Oral Answers to Questions

David Linden Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Rather than deal with the known policy failures within the benefits system, the Government seem to be more focused on penalising people through, for example, the two-child cap. Last week, the Labour party joined the Conservatives in prioritising lifting the cap on bankers’ bonuses rather than the two-child cap on working women. Does the Secretary of State take comfort in the fact that his cruel legacy will be protected by the Labour party?

[Mel Stride]

I am not going to get involved in the crossfire between the Scottish National party and the Labour party, other than to say—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Last month, a report by the pension provider Royal London showed that women lose, on average, £92,000 as a result of juggling part-time work and childcare. What are the Government going to do about that?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Paul Maynard)]

As the hon. Gentleman will have heard earlier, the proportion of women saving for their pensions has gone from 40% 10 years ago to 89% now.

Pensions

David Linden Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

When the Minister was making reference to a Netflix series earlier, I did think that the pensions uprating debate would be an unusual backdrop for Netflix and chill. I do not know whether that is the first time “Netflix and chill” has been referred to in Hansard—I am at risk of getting myself into trouble now, so I will move on quickly.

As with the previous order, my party will not oppose this order. In the previous debate I focused my remarks on poverty more broadly. Now I want to speak about the number of pensioners in poverty, which rose between 2020-21 and 2021-22, with pensioners on low incomes among some of the hardest hit by the cost of living crisis. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s report, which I cited earlier, revealed that 2.1 million pensioners were living in poverty in the UK in 2021-22, with the poverty rate for single pensioners almost double that of couple pensioners and about one in six pensioners overall living in poverty. I know this is felt acutely in communities such as Carmyle and Sandyhills in Glasgow’s east end.

The reality, according to Age Scotland, is that 9% of over-50s are skipping meals due to financial pressure, and 65% of people aged between 60 and 64 are having to dip into savings to meet unexpected rising costs. I met the Trussell Trust just this morning, and it is certainly seeing a larger number of pensioners using its service than before. This is of course the case for many WASPI women, given that the ombudsman found that there was indeed maladministration in the communication from the Department for Work and Pensions, with the cost of living crisis certainly making matters much worse for women born in the 1950s.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning 1950s-born women such as my constituent Kathy McDonald. Does he not agree that there could have been plenty of time today for us to discuss the plight of those 1950s-born women, and to see what justice and compensation we should be delivering for them?

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend is right. I know Kathy McDonald, one of the 1950s women, who is a force of nature and does an incredible service for women born in the 1950s. It is frustrating that we can have these debates about 1950s women, but I am clear that what 1950s women want is not necessarily words from this place, but action from this place. I think that challenge will be put to the two main parties at Westminster as we come towards the election, and I encourage all those 1950s women to press their candidates on the need for fair and fast compensation, as well as for wider action to tackle the unacceptable gender pension gap that is so pervasive.

As Age UK highlights, the state pension is the largest single source of income for most pensioners, so retaining the triple lock is the very bare minimum. I was glad to hear the comments in the previous debate from the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) on that. The British Government must urgently address the shockingly low state pension levels, as they are already providing a lower state pension than, frankly, most other advanced economies relative to average earnings.

As with the issues we face with the social security system, the only way I can see our bring truly able to protect pensioners and treat older people with the basic dignity and respect they deserve is through the powers of a normal independent nation, where we can both improve state and occupational pensions, and set the state pension at an appropriate level within a Scottish context. That is the most crucial point I want to finish on, because constituents in communities I represent, such as Sandyhills and Carmyle, know one thing: for as long as Scotland remains within this Union, the state pension age will continue to climb and the state pension itself will remain pitifully low, leading to more pensioners being placed in the invidious position of choosing between heating or eating. That says everything people need to know about this Westminster Government, who the people of Scotland did not vote for.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

There is no disagreement on this point about pension credit. I just gently ask the Minister to go back to his officials and re-examine the paper form for pension credit, which runs to some 232 questions. Given the nature of the demographic dealing with pension credit forms, there must be a way of trying to simplify them. Does he agree that it might be possible to slim down 232 questions, so as to get more people their pension credit?

[Paul Maynard]

I very much take the point. I was sitting down today with people from a range of charities to discuss that very point: how do we get access to those who are least inclined to apply at the moment and what groups in society are we missing? The discussion was very much about how an overreliance on IT can often be a barrier and so this is very much part of our thinking.

The shadow Minister also asked about the 2017 reforms, and the extension of auto-enrolment, investing from the first £1 of income and so on. Those things are a personal priority to me. I would love to give her a date for when she will see that; “in due course” is never a good answer to give at the Dispatch Box, but I am afraid that it is the answer at this stage. However, I am pursuing this within the Department, so she has my personal pledge that I am pushing it is as hard as I can. I am also enthusiastic about CDCs, as I know she is. She will be aware that Royal Mail already has a scheme “ready cooked”, and I am keen to see how it progresses, but I want to make sure that other businesses that are also showing an interest can input into the formulation of the more sustainable regulations.

