Households Below Average Income Statistics

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I recognise that for single parents it can be hard to manage on funds, and to manage childcare and being able to access work. That is why I am pleased that one of the things that the Government have done is to increase the amount of free childcare that is available. I hope that a single mother in that situation would be able to access more work than she would otherwise have been able to do.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

The statistics show that pensioner poverty by all measures is up by 100,000. The Government are trying to cut thousands of pounds each from disadvantaged older people through the pension credit changes. Will the Secretary of State give the House a vote on those changes, and can she explain why the Government consistently attack and abandon older people, not least women born in the 1950s?

Oral Answers to Questions

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I have just answered that question, in terms of making sure that we do better and that the mandatory reconsiderations will have additional support to ensure that a greater proportion of those reviews do not have to go forward and so are not overturned.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

George Osborne said in his 2015 summer Budget that the welfare system should always support the elderly and the vulnerable. Does the Secretary of State agree? If so, why are we seeing stealth cuts to pension credit for mixed-age couples—a loss of £7,320 to some of our poorest and most vulnerable pensioners?

[Guy Opperman]

These changes were introduced in the Welfare Reform Act 2012. We have always made it clear that mixed-age couples already claiming pension credit or housing benefit for pensioners immediately before 15 May will not be affected for as long as they remain in receipt of either benefit after that date. Just to be clear, there is no impact or effect on their state pension.

Disability Assessment Services

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Thank you, Sir Christopher. I will be as brief as possible.

Support for those living with a disability is a mark of a civilised society but, as we have heard, the process that too many seeking support have to go through is often found to be daunting. That is certainly the case in my constituency. The rate of successful mandatory reconsiderations and appeals demonstrates that the process is fundamentally flawed. Evidence-based reviews conducted on behalf of the DWP have identified a pervasive culture of mistrust around PIP and ESA processes. That is simply not good enough.

There is no place in a welfare system for private companies, because that immediately introduces the profit motive. Looking after and supporting our sick and disabled should not be influenced by how much profit a private contractor can make. The Scottish Government will therefore remove the use of private companies for assessments.

We all have cases of constituents who have had an unfavourable decision made about them because information on them has been inaccurately recorded. Unbelievably, for example, someone with a heart condition has been assessed by a mental health professional, or vice versa. How does that promote faith in the assessment system? We need an overhaul of the system, a true recognition of the fact that life costs more for someone who lives with a disability. That is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact. For that reason, in Scotland the bedroom tax has been fully mitigated by the SNP Scottish Government, because we know that people who live with a disability are disproportionately affected by the tax.

The PIP evidence-gathering process should be streamlined—that is the way forward. The stress and bureaucracy that claimants are put through, which I see every day in my constituency, are unacceptable. They cause real harm to people who are already struggling every day with serious and debilitating conditions. The system must take more account of the often very vulnerable people with whom it deals, and be redesigned accordingly. Otherwise, when our constituents need support, they will continue to face cruel and unnecessary barriers. Scotland is building a social security system that is fair to all. I urge the Minister to look critically at the system in place and do what she can to improve it for the people who use it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Sarah Newton)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am grateful for the number of Members from across the House and all parts of the country who have come together for the debate. There is a compelling debate going on in the main Chamber, yet many Members chose to prioritise this debate, which is to the great credit of everybody who has participated.

I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) for her passionate, eloquent and well-informed contribution. She was joined by many colleagues who shared examples of the poor treatment that their constituents had faced in going through the assessment services. That is exactly why we made the announcements last week about the transformation of the way that we undertake assessments.

Our approach has been one of wholesale continuous improvement—to the personal independence payment since it was introduced, but also to the work capability assessment, since it was introduced by the Labour Government back in 2008. There have been numerous independent reviews, the Select Committee did an excellent inquiry and the Department has embraced and implemented a great number of recommendations. We are committed to continuous improvement, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) asked us to be. I thoroughly agree with him and want to reiterate what he said: we should treat others as we would like to be treated. Everyone should be treated with respect and dignity, and I can assure him and my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester, who also raised that point, that there is no complacency at all; there is an utter commitment to improvement.

[Patricia Gibson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sarah Newton]

I will not; I have little time, and I was asked many questions. If I do not manage to cover all the questions that Members asked, I will of course write to them. It is great that we often have debates in this Chamber on this subject. I am sure there will be other opportunities to ask questions, perhaps in oral questions to the DWP on Monday.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester asked some questions that I particularly want to answer. She made a good point about how people feel when they go to an assessment, as well as about the location, how people look and what clothes they wear. People forget that the assessors are fully qualified healthcare professionals; they are the same people they might see if they went to A&E on a Saturday night. As part of our transformed service, we are looking carefully at where we can co-locate services. That could be in NHS or local authority facilities, but they need to be in a place where people will feel more comfortable.

We are seriously looking at how the people undertaking the assessments appear, and at ensuring that their certificates showing that they are fully qualified healthcare professionals are available, so that people have the same confidence when going to their assessment as they do when going to see their GP. Most people have a high degree of trust in their GP, and that is helpful, because that is the point that I want to get to. Repeatedly, GPs and healthcare professionals have told us that they do not want to be the gatekeepers of the benefits system, as that would get in the way of their patient-doctor, or patient-healthcare professional, relationship. We will need to have healthcare professionals undertake assessments, but they need to be separate from NHS services.

