know that this is one of the things about which the federation and many of those who signed the petition were very concerned.

Child Support White Paper launched

Work and Pensions Secretary John Hutton made a statement in the Commons today on the Government's plans for the reform of the child support system.

A lot of my casework -- far more than I would like -- is composed of problems that people are experiencing with the Child Support Agency. It is a failed organisation which was doomed from its beginnings under the Conservatives in 1994. As Tony Blair said today, whatever reforms have been undertaken under this Government, they clearly have not worked. Too many mothers are coming to my surgeries telling me how they simply cannot get any money out of the CSA. This has to change.

The Government commissioned Sir David Henshaw to investigate how the child support system could be reformed. His report (and the Government's response) laid the groundwork for today's White Paper: "A New System of Child Maintenance". It proposes replacing the CSA with the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission (CMEC). This will have the power to seize driving licences, order curfews, access money directly, and end the blocks on parents making private arrangements for maintenance payments.

I welcome all comments on the Government's proposals -- write to the office, or send me an e-mail.

Julie presses Government over Allied Steel and Wire pensions

I spoke yesterday in the Estimates Day debate on occupational pensions. This is an issue which is hugely important in Cardiff due to the collapse of Allied Steel and Wire in 2002. When those 838 people lost their jobs, they also lost their pensions. The Government has responded to this and other similar situations by setting up the Pension Protection Fund, so that in the future no-one will lose their pension in this way, and by creating the Financial Assistance Scheme, which provides some funds for people who have lost their occupational pension. But the cut-off date for assistance means that barely anyone from ASW gets help.

I'm a member of the Public Administration Select Committee, which has looked into the Government's refusal to adopt the recommendations of the ombudsman on this. Yesterday's debate gave me the chance to bring ASW pensioners' concerns to the Floor of the House. I'm determined that ASW pensioners should receive all the money that they are entitled to and that justice should be done.

Julie Morgan (Cardiff, North) (Lab): As a member of the Public Administration Committee, I am very pleased to speak in this debate. This is an important debate in two respects: first, in relation to the fate of the estimated 125,000 people affected; and secondly, in relation to the status of the ombudsman’s office and the Government’s response to her recommendations.

The Public Administration Committee, ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), interviewed many people who had suffered the loss of most of their pensions. They gave moving testimonies. As a Cardiff MP, my constituency was very much affected by the closure of Allied Steel and Wire, which, in 2002, went into receivership, resulting in 838 employees losing their jobs. In the summer, I met a large group of Allied Steel and Wire workers in my constituency, who told me how upset they were when they first learned that the plant would close, although at least they thought that their pensions were safe. Ten days later, however, they learned that they had lost most of their pensions. When the ombudsman’s report came out, they believed that they were saved. They thought that the Government always took notice of the ombudsman and that there would be a solution. The issue of the ASW workers’ pensions is still a running sore, and they continue to campaign on it to this day. They strongly believed that the ombudsman was an independent voice that the Government would heed, but that has not happened in this case.

On Monday, the ombudsman made a speech at a seminar at the constitution unit. She mentioned three prominent cases where there was disagreement but where the Government changed their mind and, to some extent at least, remedied the injustice. As a result of our debate, I hope that the Government will think again, and that they will look back to see how the Government did change their mind in those three cases and moved, at least in part, towards what the ombudsman recommended. There are now two outstanding cases, one of which is the occupational pensions issue.

I do not suggest that the Government have done nothing. The Pension Protection Fund has been mentioned and it will in future protect pensioners who fall into such circumstances. The Government have also set up a financial assistance scheme, but we have heard about that today and we know that it is woefully inadequate. I pay tribute to the hard work that has been done, led by ASW pensioners and by the unions Amicus and Community, to keep the issue on the agenda by taking it to the European courts and trying to get recompense for their members. The changes that were made to the financial assistance scheme—which must have been brought in partly as a result of the ombudsman’s report—improved things by extending the scheme to those within 15 years of retirement. That was a step forward. But there are still huge inadequacies.

I have constituents who miss out on the 15-year extension even though they paid into the pension fund for more than 30 years. One of my constituents, from Whitchurch in Cardiff, misses the 15-year extension by three months. It is impossible to underestimate the stress and anxiety that is caused to entire families.

Another constituent from Heath worked in the steel industry in Cardiff from the age of 15. He worked with ASW until the closure in 2002, contributing to the works pension scheme. He had previously contributed to the state earnings-related pension scheme, and he transferred to the final salary works pension scheme believing—under the guidance of the Government, as he saw it—that that was guaranteed. When he heard about the increased funding under the financial assistance scheme he wrote to me:

“To my utter dismay, I find that no assistance is available to me, since I do not fall into the category of being within 15 years of retirement, being 2 months short of the qualifying period. This is totally unjust, as up to the closure of ASW, I was employed in a very harsh environment, paying taxes fully, while doing my utmost to secure my future for retirement via the works pension scheme, as recommended by the Government...After 34 years contributing, I face a bleak retirement.”

