Work, Health and Disability

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I confess that I have not had the opportunity to see the programme that my hon. Friend mentioned, but she is not the first person to recommend it strongly to me. I will perhaps endeavour to watch it over the weekend. She raises an important point about small businesses. We need to help small businesses to find the best way of providing support to disabled people. That will give small businesses access to people who, as I understand the programme demonstrates, have significant ability, are very talented and could bring a lot to the labour market, but who have not had the opportunities that they should have had, partly because of attitudes, culture and so on.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I note that the statement mentioned taking forward reform of the work capability assessment. I have certainly found that to be a major issue in my constituency case load. I think of Jean Birrell, my Fullarton Park constituent, who was treated really quite poorly in the work capability assessment process. May I ask the Secretary of State when he last sat in on a work capability assessment?

[Mr Gauke]

I have not done so, but we have made reforms to the work capability assessment process. As I said earlier, those with severe disabilities no longer need to be reassessed in the same way. I have dealt with the matter as a constituency Member of Parliament, and I recognise the concerns that exist. I also recognise that there is not, as yet, a consensus on exactly how the work capability assessment should be reformed.

State Pension Age: Women

David Linden Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

Having visited his local jobcentre, my hon. Friend will be aware that a great deal of assistance is provided by the job coaches. However, help comes not just from job coaches and jobcentres but from local job clubs, which I am sure exist in his constituency, as they do in mine; from individual flexible working arrangements; and from jobs fairs, which a number of colleagues have mentioned. I have done three myself, culminating in the last one in September, which was highly successful. There is also all manner of private sector support on an ongoing basis.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Guy Opperman]

I will give way in a moment, but first let me address the issue in relation to Scotland. I was surprised that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) refused 10 times to give way. If I were him, I would say that he was frit, but I will not go down that route.

In addition to the substantial support that the UK Government are providing, which is worth £50 billion across the country and 6% of GDP, the Scottish Government now have significant new powers available to them to tailor welfare provision to people in Scotland. Although pensions remain a reserved matter, the Scotland Act 2016 has given the Scottish Government the ability to use a wide range of new welfare provisions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) correctly set out the provisions of section 28 of the Scotland Act. There are of course section 24 powers as well. I refer all colleagues, on both sides of the House, to a letter written to my predecessor by Jeane Freeman, my opposite number in the Scottish Government. She says that the power under section 26

“is limited to providing help with ‘short term needs’, and those needs must require to be met to avoid a risk to a person’s wellbeing. That would not readily allow assistance to the majority of women most affected by the acceleration of increase in their State Pension Age. Their needs and the risks to their well-being would have to be assessed individually.”

There is an acceptance in that letter that, as Scottish Conservative colleagues have said, the powers are there. Those powers commenced on 5 September 2016. It is up to the Scottish Government to determine how they will use those powers, but—

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

The reality of the situation, given the motion facing us today, is that one has to ask what the Scottish Government are doing. My hon. Friend is entirely right.

The issue dates back to 1995, when the Government legislated after two years of debate and consultation to equalise the state pension age in order to eliminate gender inequalities in state pensions. There had been welcome increases in life expectancy, and there was an anticipated increase in the number of pensioners in the years to come.

[David Linden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Guy Opperman]

I will give way for the last time. I am conscious that 20 Members wish to speak.

[David Linden]

I have come through an apprenticeship on how this works. The Minister made a point about jobcentres, but he is actually closing half of Glasgow’s jobcentres. I have a question for him about life expectancy—I asked him this 10 days ago in Westminster Hall, so he has had 10 days to find out the answer. Can he tell me the life expectancy in Glasgow East?

[Guy Opperman]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, without a shadow of a doubt, life expectancy has increased in all parts of the country and in all socioeconomic groups over the past 30 years. I refer him to the Cridland report, which accepts the situation that has existed for the past 30 years, and the change that has been made.