We are working closely with the medical profession to make sure that we have as close a relationship as possible, and to obtain information as swiftly as possible. I want to offer reassurance to the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) about how we will go about getting medical information in our new transformed service. It will be with patient consent. We will not break into NHS or GP computer systems and extract data somehow. The information will be obtained with the consent of the patient.

I want to reiterate a commitment that I made at the Dispatch Box, when I answered the urgent question about the new transformed service. I want to make sure that disabled people co-design the service with us. We are starting soon on stakeholder engagement to enable that. We will work with the medical professionals—as I said, we will do a lot of work with them over the summer on this—stakeholders and disabled people. We want to improve people’s confidence and trust in the system, and make it properly accessible.

There were a whole range of really good points raised by the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for High Peak (Ruth George), for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley), and my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas), pointing to changes that they would like to see in the training of the healthcare professionals undertaking the assessments. I reassure hon. Members that a whole series of stakeholders—charities or people who work alongside those with particular health conditions—have met those undertaking health assessments to ensure that the guidance given to them is up to date and properly takes into consideration variability in conditions, and to ensure that those assessing people with rare conditions that we do not often come across are aware of that condition and its impact on a person’s ability to live their daily life in the way that we would like them to.

I assure all hon. Members that we give physical and mental health parity of esteem. Many of our healthcare assessors, as well as our frontline staff in the DWP, are undergoing good mental health awareness training, and they all have access to specialists whom they can call on. Through lots of small improvement to assessments, we are beginning to see real changes.

We spend a lot of time working with our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to ensure that people can access tribunals in a more timely way. The delays are unacceptable. There has been recruitment of a lot of staff, and there is a new online resolution service for PIP, which was piloted and received good feedback from claimants. It will not replace people’s opportunity to have a face-to-face tribunal service, but some people might choose to go that way.

We are looking at improving our mandatory reconsideration process. It is not fair to say that it is a rubber-stamping process—around 20% of decisions are changed at mandatory reconsideration—but we are learning from the work we are doing with Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to ensure that we can get more information, including medical information, from the claimant at the mandatory reconsideration stage, so that more decisions can be changed then, without having to go on to appeals.

However, the most important thing is to get more decisions right the first time, and to enable conversation, so that people are confident enough to give us all the information we need when we need it, and that we get that. We are working on that at pace.

In terms of the transformed service, it has been necessary to extend the existing contracts for both PIP and the work capability assessment, so that we have a secure and stable way of assessing the benefits. Developing the new transformed service will take a huge amount of work. We are creating a new digital platform, which we will co-design with disabled people. It will take this year to get that right; only then can we start to introduce the new service.

In the short time I have left, I return to the good point that my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives made about organisations such as the Benefits Resolutions service, formerly known as Bufferzone. I would love to work with him on what we can do to regulate those offering support to people going through the tribunal service. I agree with him; what he described is totally unacceptable. I would also like to work with my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) and look at the report he mentioned to see what we can do to ensure that improvements are made.

I thank all hon. Members very much indeed; I am absolutely determined, as they all are, to improve these services and ensure that they are the best they can be.

Employment and Support Allowance: Underpayments

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

I am happy to provide the hon. Lady with that clarification. The onus is on the Department. The Department is working really hard to find the family members of anyone who is deceased, so we can make the back payments of their benefits to them.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

The Minister must be aware of the hardship and misery that these errors in payments have caused to some of the most vulnerable in our communities, but does she understand the complete lack of trust felt by the sick and disabled towards the entire DWP system, in which there is a hostile environment towards the sick and disabled in which these administrative errors thrived? What steps will she and her Government take to rebuild trust with these groups?

[Sarah Newton]

I reassure the hon. Lady that we are spending record levels of money to support people with disabilities and health conditions. I am absolutely determined to make sure that we are constantly reforming the system to ensure that everybody gets the support to which they are entitled.

Pensions Dashboard

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) for initiating the debate. We have heard today, and I think we can all agree, that a pensions dashboard is a positive step. The utility of an online tool that shows users facts and figures about their pensions, such as how much money they can expect their pension pots to hold, is clear, particularly in view of the fact that research shows that 47% of the UK’s population do not know how much their pension pots contain. Given that people have, on average, about 11 jobs in their lifetime, pension pots can be challenging to keep track of, as we have heard.

I know from my own constituents that there was some alarm when the UK Government appeared to distance themselves from the pensions dashboard pilot, before going on to announce that they would introduce multiple pensions dashboards. Nobody would argue that the UK Government should not work in partnership with the pensions industry to deliver a pensions dashboard, but it really should be the Government’s responsibility. For the purposes of clarity and simplicity, there should be only one dashboard. If, as is proposed, there are multiple dashboards, the only thing we know for sure—and experts in the industry agree—is that there will be confusion and risk, and the whole thing may become ineffective. Ultimate responsibility for the delivery of a clean, simple, comprehensive and user-friendly pensions dashboard must rest with the Government and not the pensions services sector.

A proper pensions dashboard would allow people to see the value of their state, occupational and private pensions in one place, thereby helping them to keep better track of their pension income. In my correspondence and communication with the Minister on this matter, he has demonstrated no firm commitment to ensure that state pension data is included from the outset. I am keen to hear, unequivocally, that that has been reconsidered.