The ASW pensioners whom I have met in Cardiff all believed that they were following the Government’s guidance, and they also believed that the Government would act on the ombudsman’s recommendations. This is a matter of trust, and the Government should address it. It will be good if the Minister confirms today that they will at least look at what can be done to address the important issues that have been raised.

Attention has been drawn to the ombudsman’s recommendations. She has not asked for the Government to fork out the entire amount. She was not asking for a blank cheque. As she said:

“I did not say, “Write a blank cheque”, but to organise a remedy.”

The Government’s response to the ombudsman has, however, been very disappointing. It states that

“the Government does not believe that the information issued by the Government can be regarded as having caused the losses”.

The Government cannot of course be blamed for the failure of the schemes. The failure was that member schemes were not protected by the Government in the way that the members believed they were. That is what they said in evidence to the Committee. They believed that they were protected. However, although we are not blaming the Government for the fact that these schemes have collapsed, it is in this context that they should look at the matter.

On the question of the leaflets, the Government reject the notion of maladministration because they believe that it was clear that the information on the leaflets should not have been taken in isolation. However, the ombudsman made it clear to us in Committee that the information did influence many of the people affected. She described individuals coming to see her and showing her the parts of the leaflets to which they had paid attention. There is no doubt in my mind that the ASW pensioners in Cardiff strongly believed that they had been following Government advice, and that, as far as they were able, they had looked into protecting themselves responsibly for their retirement.

Most of the past disagreements between the Government and the ombudsman have reached a satisfactory conclusion, and the ombudsman herself says that she sees no need for a power to make her recommendations legally binding. Surely Parliament can work out a solution to this situation. The evidence is strong and compelling. The Government should listen to what is being said in the House today and find some way of sorting out a grievous situation and running sore that will otherwise continue.

MP calls for new approach to women in prison

Julie is calling for a new approach to women prisoners from Wales.

In an answer to a Parliamentary Question, Julie has learned that there are 183 women in prison in the UK who have Welsh addresses. The largest number is in Eastwood Park (81). There are 20 in Styal in Cheshire, serving North Wales, 19 at Send in Surrey, 19 at Drake Hall in Staffordshire and 15 at Foston Hall in Derby. The others are scattered about the UK, with under ten women from Wales in each other prison. There is no women's prison in Wales.

Julie said: "It is well known that the consequences for children when their mothers go to prison are dire. Only 5% of children stay in the home when their mothers are imprisoned and about 8% are taken into local authority care, whereas the majority of children of male prisoners remain at home.

"I believe that there should be a facility for women offenders in Wales, but I do not think it should be a conventional prison. I think it should be somewhere where women not only serve a sentence, but begin to rebuild their lives — somewhere that takes a holistic approach to women's offending, like the 218 service in Glasgow. This addresses the root causes of women's offending and offers medical, therapeutic and support services. The programme daws on all disciplines to provide a tailor-made treatment for each woman and is designed to break the cycle of offending and re-offending. I think we need to consider such an option in Wales for Welsh women prisoners."

Julie has previously given oral evidence to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons on the subject of women in the Welsh prison estate. You can read her evidence here.

The future of the Post Office

A group of South Wales Labour MPs, including Julie, Bridgend MP Madeleine Moon and Rhondda MP Chris Bryant, met Post Office Minister Jim Fitzpatrick today to discuss the future of Post Offices in Wales. The MPs were raising issues put to them by the Welsh National Federation of Sub-Postmasters in an earlier meeting in Westminster.

At the meeting, the MPs were told that an announcement would be made in two weeks about Government plans for the Post Office, and that a three-month consultation period would follow.

Julie said: "We stressed the importance of ending the uncertainty about the Post Office Card Account, and that we wanted a similar, more flexible provision retained. We also asked for central and local government to use the Post Office to deliver services. Two suggestions were that personalised DVLA forms should also include the name and address of the nearest Post Office and that hospital Trusts and community hospitals should have a Post Office presence.

"Every effort should be made to support the Post Offices and they should be helped to diversify into other services such as cafés, shops and advice agencies — following the success of the Government-funded pilots."

The MPs stressed that as high a subsidy as possible should be given to the Post Offices, especially because of the social role they play for the elderly and socially excluded. They argued that any further closure programme must ensure that a viable network is left and that the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters must be consulted.

Julie said: "We had a full and frank meeting. The Minister listened very carefully and we now await the Government announcement. We will be following this up by meeting Ed Balls, the Treasury Minister, to put pressure on all banks and building societies to be accessible through the Post Office network."