Finally, I come to the point about BP made by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). Unfortunately, commitments given in the Chamber do not always align with ministerial diaries as to when I am due to meet people, so on all the things I promised I would raise, I have yet to have a chance to meet the pensions regulator to have that fuller discussion. This is still a case of “watch this space”, but I stand by everything I said in Westminster Hall and it is still on the agenda. On that note, I commend this order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Social Security

David Linden Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard]

For the information of the House, this order covers state pensions. Motion 4 covers the guaranteed minimum pension, which is a sub-element of the pensions issue. As I will explain, the different elements—

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I clarify whether we are taking motion 3 on social security and motion 4 in one debate, or will we scrutinise the orders separately? It would be helpful for the House to have clarity on exactly what is happening.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

We are debating motion 3 on social security. We will then debate motion 4 on pensions.

[David Linden]

Two debates or one debate?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Two separate debates.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), a fellow member of the Work and Pensions Committee.

I stand here with a somewhat renewed sense of frustration following the release of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s “UK Poverty 2024” report, which I will refer to throughout the course of my contribution. I find myself again speaking in this Parliament against a backdrop of a truly dire situation characterised by destitution. I wonder what more can be said or done to make the British Government realise the true extent of the hardship they have inflicted on people across these islands. The SNP will not oppose the orders for 2024-25, but to keep it plain and simple: the damage has already been done. No amount of uprating will address the long-term consequences of entrenched destitution inflicted on households as a result of the British Government, who, I would argue, have been asleep at the wheel now for 14 years.

Although the Government’s announcement to uprate social security benefits means that shortfalls should not increase any further this year, the orders still fail to undo any of the cumulative impact of years of cuts to social security that households across these islands have endured. While the British Government have been asleep at the wheel, people across the country have been kept awake at night due to the sheer amount of stress and anxiety, wondering how they will feed themselves and their families, and how they can afford—they often cannot afford them—the essentials. We are faced with an horrendous picture, but that is the stark reality of living with this Westminster Government. Young children, school children, pensioners, young adults, those in and out of work—no one is left unscathed when they have the misfortune of interacting with the UK’s social security system.

As the Minister comes back to the Dispatch Box, I am sure full of civil service-inspired lines that do not meet the reality outside Whitehall, we are faced with a cold hard truth from which we cannot escape: people are suffering, and will only continue to suffer as long as this Government refuse to fix the known policy issues, on which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) will elaborate.

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

We are debating what is supposed to be an adequate payment for social security. The Government’s case is completely weakened, is it not, by the ridiculous system of loans and reductions? My hon. Friend’s constituents in Glasgow East and mine in Glasgow South West are, on average, having their universal credit payments deducted by £60 a month because of this ridiculous system.

[David Linden]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is an assiduous questioner of the Government through Work and Pensions questions on the issue of debt and deductions. He is right to cite the figures in Glasgow, which are well known—local citizens advice bureaux all over our constituencies refer to them—but of course, we are not the only Members whose constituents are impacted by the debt and deductions policy of this Government, which is often found wanting. If the Minister could touch on debt and deductions when he sums up, that would be helpful.

In a Westminster Hall debate I held three weeks ago on the cost of living crisis, I compared the UK’s social security system, which used to be hailed as a safety net for those who needed it, to something that now resembles nothing more than a frayed rope, unable to bear the weight of the individuals who rely on it as a lifeline. After reading the new report and statistics produced by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, I have never been more assured in my assessment of the state of the social security policies enforced by this Westminster Government.

The JRF report outlines that more than one in five people in the UK were in poverty in 2021-22. That is 14.4 million people, 4.2 million of whom were children and 2.1 million were pensioners. Just as the statistics from Save the Children and Age Scotland show—I will outline them shortly—the JRF report has to be a wake-up call for this Government, and indeed the Government who may follow, if we are to make any tangible change to the broken system that lies before us. In its report, the graph that illustrates the percentage of people in poverty is broken down into the following categories: in poverty, but not in deep poverty; in deep poverty, but not in very deep poverty; and, in very deep poverty. I must be honest: I find it completely surreal that we have reached a point at which statistical analysis has to be broken down into such categories to illustrate the situation that people are having to endure. It is utterly shameful that such categories even have to exist in one of the richest countries on the planet.

I understand that to Members who are present today I seem frustrated, but that is because I am. The statistics in this report are not just numbers; they are the very reality of people in the communities that I represent, such as Parkhead and Shettleston, and those, such as Mosspark or Cardonald, that are represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West. They are truly harrowing findings.

I want to say something about universal credit, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). This policy is failing the very people whom it is, in theory, supposed to support: rather than supporting them, it drives destitution and food bank usage. It has been reported that 68% of people referred to a Trussell Trust food bank in Scotland who are in receipt of universal credit have money automatically deducted from their payments to repay debts, such as a DWP advance—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West. Moreover, food banks in the Trussell Trust network distributed about 3 million emergency food parcels across the UK in 2022-23, more than 1 million of which were for children.