The Minister has offered me no commitment that providers will be compelled through legislation to contribute information or supply data to a pensions dashboard, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) pointed out. I am keen to hear that the Minister has also reconsidered that. According to experts in the field, not compelling providers to supply information will mean that the most important pensions data is not captured by the dashboard. It seems that private companies will develop a model for themselves. Now I hear that the pensions industry will take a lead on this matter. That risks the entire dashboard being incomplete and far less useful than it should be.

Many pensions experts have expressed concern that without strong commitment from the Government, the project may fail in its aims. If there is missing data in the pensions dashboard, it will be as useful as a recipe with only some of the ingredients listed. It seems that the UK Government will merely facilitate a dashboard, which I take to mean—perhaps I am wrong and the Minister will correct me—that it will be entirely in the hands of private companies and the information it contains may well be incomplete.

I know that the Government think that their plans for dashboards are revolutionary and radical—or transformative, as the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) said—and it is true that the potential is there, but I fear that it will not be met. I remind the Minister that a single dashboard is essential, not only for the reasons I have already given, but because it will provide a safeguard against scammers through restricted access. We know that consumers who have been scammed have been tricked out of an average of £91,000 of their pension savings. Those who work in this field have warned that unless the public are absolutely clear how many dashboards there are, multiple dashboards could make it easier for scammers to trick the public into divulging personal data, despite what the hon. Member for Hendon said.

We know that data security will be key in giving consumers confidence to use the dashboard to plan their retirement. I heard what the Minister had to say about data security, but I believe that there are ongoing concerns. I ask the Minister to take those concerns on board and to ensure that all those who are retired or are planning to retire can have confidence in a single pensions dashboard that helps to support their understanding and management of their financial future. I believe that the Government must have ultimate responsibility for this, and they must not be seen to abdicate that responsibility to the private sector, given all the concerns I have raised.

Widowed Parent’s Allowance

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the widowed parent’s allowance.

It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Moon. I felt compelled to call for this debate about the marital status requirements of widowed parent’s allowance and the need to update the eligibility criteria of its successor, bereavement support payment, following contact by parents affected by the loss of partners. I wish especially to raise the case of Mr Arwel Pritchard and his family.

I have known Arwel, a police officer, since he was in my class in the sixth form at Coleg Meirion-Dwyfor. He met his partner, Donna, whom I also taught, while they both studied there. They were together from then until her untimely death. She leaves two young sons, Cian and Danial. The letter Arwel wrote to me 11 days after Donna’s death is heartbreaking, and his justifiable anger at the callousness with which he and his children have been treated deserves to be put on the record. If I may, I will read some of his words. He wrote:

“On the 20^th of May 2018 the mother of my children and my long term partner Donna Claire McClelland passed away following a long illness with breast cancer.

She had been my partner since the time we met in college approximately 24 years ago.

During our time together we got engaged but, due to financial constraints, we did not get married as we had to make the difficult decision either to purchase a home together or get married. Wanting to raise a family, we decided to buy a house in order that we could have a home for our children.

The decision was made to become home owners, and, due to the inflated cost of living and the pay freeze that I received at work, we were never able to afford to be married.

Why am I—a person who has been a lifelong partner to Donna, who has two children with Donna and who has been in a relationship and living with Donna for more years than she lived with her parents—why am I treated as nothing in the eyes of the government?

Why am I treated differently to a person who could afford or was willing to get into debt to be married?

Why are my children not going to receive bereavement benefit for their loss just because their mother and father were not able to get married?

Why is the government discriminating against unmarried people?

Why is the government discriminating against people from different social backgrounds?

Why are children punished financially when one of their parents dies, just because their parents were unable to afford to get married?”

I am proud to be able to put those words on the record.

In many ways, widowed parent’s allowance has been around in one form or another since the inception of the modern welfare state. Society recognises that the death of either parent causes great trauma in a family and seeks to alleviate that distress with financial support. But although the names and conditions of bereavement support payments to widowed families have evolved since the days of Beveridge and Attlee, the requirement for widowed parents to be in a legally licensed relationship —either married or in a civil partnership—is a throwback to the social mores of the 1940s.

The Beveridge report of 1942 acknowledged, in a very different social context, the “problem” of unmarried couples being discriminated against, but none the less recommended limiting widow and guardian benefits to

“the legal wife of the dead man.”

That principle has remained enshrined in certain aspects of our social security system ever since.

That discrimination on the grounds of marital status was challenged in Northern Ireland by Siobhan McLaughlin, whose appeal was ultimately backed by the UK Supreme Court last summer. Ms McLaughin’s partner, John Adams, died in 2014. The couple were not married, but they had lived together for 23 years. At the time of his death, the couple had four children, aged between 11 and 19. The late Mr Adams had made sufficient contributions for Ms McLaughlin to be able to claim widowed parent’s allowance had she been married to him. The Supreme Court ruled by a majority of four to one that denying those payments to Ms McLaughlin was incompatible with article 14, in conjunction with article 8, of the European convention on human rights. Its judgment also sets out incompatibility with articles 2 and 3 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child.