Developments in policy have included the Pensions Act 1995, as well as the Pensions Act 2007, passed when the Labour party was in power. It is a shame that the Labour party is now scrapping the fiscal prudence that it seemed to demonstrate with the 2007 Act by now revoking its desire to increase the pension age beyond 66. Under the coalition, action was taken in the Pensions Act 2011 to increase the pension age as a result of enhanced life expectancy.

State Pension Age

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) on securing today’s debate on the state pension age and welcome him to what I think is his first debate here.

Since world war 2, we have seen dramatic changes in life expectancy. We are living longer and staying healthier for longer, and we are leading far more active lifestyles, regardless of our age. Although increasing longevity is to be celebrated, we must also be realistic about the demographic and fiscal challenges that that creates for us as a society. Faced with significant increases in life expectancy and compelling evidence of demographic pressures, it is right that successive Governments took action to secure the affordability and sustainability of the state pension system for current and future generations.

To answer the point raised by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who wanted us to think long term, in July the Government published their first review of the state pension age, setting out a coherent strategy targeted at strengthening and sustaining the UK’s state pension system for many decades to come. It accepts the key recommendations of John Cridland’s independent review, which consulted a wide range of people and organisations, proposing that the state pension age be increased from 67 to 68 in the years 2037 to 2039.

The Cridland review was independent and is very clear. It stated:

“In 1917 the first telegrams to those celebrating their 100th birthday”

were sent. There were 24 that year. The review continued:

“In 2016 around 6,000 people will have received a card from Her Majesty the Queen. In 2050, we expect over 56,000 people to reach this milestone. Three factors are at play here: a growing population; an ageing population as the Baby Boomers retire; and an unprecedented increase in life expectancy. A baby girl born in 2017 can expect to live to be 94 years and a boy to be 91. By 2047 it could well be 98 and 95 respectively.”

The reality, therefore, is that the

“world of the Third Age is now a very different one”

and that those who receive the state pension

“will on average spend…a third of their adult life in retirement, a proportion never before reached.”

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Given that the Minister has spent so long talking about life expectancy, will he do me the honour of telling the House what the life expectancy in Glasgow East is?

[Guy Opperman]

The reality is that life expectancy has increased repeatedly across the country—[Interruption.] It most definitely has increased across the country in all socioeconomic groups over the past 30 years, and for all constituent countries of the UK. Mr Cridland, who was independent, did extensive work on that point, concluding that a universal state pension age remained the best system, and the Government agree with that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hugh Gaffney]

I thank everybody who took part in this debate. I was disappointed by the lack of Tory Back Benchers taking the opportunity to speak and maybe defend themselves, but I counted 21 people involved in this hour-long debate. Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for allowing that to happen. It shows the seriousness of this debate.

This debate has not finished. It has not stopped. We will continue. I see a large number of the WASPI women here with us, and I thank them for coming to hear this debate. I hope that we can do them justice and do them proud. They will have heard most Members mention the WASPI debate. We will deal with the WASPI issue and continue the fight for the WASPI women.

We will also speak for every single pensioner out there, and for workers, who are now being worked harder and harder. Jobs are going and not being replaced. Redundancies are happening everywhere. Local authorities everywhere are cutting jobs, and more and more pressure is being put on people to work harder and harder. I know that as a postman. I am only 54, but I am starting to suffer from that job when I climb the stairs, and I have many good friends and workmates still doing that job today.

I thank the fire brigade, whom I mentioned earlier, and the hospital workers and all those people. We all age. We all get older and older, but we are now going to make people suffer as they get on in life, because the pension money will not see them through their lives. People are worried. The next generation are not even bothered about pensions; they are looking for mum and dad’s house to sell. That is how they will get by in this country.

This debate will continue. We will continue to fight for the WASPI women. To finish, the Government found £1 billion for the DUP; find the money for the pensioners.

[David Linden]

On a point of order, Mr Hollobone. As a new Member of this House, I am perhaps not acquainted with the procedure, so I wanted to ask whether you could clarify. During the course of the debate there were a couple of rather pathetic, in my view, interventions from Government Back Benchers. Can you clarify whether any information was given to you beforehand about Conservative MPs coming here to take part in the substance of the debate?