The Government also refuse to scrap abhorrent policies such as the two-child cap and the associated rape clause. The DWP’s own figures show that in April last year, 1.5 million children were affected by the two-child limit—and I say that in the context of those 1 million children who were in receipt of food parcels. This is in addition to data from Save the Children, which found that 60% of households affected by the two-child cap included at least one adult in paid employment. No doubt the Minister will stand up and say that the two-child cap is about making sure that people get into work, but the fact is that it has an impact on people who are already in work. Punitive sanctions, deductions, the two-child limit and the five-week wait are all defining characteristics that are inherent in this British Government's social security system—policies that have caused, and continue to cause, hardship to so many.

Although I could stand here and generate endless amounts of research and statistics for the Minister, my plea is simple. Social security does not have to be done this way: we do not have to continue down this road of sanctions, deductions, rape clauses and five-week waits. It is an undeniable fact that the Scottish Government cannot make any tangible change to these policies while 85% of welfare expenditure and income-related benefits remains reserved to the Government here in Westminster. For every step forward that the Scottish Government try to make, Westminster drags us back two.

The Scottish Government desperately need the opportunity to create a system, one designed to tackle poverty actively and empower those who interact with the system, without one hand being tied behind their back. When we have had the power to do so, we have introduced game-changing policies, such as the Scottish child payment. Analysis shows that the Scottish child payment could lift up to 50,000 children out of relative poverty in 2023-24, which is because the Scottish Government choose to prioritise that. Child poverty rates in Scotland sit at 24%, which is still far too high, but they should be seen in the context of the 31% rate in England and the 28% rate in Wales. That is likely to be due, at least in part, to the Scottish child payment.

Fundamentally, it is a political choice to lift children out of poverty. If this Westminster Government are unwilling to make that choice, I simply ask them to hand over the reins of power to the Scottish Government, who are more than willing, and certainly ready, to implement a system that will allow people to thrive rather than being punished for their circumstances. Until that happens, the Scottish Government are left fighting an uphill battle against a Westminster social security system that is broken beyond repair. Again, I am left wondering how different things might be if Scotland were able to take all the legislative and fiscal responsibility for these issues through the normal powers of independence.

Whether it is the British Government’s cruel sanctions regime or their refusal to fix known policy failures that only push people further into hardship, we are seeing what will sadly be one of the defining legacies of this Tory Government. As a result, poverty no longer just exists within our society. It is deepening, it is ingrained, and it is causing insurmountable pain to people right across these islands. As we are faced with the reality of more food parcels than ever being delivered through the Trussell Trust networks and shockingly high levels of child poverty, the only conclusion I can draw is that these are all signs of a Government, and indeed a Union, that the people in Scotland must escape if they are to have any hope of a fair and prosperous future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I cannot better what the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) said about poverty in this country and we should reflect on that if we are passing social security uprating orders because the levels of poverty are an utter disgrace. One has only to spend a short time in a food bank anywhere across the country to realise the desperation of many people who are prepared to queue, often for a very long time, just to get a few packets of pasta to keep their family together for another week. The numbers accessing food banks are going up all the time. People are increasingly going to community centres to try to get food that has been donated by others. The level of poverty is huge.

I will bring two specific areas to the House’s attention. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) just talked about the first: the two-child benefit policy, which limits universal credit to claimants’ first two children. Like all Members, I have many constituents who are part of large families. The Somali community, the Haredi Jewish community, the Congolese community, the Bengali community and a number of others often have quite large families. Is there anything morally right in saying that the third, fourth, fifth or sixth child in a family is less valuable than the first or second? Can anyone justify that? I do not believe that they can, yet the policy persists.

The cost of changing the policy would be £1.3 billion. That might sound like a lot. It does not sound very much compared with overall Government expenditure, nor compared with the benefits that it would bring in lifting a lot of children and families out of poverty. At the moment, around 1.3 million children are affected. They come from around 400,000 households. [Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) trying to intervene?

[David Linden]

No, I was just enjoying the right hon. Member’s speech.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Member was looking with interest. I am grateful to him for that, and for what he said.

I hope that as a result of this debate the Minister will seriously examine the poverty created by the two-child policy, and that all parties in this House will recognise that we ill serve the community if we deliberately discriminate against children in large families. Children living in poverty are less likely to achieve their full potential in school, and the jobs and careers that they want. As a result, we all lose. We all lose out on their talents because we disregarded their needs when they were at their most desperate. I hope that the Minister will recognise that.

Secondly, the uprating order includes an increase in housing benefit in line with the rate of inflation that is applicable. The problem is that in constituencies such as mine, where a third of the population live in the private rented sector, housing benefit never quite catches up with the increase in rents imposed by private sector landlords. It is not just a London problem; it exists in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle—all over the country. Yes, local housing allowance is being increased in line with a perception of what the affordable rent level is within the community, but it never quite catches up.