Essentially, the Court reasoned that although the promotion of marriage and civil partnerships as a policy goal is a legitimate aim for any Government, denying Ms McLaughlin and her children the benefit of Mr Adams’s contributions simply because they were not married was not a proportionate means of achieving that policy goal. In other words, privileging marriage and civil partnerships with tax breaks is one thing, but denying money to grieving children simply because they come from unmarried households is quite another. I say “children” quite intentionally.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady is making a very eloquent case for children who are punished because their parents chose, for whatever reason, not to get married. Does she agree that the entire bereavement support regime introduced in April 2017 punishes all children, because some families with children lose up to £12,000 a year under the new system—working-age parents with children may lose up to £23,500 a year on average—despite this being a contributory benefit?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Indeed. It interests me that the Supreme Court judgment makes reference to article 2 of the UN convention on the rights of the child, which decrees non-discrimination in relation to children, and to article 3, which endorses Governments’ working for the best interests of the child first and foremost. Those principles apply not just to the matter we are debating but to other issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Tomlinson]

In terms of the way other European countries do this, that is part of our work, because we are looking at what has worked, what the potential unintended consequences are and what can be done to mediate that. That is shaping much of the work. I absolutely understand why the hon. Lady would love me to be able to give a specific timeframe, but I cannot do so, other than to say that it is an absolute priority for us to do this and to do it thoroughly and properly and to avoid unintended consequences. We absolutely recognise the importance of this.

[Patricia Gibson]

I am gratified by what I think the Minister said, which is that eligibility based on marital status cannot be determined purely on the basis of convenience. I am glad that he seems to have said that, but like the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), I ask him to assure the House right now that the children will be at the heart of any way forward that the Government embark on.

[Justin Tomlinson]

Many of the things that we do as a Government rightly recognise the importance of children. As the state, we have a duty of care to ensure that all children, regardless of background and circumstances, have the opportunity to unlock their full potential. Whichever political side they are on, every individual Member would echo that, in their own terms.

As I said, we have recognised the importance of the hearing. We are keen to do this thoroughly. We are taking it very seriously. We wish to do it as swiftly as possible, but it has to be done absolutely right. Let me give further reassurance. Although there is no one simple or obvious solution following the declaration of incompatibility, the officials are working very carefully, and ultimately I will return with potential solutions. This must go through the House’s legislative process, so all Members will have further opportunities to shape what we then believe would be the right conclusion. We are working very closely with our counterparts in Northern Ireland, recognising that the specific case was from there. But this must be done very thoroughly.

In conclusion, we are carefully considering the McLaughlin court ruling. We recognise that we currently have incompatible law on the statute books, and we are actively considering all options. With the introduction of the bereavement support payment, we have demonstrated that we will seek to make sensible and positive changes to target support at those most in need.

It is very clear that the hon. Members present feel strongly that the emphasis has to be on the children; I have heard that loud and clear. As I said, it has always been our intention to assess the impact of the bereavement support payment, which we will do once we have sufficient data. We are committed to supporting the bereaved and ensuring that they receive the right support at a difficult time. I echo my tribute to the hon. Members who care so passionately about this subject. It is a real priority for the Government and for me, and as we make progress I will be very happy to meet again, individually, those who are interested, in order to update them on the work. I want to be inclusive, because we all want the right outcomes. It is just that the issue is complex. There was not a clear steer, which meant that there could not be a quick fix, but the issue is a genuine, real priority for us.

Question put and agreed to.

Recognition of Fibromyalgia as a Disability

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

This condition, as we all agree, is not widely known about or understood. Often those living with it feel that they are drowning in despair and their loved ones are at a loss as to how best to support them. It is believed that up to 2 million people in the UK live with the condition. The true causes of it have not been established, but it is thought to be related to abnormal levels of certain chemicals in the brain and changes in the way the central nervous system processes pain messages carried around the body. It is also thought that there may be a genetic predisposition. In many cases the condition appears to be triggered by a physically or emotionally stressful event. There is no cure, although there are some treatments that can ease the effects.

I pay tribute at this juncture to the very important self-help groups in my constituency that help sufferers with this condition. There is no denying that it is a complex condition and there is a genuine lack of societal recognition of it. It is a truly disabling condition and must be treated and recognised as such for those seeking support from our welfare system.

Consultations undertaken by the Scottish Government show that current PIP assessments are simply not fit for purpose for those with fluctuating conditions such as fibromyalgia. Where conditions involve symptoms that fluctuate and vary, an effective assessment of illness must be flexible to take account of that. The problem is that disability assessments in the current UK welfare system are tick-box exercises, so the answers need to be yes or no even when complex, fluctuating and distressing conditions are being assessed. How can the assessment of such a condition truly be conducted in that way and still be meaningful? Clearly, simply ticking boxes cannot capture the distress, trauma and debilitation of such a complex condition. However, those living with this disease must subject themselves to that process in order to access essential support.