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

It is open to any Member of the House to attend any Westminster Hall debate. Members can choose to apply to speak, or they can ask to intervene on the Member speaking. It is entirely in the hands of individual Members whether they attend a debate or not.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Linden Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I will take that as a spending bid from my right hon. Friend. She is right to highlight the role of citizens advice bureaux. I met citizens advice bureaux in St Albans and Bedford last week, and where a CAB works closely with jobcentres, it helps to deliver the support that people need, which I very much welcome.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

My Tollcross constituent Margaret Laird was moved on to universal credit in January 2016. She has been given a 132-day sanction. She is being treated by psychiatric services and helped by the local food bank. Will the Secretary of State undertake to look into her case, because it is very sensitive?

Universal Credit Roll-out

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry]

I was just clarifying that I have experienced exactly the same in my constituency, where mobile phone coverage still lags behind, particularly in our rural areas. This is not only about people’s inability to get online; people are unable to get on a bus to actually get to a jobcentre to use its facilities. Those bus services sometimes do not exist.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I commend my hon. Friend on his work in Inverness, which everybody in Parliament admires. When he mentioned jobcentres, I noticed the Minister for Employment shaking his head, but he wants to close three of the four jobcentres in Glasgow East, where digital exclusion is a massive problem. Does my hon. Friend share my concern?

[Drew Hendry]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It beggars belief that jobcentres will be closed during this process. Moving on—

UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 12th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock]

My hon. and learned Friend makes an excellent point. That is certainly an issue of great concern to a large number of organisations that work on behalf of disabled people.

The UN committee also recommends putting in place a proper employment programme for people with disabilities to create decent work opportunities on equal pay scales. Will the Minister tell us that that will happen and assure us that the Government do not intend to change the minimum wage legislation in a way that will disadvantage people with disabilities? Will she clarify the Government’s position on maintaining the same minimum wage for people with disabilities as for other people? I wish there was time to go through all the recommendations, to address each and every one of the points, and to get to the bottom of each of the issues raised in the report. I feel, however, that there may be more benefit in allowing the Minister plenty of time to respond to the points that are being raised, and we can revisit the issues at a later date.

May I make a few final points to which I hope that the Minister will respond? These few are, I think, the most important of all and I would be grateful if the Minister gave them special attention. Paragraph 59 of the report calls for the Personal Independence Payment (Amendment) Regulations 2017 to be repealed. Will she commit the Government to that?

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important debate. I know that she is an assiduous constituency MP. Like me, has she found that a number of her constituents who had a lifetime award for disability living allowance, but are now transitioned to PIP, have been, following an assessment, suddenly found fit for work?

[Deidre Brock]

As I said at the beginning of my speech, these situations are all too common to us all as constituency MPs. I hope that the Minister is listening closely to some of these examples and that she will take action.

Leaving the EU: Disabled People’s Services

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Thank you very much, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to see the generosity once again of Kettering, which I know you are proud to represent in this Parliament.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for bringing this important debate to the Chamber. There are a number of issues and policies that have been forgotten about in the heat of the Brexit campaign. It is only now, as we start to work through what the British people have delivered, that we as legislators begin to see the job on our hands. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that she has done, particularly with the all-party parliamentary group for disability.

I have a number of points that I want to make, but my fundamental approach is that Brexit could have a hugely detrimental impact on the ability of disabled people to live and work independently and with dignity in the UK. The UK Government need to reassure us that disability rights groups will be consulted on decisions every step of the way. The main themes I want to touch on from the outset are that EU law has played a vital role in upholding the rights of disabled people across the EU; that the EU also supports, both financially and through co-operation, initiatives across the EU to support disabled people in member states; that concerns are now starting to be raised about the possible impact of the UK Government’s proposals for settlement criteria given the often fluctuating conditions of disabled people; and that disability groups have stressed the impact that a fall in the number of NHS staff as a result of Brexit will have, particularly on social care. I visited Greenfield Park care home in Carntyne in my constituency just two weeks ago, and that point came up and was well made. The UK Government must ensure that disability rights groups are consulted fully on any potential impact of Brexit on services that those groups use.