A friend of mine was helping somebody to find a flat locally. They spent days trawling through agents, and all the other places one goes to try to find a flat. They found fewer than half a dozen flats available to rent within the local housing allowance. In lots of inner urban areas, having neither rent controls nor a sufficient level of housing benefit or local housing allowance effectively leads to an expulsion of the poorest from those communities. We need to come back to that and introduce private sector rent controls, and we need a local housing allowance that is realistic and meets people’s housing costs. Otherwise, it is often the poorest and largest families who get shifted from one private rented sector flat to another, thus damaging those children’s education and life chances.

If we are to live in a society where we are proud of our welfare state, the welfare state has to work for the poorest in our community. At the moment, frankly, it does not.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Linden Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The actions that we take to lift children out of poverty say an awful lot about our values. In Scotland, we have lifted 90,000 children out of poverty, with measures such as the game-changing Scottish child payment. Here in London, we have a Westminster Government, supported by the Labour party, wedded to a two-child policy that pushes 250,000 children into poverty. What does the Minister think it says about Westminster’s values on child poverty that they are wedded to a two-child policy with a rape clause?

[Mims Davies]

Adults in workless households are seven times more likely to be in poverty than those in working households. That is why our focus is on work. The Scotland Act 2016 gave the Scottish Parliament the powers that have been invoked, including on the child payment, and that is very pleasing for us. The Act transferred those powers for carers and disability benefits, worth £3.3 billion. The hon. Gentleman and his Government can make the decisions that suit their communities. That is the right approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

During the recent covid inquiry, the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), said that statutory sick pay was “far too low” and that if he had a magic wand, he would fix it. Given that the Secretary of State has the magic wand, as the Minister responsible for this, when is he going to fix it?

[Mel Stride]

I am certainly not going to start making policy up on the hoof at the Dispatch Box this afternoon or promising more money for statutory sickness pay. That would require discussions across Government, but I note the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Linden Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The cost of living crisis is plunging many families into destitution. We know from the JRF that 1.8 million households and 1 million children were plunged into destitution last year. Will Secretary of State use the upcoming autumn statement to bring forward the mortgage interest tax relief and action to tackle soaring food prices, and to reintroduce that £400 energy bill rebate? Otherwise, more and more children will fall into destitution. He has the power—will he respond at the autumn statement?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman raises mortgage payments in particular; we have extended the scope of the support for mortgage interest arrangements, particularly for those who have not long been on universal credit. I cannot comment on what may or may not be in the autumn statement, but I can assure him that the kind of issues he has raised are always at the centre of our thinking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The freeze on local housing allowance is having a devastating impact on housing providers. Scotland’s Housing Minister wrote to the Secretary of State on 25 May to make that point and to make the case for restoring it to the 30th percentile. Why has he not replied? Will the Government use the autumn statement to raise it back to the 30th percentile?

[Mel Stride]

I will certainly look into the letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I assure him that LHA and other housing matters are under constant review, and form part of the discussions that my Department has with the Treasury from time to time.

Work Capability Assessment Consultation

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Scottish National party spokesman.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The big difference between the SNP and the Conservative and Labour parties is that we do not approach this from the point of view that people are somehow on the make and on the take; we do not assume that when somebody comes for an assessment they are somehow trying to cheat the Government. That is why it is important that the Select Committee on Work and Pensions noted in its recent report the concerns that disabled people are still experiencing psychological distress as a result of undergoing these health assessments.

Let me show just how perverse some of those assessments are. One of the first constituency cases I dealt with as an MP involved someone literally being asked at an assessment whether they still had autism. That gives us an idea of how fundamentally flawed this whole process is. Has the Secretary of State read the Institute for Public Policy Research report that came out today? It makes a specific recommendation to:

“Limit conditionality to facilitate person-centred support on universal credit.”

It says:

“People with health conditions, single parents and parents of young children on universal credit should be exempt from requirements or financial penalties under any circumstances.”

Has he seen that?

Will the Secretary of State also agree to look again at the Access to Work scheme? Far too often, the Government’s own Committee has received evidence that shows that Access to Work simply is not working. I come back to my fundamental point: will the Government change their philosophy—this deep suspicion that somehow claimants are on the make and on the take? All they actually need is support from their Government.

[Mel Stride]

I respect the hon. Gentleman; having appeared before the Select Committee, I know how seriously he takes the matters that he has raised. However, I cannot accept being described as bearing down on those who are

“on the make and on the take”.

If he can find any example of myself or my Ministers making those assertions, I would like to see it. In the absence of that, I hope that he will be big enough to withdraw those comments.

The hon. Gentleman does not like the assessments, but we hear nothing about alternatives or what the SNP’s plan is to replace assessments. If there are inherent problems with assessments, presumably the logic is that he is not going to assess anybody at all. So we do not know what his plan is. He refers to conditionality, so let me make a point about that. There are those whose health and disability situation is such that I passionately recognise that they should not be expected to undergo any work to look for work or to carry out work itself. As a compassionate society, we should be there to support those people, and we will continue to do so. But where somebody can work, there is a contract between the state and the individual: if people are to be supported and they can work, it is right that they should be expected to do so. In those circumstances, the conditionality should apply.