We need a welfare system that fully understands what those with this condition endure every single day as they struggle with everyday tasks that the rest of us take for granted. We need to ensure that the lives that they are living are reflected in the support they receive. That is the right thing to do, so I urge the Minister to put those laudable aims in motion without any further delay. Any further delay will mean greater suffering for those affected and their families, which ought to shame us all.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

That is a typically forthright question from my right hon. Friend. To compare rates, in France the unemployment rate is over 9% I believe, but of course the other incredibly important progress we have made is in youth unemployment. That has been almost halved since 2010, thanks to the work we have been doing in government.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Local authorities in Scotland—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are now moving on to question 5, but I say to the hon. Lady that it is the first day back and we should celebrate her enthusiasm.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

5. What progress her Department has made on the roll-out of universal credit.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

9. What progress her Department has made on the roll-out of universal credit.

[The Minister for Employment (Alok Sharma)]

The roll-out of universal credit is now complete and is available in every jobcentre across the United Kingdom. By 2023, all existing legacy claimants will have been moved to universal credit which, as set out in our business case, will result in £8 billion in economic benefits a year to the British economy.

[Patricia Gibson]

Local authorities in Scotland have spent over £20 million on mitigating the harmful effects of UC, thus diverting money from key local services. Does the Secretary of State think this is acceptable, and was it envisaged when universal credit was conceived? Is it not more evidence that this system needs to be stopped and fixed to make it fit for purpose?

[Alok Sharma]

We do of course have the policy of new burdens funding, and in 2017-18 the Government paid out £30 million to local authorities across the country. If the hon. Lady has specific issues in relation to local councils on her patch, she should come forward as I will be very happy to have a discussion with her outside this oral session.

State Pension: Women born in the 1950s

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered state pension equalisation for women born in the 1950s.

I stand today feeling the weight of despair, the burning sense of injustice and the genuine bewilderment felt by the women who, by sheer bad luck, were born in the 1950s and thereby inexplicably became fair game to be robbed, mugged and made the victims of theft of the most cruel and callous kind. For some women, that theft can be of up to £40,000 in lost pension. A large number of MPs—too many to mention—who support the Women Against State Pension Inequality in their quest for justice sent messages asking me to convey their support despite their absence. Many colleagues across the House dearly wanted to speak in the debate but were unable to attend.

In my lifetime, this could be the most unjust Government policy since the poll tax. It affects 3.8 million women, and 4,800 women in my constituency. The acceleration of the timetable set out in the Pensions Act 1995 has meant that these women have faced changes to the pension age abruptly, with little or no time to adapt and prepare. These women have had their pensions stolen from them—it is as simple as that. They paid into their pensions through a lifetime of work, raising their families, and often acting as carers for other members of their families. They did all the right things, only to be told, when it came time for them to be paid, that the rules of the game had changed. Not only that, but no one had thought to tell them that the rules of the game had changed—and that was just bad luck.

In addition, lower wages and broken employment periods mean that many of these women do not have a full national insurance record, so they receive lower state pensions than men anyway. Indeed, the average woman receives about 82% of what a man receives in his state pension. They also have a fraction of the savings of men. Equalisation is not just about the age at which people reach retirement.

With no time to make alternative plans, many women are suffering, and many are now living in poverty as a direct result of the political choice not to give them their due. Only last week, Philip Alston, the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, concluded that after decades of decline we are now witnessing a rise in pensioner poverty, with the figure rising in recent years by 300,000. He went on to say that

“a group of women born in the 1950s have been particularly impacted by an abrupt and poorly phased in change in the state pension age from 60 to 66.”

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Patricia Gibson]

I will just finish the quotation from the rapporteur. He continued:

“The impact of the changes to pensionable age is such as to severely penalize those who happen to be on the cusp of retirement and who had well-founded expectations of entering the next phase of their lives, rather than being plunged back into a workforce for which many of them were ill-prepared and to which they could not reasonably have been expected to adjust with no notice.”

I would be keen to hear the Minister’s response to the rapporteur’s words. If he wishes to intervene to rebut them, I would be delighted to give way, but in the absence of his seeking to intervene, I will take an intervention from the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham).

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The next best thing!

[Mr Cunningham]

I do not know about that. I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this timely debate. We have had many such debates, but the Government do not seem to get the message. From the start of the recession until now, women have carried the burden of the recession. In tax adjustments, the Government saved something like £14 billion at the expense of women. The amount the Government are saving through not doing the right thing by these women probably runs into billions. A fraction of those billions could take care of the problem.

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point well. It was recently said to me that it was interesting that the Government have chosen to pick a fight with women of a certain age, with a policy that will most harshly affect women in a lower income bracket. They will feel the most pain as a result of the policy, and were perhaps considered an easy target. Perhaps the Minister has views on that.

I have participated in every debate on the WASPI women since I was elected, and I repeatedly hear from whoever is responding for the Government—a variety of Ministers have done so—that the policy is about us all living longer. However, the debate is not about life expectancy, although we know that that has stalled; it is about women who had their pension age changed with little or no notice, directly causing considerable hardship.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend has been a consistent campaigner on this issue; there have been so many debates, and it is heartening to see her pressing it so often. She is absolutely right to press the point about life expectancy. Whenever we have had a debate on state pension inequality, the Pensions Minister has been unable to tell me what the life expectancy in my constituency is. Newspapers such as The Guardian like to talk about the life expectancy in Glasgow East, so I am surprised that the Minister does not know that it is not that high. The changes really affect people in my constituency.