My hon. Friend touched on the European Accessibility Act, which is currently being negotiated. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has said that it will benefit disabled people by providing common rules on accessibility in relation to computers and operating systems, ATMs, ticketing and check-in machines, as my hon. Friend mentioned. The proposed Act would require domestic provisions to allow consumers and interest groups to take action under national law. It would require authorities within member states to have the power to restrict, prohibit or recall offending products and services. Manufacturers would be required to produce information relating to complaints, compliance and product recall. When we consider the effort that has been put in, it really does ring true, and I hope that the Minister understands just how serious this is. In giving evidence to the Women and Equalities Committee, Anna Lawson, Director of the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds, said:

“In terms of accessibility, in the last few years there has been a really strong set of initiatives from the EU. Accessibility is very much part of the EU disability strategy. It is embedded in a whole raft of legislation and policies, which impact on the UK in areas such as transport, procurement, social funds and websites. There is a new one coming in on public websites.”

There is real cause to look at the support that the EU provides financially and through co-operation initiatives to support disabled people in member states. Disability organisations such as the Papworth Trust have said that the EU provides millions from the European social fund to support a range of schemes for disabled people such as work experience, wage subsidies and support for the self-employed. At this stage, in extending a hand of friendship across the House, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who held an excellent event recently for Mencap on how we get disabled people into work. I know the Minister was present at that, and I hope that it will be factored in to these strategies as well.

I want to talk briefly about my hon. Friend’s concerns about settlement, because concerns are now starting to be raised about the impact of Brexit. Disability Rights UK interviews have highlighted that disabled people from other EU countries might well experience disability-related disadvantages when it comes to establishing a right to permanent residence in the UK. The UK Government have published a document on the rights of EU citizens living in the UK. It suggests that EU nationals will apply for a new settled status, but does not provide further fulfilment criteria. I hope that the Minister will touch on that.

I am mindful of time and do not want to detain the House much longer, but there are two other points that I want to raise. The UK Government must ensure that disability rights groups are consulted fully on any potential impact of Brexit on services that they use. This Government need to realise that decisions they make on Brexit will have a very significant impact on disabled people, whether they are about social care, establishing the right to residence, or a loss of vital funding. We know that the last Parliament demonstrated a staggering contempt for disabled people who are on low incomes, with legislation cutting the ESA WRAG component by £30 a week as well as tightening the eligibility for PIP.

As we embark on what will be the most challenging time for us as legislators in this country, we need to have the rights of disabled people first and foremost and front and centre. I hope that the Government will do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

I get the impression from the Minister that the Government are in listening mode. May I therefore extend an invitation to her, and indeed to DExEU Ministers and officials, to come to Glasgow for a meeting with the Glasgow Disability Alliance, which has done excellent work with its manifesto to get these issues on the agenda?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I would certainly be happy to do that. I am always happy to visit, although it may have to be during the recess. The Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), has responsibility in this area and responsibility for Scotland. I am sure there will be opportunities to talk to him directly.

Throughout the negotiations, Ministers and officials are holding meetings with the business community and others about a variety of issues. I know from my own sense check of DExEU that the materials that may be needed to support those meetings, such as documents in accessible formats, are in good order.

DExEU’s engagement with stakeholders will ensure that our commitment to equalities through the transition remains steadfast. Indeed, we hope to use the EU exit as a potential opportunity to create standards that are higher than the EU’s in many areas—I know that the Disability Charities Consortium is particularly keen on looking at such opportunities. To support this work, DExEU will share with colleagues in other Departments, including me in the Office for Disability Issues, the insight gained from its stakeholder engagement on this and other matters. Brexit is a cross-cutting issue, and the Government are co-ordinating work to ensure continuity for everyone in this country in the wake of the legislative transfer. In our relationship with the EU, the UK has been a leader on many equality issues. I hope we will continue to hold that leadership role even outside the EU.