The hon. Gentleman made specific reference to Access to Work. That programme provides up to about £65,000 for each individual involved to bring forward adaptations to the workplace to accommodate that individual into employment. It is a huge commitment on the part of this Government, and I can inform him that the latest figure I have is that 88% of those applications are being processed within 10 days.

Disability Benefits: Assessments

David Linden Excerpts

Monday 4th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) who opened the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Elements of his speech felt like groundhog day, because the first Westminster Hall debate that I led, in 2017, was on the issue of work capability assessments. It is worrying that six years on we are still here debating the very same issues. All Members, regardless of party, know that those issues cause undue stress and misery to people across our four nations.

The British Government’s approach to disability benefit assessments is not just ineffective—the theme that has been developed today—but inhumane. Under the current regime, the application process removes the reality of people’s lived experience as the very foundation on which the system has been defined. It favours evidence provided by the assessor rather than the claimant. The system also operates on the presumption of scepticism. It is not a system that empowers its users. Instead it perpetuates a cycle of despair and frustration. That “one size fits all” approach to disability assessment is in my view not only short-sighted, but it completely disregards the reality of living with a disability or a chronic illness. Charities such as Scope have raised concerns about the process time and again, but their calls appear to be continually ignored—at huge expense to those living with a disability.

The impact of disability assessments has, unfortunately, featured significantly in my caseload since I became MP for Glasgow East in 2017. I will be honest: I am no stranger to hearing about dehumanising experiences that my constituents have endured as a result of this system. I sit week in, week out at surgeries across the east end of Glasgow in places like Baillieston, Parkhead and Easterhouse, hearing the same harrowing and sometimes traumatic experiences that people have had to endure at the hands of the disability benefits assessment process.

In most cases, and worryingly, people’s mental and physical health are only worsened by the assessment process. That leads to many further problems for the NHS through health problems, whether physical or mental, so it is counter-productive. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) referred to the finding by Scope: from January to March this year, 68% of PIP appeal outcomes were changed in favour of the claimant. If such a proportion of wrong outcomes were found in any other Department, Ministers would ask serious questions. I respect the Minister, who I know takes a strong interest in this issue, but I ask him to look again at the figure of nearly 70% of appeal outcomes being overturned. That suggests that the system is fundamentally flawed.

As people continue to face the disability price tag, disabled people are also having to juggle the restricted funds available to them along with soaring food and energy prices. According to the Trussell Trust’s analysis, three quarters of people referred to its food banks reported that they or a member of their household were disabled. As disabled people are hit disproportionately by the cost of living crisis, to the tune of some £945 a month extra, it is vital that all financial support to which they are entitled is awarded. However, under the current system, that is not always the case; in many cases, it feels as if people are actively held back from the support they so desperately need.

The hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) highlighted the recommendations in the Work and Pensions Committee report about the use of informal observations—a point also made by the MS Society in its briefing for the debate. Far too often, PIP assessors make inaccurate decisions based on those informal observations. Watching how someone looks or behaves during their assessment or observing someone walking from their car to the assessment centre are now used as tests of mobility. That is completely wrong and such things should not be taken into account. The Work and Pensions Committee, on which I am privileged to serve with the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), has heard that, more often than not, those informal observations are given greater weight than medical evidence.

As others have outlined, when it comes to people with conditions such as multiple sclerosis or Parkinson’s, which fluctuate day to day and have many hidden symptoms, it is completely arbitrary for informal observations to be used to inform the assessor’s decision. The assessor’s limited understanding of complex fluctuating conditions such as MS, combined with the use of informal observations as a way of gathering evidence, results in greater emphasis being placed on the evidence provided by the assessor, rather than the lived experience of the disabled claimant. It therefore strikes me that the only purpose of asking a claimant to come for an assessment is to watch them literally walk from their car to the front door of the assessment centre, which seems utterly absurd.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston made clear, when we look north of the border—this brings me to the substantive point from the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson)—we can see the difference that devolution has made to how the policy has been implemented. It seems clear, not just to SNP Members but to those who work in the disability sphere, that the Scottish Government—on a cross-party basis, in fairness—are moving away from the regressive approach and becoming more committed to a process that has been designed around the lived experience of people with a disability.

Indeed, the adult disability payment from the Scottish Government is delivering an entirely new, simplified and—I would argue—far more compassionate experience for disabled people. It is a system that has been designed with the claimant, rather than against them; that is the key point that comes back when we speak to stakeholders north of the border. Putting compassion and people at the heart of the system must be the priority for any Government, regardless of their colour, so I am proud that we have taken that approach. Indeed, I am proud that Conservative Members on the Work and Pensions Committee unanimously approved its report praising the Scottish Government’s approach.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I am a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, which did an inquiry into welfare in Scotland, and I certainly agree that what came through strongly from stakeholders was the need for a compassionate approach. As always, however, the processes have to be properly administered. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that at the moment the reality is that waiting times for the ADP in Scotland are longer than those for PIP assessments? Does he, like me, have casework in which there have been incorrect decisions? The approach might be different, but we need to see better outcomes.