[Patricia Gibson]

I suspect that the Minister knows fine well the life expectancy in Glasgow East and various parts of the UK, but it might make uncomfortable reading when trying to impose a one-size-fits-all policy and stealing people’s pensions. Many of the women in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and indeed in my own, will die before they are of age to collect.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out that more than one in five women—21.2%—in the group affected by the recent increases in the state pension age were in poverty, which is up 6.4% on the situation pre-reform. Meanwhile, analysis by the Centre for Longitudinal Studies found that the poorest pensioners are the least able to work into their later years. It concluded that both men and women who had been poor during their working lives were the most likely to leave the job market between the ages of 50 and 55, with poor health being the key driver.

With striking inequalities in life expectancy and health expectancy, there are great worries that the policy hits hardest the poorest and most vulnerable. That has been borne out by analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that shows that a third of single women aged between 60 and 63 were in poverty after housing costs—up 13.5% since before the reforms. Similarly, nearly four out of 10 people who rent their homes are in poverty—up from around a quarter. The IFS also found that 1.1 million women had seen their individual incomes fall by an average of £50 a week. Increased income from earnings is simply not enough to offset the loss of pensions. TUC analysis shows that half a million workers who are within five years of state pension age have had to leave the workplace for medical reasons, and that those who have worked in the lowest-paid jobs are twice as likely as managers and professionals to stop working before retirement age, owing to sickness and disability.

In the absence of labour market reforms, it is hard to see how raising the state pension age will allow this group to continue working. Rather, it will mean greater reliance on working-age benefits, which the Government say they wish to avoid. That makes it even more indefensible—this point is key and I hope the Minister is listening, because I would really like him to address it in his reply—that the Government decided to implement the Cridland review’s recommendation to accelerate the rise in pension age to 68, but chose to ignore the welfare reforms that John Cridland said would be essential to cushion the impact of those changes. Will the Minister tell us why? The Government cannot just pick the bits they like; they should implement the whole review or none of it.

The Government have not listened, but that does not mean that these women are not suffering. Many of them have been left destitute. The Government may think that because they are ordinary women—organised, persistent and dignified as they are—they are easier to ignore than rich and powerful men, but the reality does not bear that out. These women have been robbed, betrayed, misrepresented and mistreated, and they will not go away. I repeat a question that I have asked the Government many times: where on earth do they expect these women to go?

[Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

The 10,000 or so WASPI women in my constituency are certainly not natural protesters who wave a placard at the first opportunity. In fact, they have played a very positive role in our communities throughout the years. They are to be found in the women’s institute, making jam, and in many other voluntary groups. It is deeply disappointing that any Government should treat them in such a disrespectful way. Considering that the Chancellor announced more money in the recent Budget, it would have been nice if that Budget had given the WASPI women some recognition.

[Patricia Gibson]

I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman says. One of the most frustrating things that WASPI women have found in their quest for justice is not that they are not getting what they are asking for—bad as that is—but the wall of silence with which they have been met. It is as though they do not exist. That is not acceptable.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

There have been too many occasions on which Pensions Ministers have said how many years women will get a pension for—once they get it. Can we make it plain that the question is what happens in the years before they get the state pension?

[Patricia Gibson]

The Scottish National party commissioned independent research into how this could be resolved, but the Government rejected it. As far as I can see, they have rejected every other potential solution proposed from every quarter. I would like the Minister to tell us how he thinks the matter can be progressed, because doing nothing is not a sustainable option—certainly not for the WASPI women.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Patricia Gibson]

I will make some progress.

The WASPI women’s situation is doubly unjust because they are a group who have faced pay discrimination throughout their working lives. They have been paid less, acknowledged less and valued less. Now, when they should be enjoying retirement, they are expected to sit quietly and simply accept the loss of their well-deserved and much-needed state pension. This is not pin money; it is money to pay the rent, buy food, do the shopping and pay the bills. How is that decent, by any measure? It is an absolute disgrace.

The Minister really must have a brass neck if he thinks he can talk his way out of this. The UK Government’s lack of engagement on the issue has been breathtaking in its arrogance. These women know that many of the hardest hit among their number have been driven to self-harm and suicide. Of 873 respondents to research undertaken for the BackTo60 campaign group by the charity SOS Silence of Suicide, almost half had self-harmed because of the stress and hardship caused by this pension reform, while 46% reported having suicidal thoughts as a direct result, and 70 women had attempted to take their own lives. All the while, the UK Government wring their hands and stutter about people living longer.

Such is the Government’s intransigence that these women have been forced to go to court. BackTo60 has launched a judicial review to force the Government to reverse their decision. The argument will be made by Michael Mansfield QC that the pension policy implemented by successive Governments is a gross injustice and is discriminatory, even though the delay in paying out the pensions is in the name of equality—there’s a wee irony for you. Law professor Jackie Jones has argued that the UK is in breach of its international treaty obligations. The demand for what is right—fair transitional arrangements for these women—will not be silenced.

Inconveniently for the Government, the former Pensions Minister, Steven Webb, has conceded that not enough was done to inform and prepare these women for the changes. The Select Committee on Work and Pensions concluded that

“more could and should have been done”

to communicate the changes. It seems that a mess was made of the acceleration of the changes in the Pensions Act 2011, but the only people to pay the price for that mess are the women involved.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Many women, including constituents of mine at the Blackfriars pub in Glasgow, are watching this debate and listening to my hon. Friend’s excellent speech. Does she agree that the mythical letters that the Department for Work and Pensions was supposed to send to so many women to tell them that their pensions were changing were so elusive that there was a better chance of finding a golden ticket in a Wonka bar than of getting one?