Let me address some concerns mentioned by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow. Our standards on rail vehicle accessibility for disabled people were used as the model for EU-wide standards. That is just one example. On bus driver training, which she mentioned, the EU regulation came into force on 1 March 2013 and training has to be put in place within five years. As she will know, the Department for Transport has been doing an awful lot to ensure not just that the right legislation is in place, but that bus drivers are trained and that the standards of customer service that people enjoy on public transport are maintained. My Department is supporting that work. One of our disability sector champions, Jane Cole, is promoting good practice on disability awareness training—I place my thanks to her on the record.

I hope we maintain our leadership role. The UK has some of the strongest equalities legislation in the world, including the Equality Act 2010, which enshrines equality in domestic law. A huge focus of my Department is on ensuring that that law is enforced, because we cannot rely on people having to sue organisations to enforce it. We have some new opportunities to achieve that, particularly by utilising technology. That is one way in which the Office for Disability Issues can support this agenda.

The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) raised the ESF. For projects signed off after the autumn statement, which will continue after we leave the EU, funding will be honoured by the Treasury. We expect those projects to provide value for money and to be in line with our domestic priorities. We want leaving the EU to mean that we can take our own decisions and set for ourselves the policy objectives that were previously targeted to gain EU funding. The Government will continue to consult stakeholders to review EU funding schemes in the round and ensure that any ongoing funding commitments best serve the UK’s national interests.

Jobcentre Plus: Closures

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

We have settled the estate now, and we do not have any immediate plans to revisit this. In terms of the sanctions process, a comprehensive system of appeals is available. As I say, there are far more missed or late appointments than there are sanctions, and I would expect that to continue to be the case.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Yesterday’s statement about the closure of Easterhouse and Parkhead jobcentres is another body blow to the east end from this callous Tory Government. Written parliamentary questions that I have lodged have shown that the Secretary of State and his Ministers have never bothered to visit jobcentres in Glasgow. Will the Secretary of State come to Glasgow and do the bus journeys from Gartloch to Shettleston to see how idiotic these plans are?

[Mr Gauke]

I think that the hon. Gentleman might want to have a word with the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) on the subject of churlishness. The fact is that Glasgow, as I keep saying, has more jobcentres per head of population than any large city in the whole of the United Kingdom, and that will continue to be the case. I have to say that if the Scottish Government took the approach of SNP Members in this House with regard to good use of taxpayers’ money, then they would be in even bigger trouble than they appear to be.

High Court Judgment: Benefit Cap

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the High Court judgement on the benefit cap.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hanson.

On 22 June 2017, a ruling was made in response to a judicial review of the imposition of the benefit cap brought by four lone-parent families who had three children under the age of two. This was supported by Gingerbread, Shelter and the Child Poverty Action Group, all of whom I thank for their briefings on the matter. The judgment was damning of this Tory Government. In my speech I intend to refer to Mr Justice Collins’s judgment and I absolutely commend it to anybody with any interest in this issue.

Mr Justice Collins was quite clear in his findings:

“Whether or not the defendant accepts my judgment, the evidence shows that the cap is capable of real damage to individuals such as the claimants. They are not workshy but find it, because of the care difficulties, impossible to comply with the work requirement. Most lone parents with children under two are not the sort of households the cap was intended to cover and, since they will depend on DHP, they will remain benefit households. Real misery is being caused to no good purpose.”

In response, the Department for Work and Pensions says that it intends to appeal the decision. I find that truly shocking and urge the Minister to reconsider, unless she supports misery being caused to no good purpose.

Back in the Government’s own assessment before the 2015 Welfare Reform and Work Bill, there was an acceptance that the policy of reducing the cap from £26,000 to £20,000, or £23,000 in London, would have a disproportionate impact on women. It even stated:

“Most of the single women affected are likely to be lone parents: this is because we expect the majority of households affected by the policy to have children.”