[David Linden]

Absolutely. I totally understand the hon. Lady’s point, and I am sure she will understand that a lot of the civil servants who were working on the design of the Social Security Scotland system were rightly deployed towards the covid pandemic. Ministers in the Scottish Government have acknowledged that the situation with the ADP waiting list is less than helpful. But I come back to the fundamental point on which I challenge the hon. Member for North Swindon, which is that our systems are about taking the view that the claimant is not on the make. That is the nub of the issue. With the UK Government’s system, there is a scepticism about whether the person sitting at the other end of the table is on the make or on the take, so it is about trying to find a way to catch them out. That is why there is an overturn rate of 68%, for example.

[Justin Tomlinson]

indicated dissent.

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. I am sure he has something to say, so I am happy to give way.

[Justin Tomlinson]

There is absolutely zilcho in the assessor’s contract to try to lower the success rate of a claimant. That is part of the driver behind our spending an extra £10 billion a year—a record amount. I wish the Scottish Government the very best of luck if they can identify changes; if they do, I encourage the British Government to adopt them. My point was that we should not be different for the sake of being different. We should always put the claimant first.

[David Linden]

With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, he has missed the point. The reality is that this contract is being delivered by the private sector—something to which I have a moral and political objection —with a clear brief to try to find people somehow on the make or on the take. If so, why on earth are the Government giving out a contract where the overturn rate is 68%?

[Justin Tomlinson]

The only thing within a contract that changes what an assessor is paid per assessment is that where there is poor quality, there is in effect a fine on the contract. Under the DLA, the success rate for the highest rate of support was 16%. Under PIP, with the assessors, it is 32% to 33%, hence why we are spending £10 billion a year more.

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman is saying what would happen if a contract were found somehow not to be working, but I rather suspect that the Minister will look at the fact that the overturn rate is 68%. I am not the Minister, but that would suggest to me, and to officials, that something is clearly going wrong with the assessment process.

Under the Scottish Government’s approach of abolishing the disability health assessments, person-centred consultations are held only when required. That is all in stark contrast to the frankly draconian measures that are being put in place and pursued by the British Government. I am sure that many people across the House share the view that the job of Government is to support vulnerable people, not to subject them to further hardship and scrutiny. However, there is an overall unwillingness, among both the Labour party and the Conservative party, to invest in social security. As it persists, disabled people continue to experience stress as a result of undergoing health assessments.

I can only hope that a leaf is taken out of the Scottish Government’s book for the sake of disabled people who are at the mercy of the British Government’s austerity agenda. As the Scottish Government use their devolved powers to mitigate against such draconian welfare policies, I am sure they will always ensure that the most vulnerable in our society and communities receive the support that they are entitled to while being treated with the dignity, fairness and respect that they deserve. That is the fundamental point of this debate, because that fairness, dignity and respect are not there, and that needs to change.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Linden Excerpts

Monday 4th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The Minister seems to forget that the two-child limit impacts people who are on in-work benefits. The only exemption to the two-child limit is if a woman can prove that her third or a subsequent child has been born as a result of rape. How many people has the Minister’s Department asked to prove that they have been raped in order to get an exemption to the two-child limit?

[Guy Opperman]

We do not use the language used by the hon. Gentleman, but I will of course write to him.

[David Linden]

I am disappointed that the Minister does not know, because his Department has made 2,590 women prove and relive the ordeal of being raped, simply to get that state support, but given that the Labour party and the Conservatives support the two-child policy and rape clause, does it give him comfort to know that when the “Ghost of George Osborne Future” comes into office, his legacy in promoting astronomical child poverty rates will be safe in the hands of the Blairites on the Labour Benches?

[Guy Opperman]

I can only repeat that, compared with 2009-10, there are 400,000 fewer children in absolute poverty after housing costs.

Universal Credit Deductions

David Linden Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. I thank my very good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), for securing this timely debate. I say “timely” because it is almost a year to the day since I raised a similar issue in the Chamber. With that in mind, it is incredibly worrying that the situation outlined today has not improved. Instead, it has continued to spiral out of control, thanks to the British Government’s inaction.

I have listened with great interest to the contributions made this morning. Given the announcements this week, there is no better time to stress the damage that has been caused by this fatally flawed universal credit system. Last week, Citizens Advice published new data showing that families are operating in negative budgets, which means that their income no longer meets the basic costs of covering food, energy and housing. According to its latest analysis, two in 10 households have £100 or less after paying for monthly essentials, and of the 40,000 people who Citizens Advice sees with debt problems, over half cannot be helped, as they have already cut back so much on the bare essentials.