[Patricia Gibson]

Indeed. I am sure that the WASPI women are gratified to hear the support in this Chamber for their cause and their quest for justice.

Let me turn, before the Minister does, to the well-worn phrases and half-hearted justifications that may well form part of his reply. Let me be clear: this debate is not about the age at which people should retire, nor is it about how we are all living longer. It is about successive UK Governments not communicating significant changes in the women’s pension age, and about the political choice not to address that in order to save money. It is about how expendable women born in the 1950s are to this Government. The fact is that pension equalisation was not supposed to begin until 2020, as set out in the Pensions Act 1995, but that was accelerated in 2011 with no communication of or care for the effect on women. That had the added bonus—accidental, I am sure—of saving the Treasury about £5 billion a year by equalising the state pension age at 65.

In an interesting development, Baroness Altmann, who was formerly a great champion of older people but was neutralised in this debate by being elevated to the Lords and given a ministerial portfolio on pensions, has now told us that she was informed that the 1950s women

“would go away sooner or later.”

Well, guess what: they are still here. They are watching today in this Chamber and in towns and villages across the UK, willing this cruel and heartless Government to listen and do the right thing.

We continue to hear from this Government—I am sure the Minister is planning to mention it—that concessions of £1.1 billion have already been made. That figure is trotted out as though the Government have targeted money at the women affected. That is, at best, disingenuous. The £1.1 billion did not go solely to women and the concessions were limited to 500,000 men and women who were born within a short timeframe—between January and October 1954. The concession took the form of limiting the delay with the change in annually managed expenditure, estimated at £1.1 billion. I want to be clear: £1.1 billion of cash was not doled out to people in envelopes; in fact, it was not a monetary exchange for those involved.

Today I and my party stand beside the WASPI women, who have been the victims of a great injustice. As I said earlier in my speech, it is no less of an injustice than the poll tax. We will continue to stand beside them. The issue has not been debated in the Commons for more than nine months, and I am sure the Government thought the storm had passed. It has not passed. It will not pass. These women are engulfed by the storm every single day they have to manage without their pensions. Up and down the country, in all parts of the UK, WASPI women are watching the debate, inside and outside the Chamber—including Cunninghame WASPI, to whom I pay tribute. All the WASPI women are waiting for justice, hoping against hope that this heartless Government will finally hear their pleas for what is rightfully theirs to be restored to them.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Patricia Gibson]

I am sorry; I am just about to wrap up.

In the name of all that is just and all that is right, I urge the Minister to go back from the debate today and tell his Government that this must not stand. The WASPI women need and deserve their pensions. Let us get this sorted. Let us undo the damage once and for all, and let us do it now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

That makes two of us, Mr Bone.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran did not talk much about the cost of reversing Government policy, which is a shame. I understand that the SNP has costed the reversal of the Pensions Act 2011 at £8 billion, but other experts see that as a vast underestimate. It would actually cost the taxpayer £30 billion or more. There is no doubt that the Scotland Act 2016 gives the Scottish Government the powers that they need to address the issue.

[Patricia Gibson]

I am really disappointed that we have a speech from somebody who clearly has not read the Scotland Act 2016 and has just lifted the headline from the Daily Mail or whatever it is that he reads. There is no power in that Act to mitigate yet more Tory cuts. We already mitigate Tory cuts to the tune of tens of millions of pounds. Even if we wanted to, under section 28 of the Act—the hon. Gentleman can look it up—we do not have the power. Once again, I urge him to stick to the focus of this debate. He says that I did not talk about money, but I talked about what it has saved the Treasury. Let us spend that money on these women.

[Alex Burghart]

The focus of the debate is compensation for the women involved. It is a fact that the Scottish Government could do more than they are doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

That is the debate that, clearly, has to be held. I return to the point that the decision was originally taken in 1993 by my—then very youthful— right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and was supported by a series of Governments and Ministers way more experienced than I am, who have been here over the past twenty-something years. I am merely continuing that debate and discussion about how we progress.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thought I heard the Minister say that there had been a fall in pensioner poverty. That leads me to question where he gets his information. The UN special rapporteur was clear: between 2012-13 and 2016-17 there was a 300,000 rise in pensioner poverty in the UK, which he specifically linked to the rise in state pension age. Is the special rapporteur wrong?

[Guy Opperman]

We may take some time to dissect the specific figures on that, but I will attempt to do so—[Interruption.]—if the hon. Lady bears with me.

One starts with the basic principle that the figure used to be at 40% for relative poverty and is now down to 16%. The reason for the 300,000 increase is that more pensioners are in relative poverty after housing costs. That is the issue in relation to relative poverty, because in the past few years the housing costs of those of working age have reduced, because of lower mortgage rates. That reduction in housing costs increases income for those with mortgages, and that pushes median income up. That then feeds through to increase the number of pensioners who are below the 60% of median income poverty line, as the vast majority of pensioners do not have a mortgage and so do not see any benefit from lower mortgage rates. There can be a discussion about relative and absolute poverty and how to measure them, but the overall trend is dramatically down for such poverty, and I believe the explanation of what the rapporteur said is as I have just set out.