The Local Government Association says that this lower cap is being implemented without a full understanding of the impact of the original cap. I ask the Minister, what did they expect to happen? Mr Justice Collins found that the policy is unlawful and discriminates against female single parents.

The Supreme Court has said previously that the benefit cap breaches the UN convention on the rights of the child and that:

“It cannot possibly be in the best interests of the children affected by the cap to deprive them of the means to provide them with adequate food, clothing, warmth and housing, the basic necessities of life.”

Mr Justice Collins reiterates that point in his findings, stating in paragraph 40:

“the effect of the cap means that the children and their parents have restrictions on what can be provided by way of housing, food and other things that an average child should have available. Further, as the ministers have said, it may be necessary to try to move to cheaper accommodation to avoid the effect of the cap so that there will be an upheaval for the family. I have set out the evidence of the damage to both family and private life which the cap has produced and will continue to produce.”

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I commend my hon. Friend for her sterling work on this campaign. In her conversations with the UK Government, have they indicated how this policy is compatible with their family test?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Caroline Dinenage)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) on securing this important debate on the benefit cap High Court judgment.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to bring the issue to the House. As she knows, the Government are committed to building a country that works for everyone, and that means taking action to help and encourage people into work and away from a life of welfare dependency and to restore fairness between those who pay into the system and those who access it. We believe that those out of work should not receive more in benefits than many working families are able to earn. Before the cap, the Department for Work and Pensions disproportionately spent £10 million a year on just 300 families.

As the hon. Lady said, we introduced the benefit cap in 2013 at a national rate of £26,000 a year. Its aim was to encourage people to find work, and that is exactly what has happened. We did that on the principle that work not only pays, but brings self-esteem, better health, better happiness and improved self-confidence, as well as much more opportunity for social mobility for children in such households. The evaluation of the original cap shows that that is what has happened.

Capped households are 41% more likely to go into work than uncapped households, and 38% of those capped who were interviewed said that they were doing more to find work. The original cap met its aims, but the change was mainly felt in London and the south-east. To spread the work incentives across the country, we introduced a lower tiered cap in November last year. It aims to build on the original successes. The new tiered cap is set at £23,000 for couples and lone parents in Greater London and at £21,000 for other parts of the country. That is an equivalent salary of £29,000 in London or £25,000 in the rest of the UK. We know that four out of 10 households in London and in the rest of the UK earn less than those respective amounts. That system is fair to those who use it and to those who pay for it.

The cap levels continue to provide a clear incentive to work. Households are only required to work part-time hours to be exempt from the cap. Households that claim working tax credits are exempt from the cap if they work just 16 hours a week for lone parents or earn £520 a month on universal credit. However, we acknowledge that the move into work just is not appropriate for some people. That is why there is a range of exemptions for vulnerable groups, including households in receipt of most disability benefits, carer’s allowance, the equivalent universal credit carers element and the guardian’s allowance.

We were disappointed by the High Court judicial review decision, which challenged the application of the cap to lone parents with children under the age of two. The Court gave the Government the ability to appeal, and we will be appealing the decision, as we strongly believe that work is the best way for people to raise their living standards. We know that children whose parents work benefit from increased life chances. They are less likely to grow up in poverty. Evidence shows that one of the biggest drivers of child poverty is long-term worklessness and low earnings.

I want to respond to some of the issues that the hon. Lady raised. The latest labour market statistics show that we continue to have a record number of people in work. In April, nearly 32 million people were in work. Evidence shows that work is the best route out of poverty. There are also record numbers of lone parents in employment. It is not easy. In life, very few people choose to be a lone parent, as I know. I never made the choice to be one, yet I was a working lone parent, making the same difficult decisions that lone parents, particularly mothers, have to make every single day.