This all comes as a result of an austerity agenda pursued by the British Government—a Government who refuse to make the necessary change to universal credit deduction rules, despite households facing severe financial destitution and uncertainty. As we have heard today, the impact of deductions is significant and all the more pertinent to our constituents as they continue to be gripped by the cost of living crisis.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West said, the average Scottish household has had £59 deducted from their universal credit. In a cost of living crisis where every single penny counts, that is the difference between putting food on the table and having to go hungry. As he outlined, the deductions affect almost half of Scottish households on universal credit, with the DWP clawing back around £12 million a month. Nearly half of those deductions are to pay back universal credit advance payments because struggling households cannot wait five weeks for their first payment. This is a system that is fundamentally flawed.

It is therefore no surprise that since January this year, 60% of universal credit claimants whom citizens advice bureaux have helped with deductions have also required help accessing food bank or emergency charitable support. Trussell Trust data indicates that people with deductions were around twice as likely to go without food, toiletries and utilities as those on universal credit without deductions, and over two thirds of people in Scotland who were referred to food banks in the Trussell Trust network in receipt of universal credit were facing a deduction.

Furthermore, the latest statistics from Citizens Advice show that, of the 84% of people who had their benefits deducted, 43% have had to borrow money to cover the essentials. In addition, the Child Poverty Action Group reported that more than 2.2 million children are living in households with debt deductions from their universal credit. I know from speaking to constituents in Parkhead, Shettleston and Tollcross that the uncertainty of how much a deduction is or when it will be taken causes significant and, most importantly, unnecessary hardship for claimants.

In their reports, charities refers to universal credit deductions as “wiping out people’s finances” and

“trapping them in a spiral of debt”.

“Trapping” and “spiralling” are words that I would never wish to associate with a social security system, yet the system that this Conservative Government have designed and presided over continues to push individuals into a never-ending cycle of debt and financial insecurity. As a number of Members have stressed, the British Government are subjecting vulnerable people to heinous deductions that push them into further debt and destitution. Debt, in and of itself, has a profound impact on the cost of living, and that is only exacerbated by this broken system, which is forcing people to make impossible choices that amount to their being unable to even meet the most basic needs.

When the root cause of the issue is poor system design, it is astounding that the Government continually refuse to make the necessary changes to rules around deductions. We are faced with a British Government in denial, who do not believe

“that pausing deductions by default is necessarily in the claimant’s best interest.”

What is it about being unable to afford basic food, buy household essentials or heat their home that is in the claimant’s best interests? People are already diverting limited resources towards debt repayments and that is only compounded by unexpected deductions.

Despite continued and constrained resources, the Scottish Government are doing what they can to mitigate the impact of this broken system, but the root cause undeniably starts here in Westminster. We know the Government can make solutions and immediate changes today that would make a huge difference to those struggling the most and make our constituents’ lives somewhat more manageable, as so many continue to face impossible household budget decisions. Those changes need to be made sooner rather than later, as millions face food insecurity, soaring debt and unnecessary hardship.

[Chris Stephens]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. We must ask the Minister to consider the need for some discussion between claimants and the DWP, particularly where the DWP’s own errors are causing the deduction. Does my hon. Friend agree that there needs to be a discussion about an affordability assessment between the claimant and DWP in future?

[David Linden]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. When the permanent secretary of the DWP gave evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee, I raised the issue of the recovery of some of the payments. The permanent secretary acknowledged at the time that despite the heavy-handed wording in the DWP’s letter, there was scope for a discussion between claimants and the Department. The fact that the Department has not been willing to amend the text of that rather hard-hitting letter makes the point.

We have a broken social security system that is perpetuated by the UK Government. Moreover, I say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), that there is no point in his party winning the election and coming into Government but continuing the policies of this Government. He and his party should be thoroughly ashamed of being thirled to a two-child policy and an associated rape clause that is the very opposite of what the Labour party should stand for. The hon. Members for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) are good socialists who are appalled by the policy. If the hon. Member for Reading East wants to stand up and take the opportunity to apologise for his party pursuing a policy that is tantamount to social engineering, I will be happy to hear that. If he does not do so, my constituents will conclude that the only way to ensure we do not have disgraceful social security policies is with the powers of independence, because this lot clearly have nothing different to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

I can hardly turn down a man who ambushed me with cake not once but twice in Newtownards on my two visits to Northern Ireland. It was a pleasure to join the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues there. I saw not just a thriving business, but some of the difficulties and complexities of life in Newtownards and the work that he and the local support organisation to which he referred very favourably, and rightly so, are doing.

On the Northern Ireland statistics, I am 99% sure that those are due to the changes in Government and the current difficulties in relation to Stormont, but I will do everything I can. I will write to the hon. Gentleman individually—[Interruption.]—and to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, of course. I will probably refer the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) to the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland, with a view to ascertaining the specific data that he seeks. He will be aware that, as we discussed when I visited his beautiful constituency by the lough, I as the individual Minister do not control individual jobcentres or the policy in Northern Ireland.