I have not addressed the specific point about the Scottish National party proposals and the vexed question of the Scotland Act 2016. As I understand it, various previous proposals—and specifically the one outlined today—would reverse the 2011 Act in its entirety. The SNP’s projected cost for that is £8 billion. We manifestly disagree and suggest it would be in the region of £30 billion, with further costs as long as women’s state pension age was below 66.

As to the Scotland Act powers, I accept that the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran and for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) and I have had robust debate on many such occasions, but I would always say as I have previously, “Don’t take this from me.” I will read the letter from Jeane Freeman of 22 June 2017, in which she sets out what payments can potentially be made under sections 26, 28 and 24 of the Scotland Act 2016. Under the heading of section 26 she states:

“This power 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… Their needs and the risks to their well-being would have to be assessed individually.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

I know that I have just two or three minutes to sum up the debate. I am beyond disappointed. We have heard nothing new today. We have seen again a huge lack of any real and meaningful engagement from the UK Government. That lack of engagement has to end. It is dismissive of and disrespectful to an entire generation of women.

Giving speeches on the history of pensions is not what the debate was about, and it does nothing to address either the fact that women’s pensions were stolen or the suffering caused as a result. The debate was not about life expectancy; it was about the theft perpetrated upon women. These women were often excluded from company and workplace pensions. They raised families and cared for relatives and they have now been abandoned by the UK Government. To be told that there is no solution, as we heard from one Government Member today, is frankly an insult. It is not good enough, and the campaign will go on.

Brexit is entirely consuming UK politics, but we can and will continue to keep this issue firmly on the agenda. These women are our mothers, sisters, grannies and wives, and the UK Government have not heard the last of this. The entire state pension system has been undermined by this travesty. A social contract has been broken, and I remind those in this place that an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered state pension equalisation for women born in the 1950s.

Universal Credit

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Let me say at the outset that I do not claim that everything about universal credit is perfect, or that everything has gone according to plan. I think it is inevitable that such a huge reform will involve issues that will need to be dealt with. To suggest that it should be scrapped, however—as the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) has just done—is to risk losing the significant benefits that it has brought about. We should not be in the business of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but that is precisely the attitude of those who say that this whole benefits system should be scrapped.

It is worth noting why it was necessary to bring in universal credit and to consider where we have come from. Under the last Government, we had a system that was confusing, bureaucratic and unfair, and ensured that people did not receive the benefits to which they were entitled. Indeed, that was factored into the budget of the DWP, which knew that the system was so complicated that it would not have to pay out the money that it would otherwise have had to pay out. Those arrangements also led to the worst aspect of the system, which was that it prevented people from working.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is telling us about the faults of the previous system. Single parents are particularly hard hit by universal credit: cuts in the work allowance mean that the average parent loses about £800 a year, and some lose up to £2,000 a year. Given that 91% of single parents are women, this system discriminates hugely against women. Does he agree that that is unfair and should be addressed?

[Gareth Johnson]

I do not agree. There have been these transitional protections that we need to have in place. I am not saying that every aspect of universal credit has been correctly implemented—I do not think anyone is claiming that—but I think it is right that we try to ensure that people are better off under this system and that it is a fairer system. Most important, as I have said, is that it should enable people to work.

Under the previous system, I lost count of the number of times people said to me, “I cannot afford to work.” They used to say that they could not possibly get a job even though they would love to do so because they would lose their benefits as a consequence. That was as frustrating as it was wrong. It trapped people into staying on benefits and ensured that people got out of the habit of working. The best way out of poverty is through work and we need a benefits system that allows for that, and we did not have that under the previous Administration. What we saw was excessive tinkering, which added to the confusion surrounding benefits. Myriad different types of tax credits were introduced and abolished during that time; it was described at the time as being like a gardener going around pulling up plants to see if the roots were still there. That is how complicated the system was that we had to take over. We needed change and we had the courage to bring about that change. We should take the credit for having done so.

The strength of universal credit is that it simplifies things and encourages work. Benefits should mirror the working world. That is why it is right that most UC payments are monthly; most salaries are paid monthly. It should provide a way back into work and not provide a way of life.

One major test for UC is whether it is helping people get back into work. The answer to that is an emphatic yes. We have seen huge increases in employment. Youth unemployment is at its lowest rate ever and wages have exceeded inflation every month for the last seven months. Part of the reason for this is that we have a benefits system that facilitates work. We were told—I think it was Ed Balls who said this—that our policies would result in unemployment going up by 1 million, but the contrary is the case: employment has gone up by 3 million as a consequence of our policies. No one is claiming that the system is perfect—I am certainly not—but it is a massive improvement on what we previously had, so is well worth keeping.

One of the reasons we have low unemployment in the UK while it is much higher in other countries, particularly on the continent, is that we have a benefits system that allows people to get back to work. Yet some people inexplicably say that that system should be scrapped.

I will cut my comments short now, as I am running out of time. Care and consideration are needed during the rest of the implementation of UC. It needs to be done and it needs to be adequately funded. I ask the Minister to be cautious in doing this. We must not be complacent about it, but we should not scrap UC, as we have been asked to do.