An evaluation of the previous benefit cap showed that it changed attitudes and behaviours. One in five of all capped households went to work after a year, compared with just 11% of similar uncapped households previously. Importantly, capped lone parents were 51% more likely to be in work after a year as compared with similar uncapped lone-parent households. Those surveyed said that the new employment had brought financial rewards —some felt better off and able to afford extra treats for their children—and other rewards in health, happiness and self-esteem.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) talked about the family test, but he is mistaken about what it is. He has a far too pessimistic view. It is not a tick-box exercise, but a way of assessing the impact of a policy on a whole range of family measures. It is not in children’s best interests to live in workless households. Children’s life chances and opportunities can be significantly damaged by living in households where no one has worked for years and where parents do not consider work as an option.

Let us face it: we are only requiring people to work for 16 hours a week. Children in households where no parent or carer is in work are much more likely to show challenging behaviour by age five. Parental worklessness has been shown to be significantly associated with poorer academic attainment and greater behavioural problems in children aged seven. Growing up in a workless household is associated with a higher risk of being not in education, employment or training in late adolescence.

[David Linden]

The Minister is talking about the importance of ensuring that we do not have households with worklessness, but part of the problem is that the Government have done very little to tackle pay inequality. They are bringing forward a living wage that does not support under-25s. Nothing the Minister is saying reassures me that the Government are making any attempt to tackle pay inequality, particularly for under-25s. This Government will be actively discriminating against them with their false living wage.

[Caroline Dinenage]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is just wrong. Some 1.3 million people on the lowest incomes have been taken out of income tax altogether since 2015. In April 2017, we increased the national living wage to £7.50. That will directly benefit 12 million workers this year. A full-time worker on the national living wage will see their annual pay increase by more than £500.

One issue raised was that the benefit cap is forcing people to move. Our evaluation of the original cap found that very few households moved house. Where they have moved, the vast majority have moved locally.

I am particularly concerned about the arguments that the hon. Member for Glasgow Central made in respect of vulnerable women. Before doing this job, I was the Minister for Women and Equalities, and the violence against women and girls agenda is close to my heart. That is why I am delighted that the Government have committed more than £100 million to tackling violence against women and girls. Such violence is absolutely unforgivable in any circumstances.

We recognise that some groups, such as pregnant women, new mothers and victims of domestic violence, find it harder to adapt to benefit caps. That is why we have explicitly stated in the guidance that direct housing payments should provide targeted help to women within 11 weeks of an expected birth and to households with children under nine months. Women who need safe accommodation, such as sanctuary houses, are prioritised. Housing benefit can be paid for both the home a victim has fled and the refuge or other temporary accommodation for up to 52 weeks. That 52-week limit is to avoid the blocking issue that the hon. Lady specified. It is also disregarded from the benefit cap.

In regard to Scotland, 7,300 households have been capped since the benefit cap was introduced. Of those, more than half are no longer capped, with 21% moving into work. The cap is having a positive impact. We can always find negative and distressing stories; when those happen, the hon. Lady is more than welcome to bring them to my desk and to my attention, but we have to look at the vast majority of people who have been assisted by the cap.

Both the cap and the policy limiting entitlement to the child element of tax credits were subject to detailed impact analysis throughout their development. We know that children whose parents work have improved life chances and are less likely to grow up in poverty. Parents receiving universal credit can get help with up to 85% of their eligible childcare costs. That is not just for children over the age of two or three; there is no minimum child age requirement for claiming costs through working tax credits or universal credit.

Our new childcare offer is backed by unprecedented levels of investment. Spending on childcare will increase to £6 billion by 2020. I was the Minister for early years education, and we are spending more than any previous Government on early years education and support for childcare. Finally, the flexible support fund can be used to help those working fewer than 16 hours a week with childcare costs for a child of any age, when those costs would otherwise present a barrier to work.

Lowering the cap emphasises the message that it is not fair for someone on benefits to receive more than many people in work. The hon. Lady may say that I should cross through those lines in my speech, but they are the most important. Even when claimants remain capped, they are better off from any work they are able to do. In some cases, a relatively small amount of work can be sufficient to mitigate the effects of the cap. For those impacted by the cap, we have made discretionary housing payments available to people who may need extra help.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).