The hon. Gentleman raised a couple of points, which, as he intervened on me, I will try to deal with. One of the points—a general criticism of the roll-out of universal credit—was also raised by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley). I respectfully reject that point. Disregarding what one thinks of this Government, under no circumstance could the legacy benefit system have coped with covid. Under no circumstance could it cope with and support the cost of living support that we are rolling out on an ongoing basis. Under no circumstance could it allow for the universal approach that we are able to manage because of universal credit. The hon. Member for Birkenhead has a very illustrious predecessor, to whom I send best wishes, because I know he is not in good health. Lord Field would very much have made the case that universal credit was the right thing to do and that it was right to reform, albeit that the roll-out has been a long-term situation.

The managed migration of tax credits was also discussed. With respect, that is an ongoing policy, and there is transitional protection for people moving from tax credits to universal credit. I respectfully invite colleagues to be aware that the migration is going well and that there are ongoing protections.

The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) raised many points. It is not really for me to get into the disastrous state of Labour policy, whether it is that of the Welsh First Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, colleagues on the Opposition Back Benches or the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), who chose to present the Opposition’s policy. The best comment I heard was from the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe), who has left—or perhaps the Labour party left her. She quoted Engels, and I think also Marx, in support of her policies. When Marx was talking about the division of labour, I did not know he was actually talking about the Opposition party. The long and short of it is that in Labour-run Wales employment is down, as compared with the rest of the country, where it is up. We could compare and contrast the health service in Wales and in England; the constituents of the hon. Member for Arfon, even on the Llŷn peninsula, are travelling to England for operations.

I believe that I have the time briefly to say that I remember well the summer of 2005, when the hon. Member for Arfon and I were both younger, fitter and probably better looking—[Interruption.] He did not have much hair even then, I have to say. We were both standing for the seat of Arfon and the Llŷn peninsula, as the constituency then was, I believe. The hon. Gentleman was exceptionally courteous to this young whippersnapper, who was representing the Welsh Conservative party, particularly when we attended a hustings event that was conducted entirely in Welsh. Although I can say diolch and many other things, can order two beers in Welsh, and have a mother who is a Llewellyn from the Tywi valley, it was an ordeal I will never forget: spending two hours conducting the whole meeting in Welsh, with some rather large headphones for the translation.

The hon. Gentleman rightly raised affordability assessments. I will come to that, if he will bear with me, but it is unquestionably the case that changes have been made to the universal credit deductions policy following representations made by a Select Committee and others, and it is right that I try to explain where we are with that.

In April 2021, the cap on the standard deductions was reduced to 25% of a claimant’s universal credit standard allowance. That followed a reduction from 40% to 30% several years earlier. At the same time, we doubled the new claim advance repayment period to 24 months. The consequence of that was that hundreds of thousands of universal credit claimants retained more of their award. The reduction in standard cap was warmly welcomed, and we believe that it maintains the right balance.

Colleagues have raised many specifics about deductions, but one must remember, for example, that well over 150,000 individuals have child maintenance deducted in respect of children for whom they are responsible. I could add more detail about individual deductions and the different types of deduction, but the child maintenance deduction in particular is one that concerns the Department because it is the state’s obligation to ensure that parents are responsible to some degree for the children they have. Some of those deductions—well over £2 billion—are made in respect of child maintenance, and scrapping all deductions policy, which some have called for, would have a massive impact in that regard.

There are obviously budgeting advances, which help to finance intermittent or unforeseen expenses—for example, essential household items. Those advances ensure that low-income families with an emergency financial need who do not have access to adequate savings or a loan can access funding.

Several hon. Members have mentioned their food banks. I put on the record my support for the Miner’s Lamp food bank in Prudhoe, which I visited again recently and supported with a donation. In respect of loans, credit unions up and down the country are doing a fantastic job and should be supported by Members. I was proud to set up the Northumberland Community Bank, which is the fastest-growing credit union in the north. I am not involved with it now, which is probably why it is the fastest-growing credit union in the north, but it was very much set up with the Church of England and with local communities to try to provide low-cost savings and loans to support individuals and keep them out of potential difficulties.

We believe that we have reached the right balance on the level of deductions from benefits, but we are committed to supporting those who might be struggling. I want to try to address that situation. It was asserted by various colleagues that there is no fall-back position. I do not accept that. We strive to set affordable and sustainable repayment plans, and encourage customers to contact the Department if they are unable to afford the proposed repayment rate. When a customer makes contact, we might be able to reduce the rate of repayment or temporarily suspend repayment, depending on the customer’s financial circumstances.

The review period for customers with a negotiated affordable repayment rate has also been extended from six months to two years. However, customers may contact us at any time to renegotiate affordable repayment terms.

[David Linden]

rose—

[Matt Rodda]

rose—

[Guy Opperman]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden). The hon. Member for Reading East has had his say.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. It is important that information is communicated slightly better to claimants. As an action point, will he undertake to go away and look at how information could be better cascaded to claimants so that they are aware that there is a bit more flexibility? I would appreciate that.

[Guy Opperman]

I certainly will do that, and I will also have a look at the individual letters that apply in those particular circumstances. All such letters, as the hon. Gentleman will know having done the pensions job for five long, lovely years, are kept under review, and there is the opportunity to do that.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) is no longer in her place—I know she has to be elsewhere—but she raised in particular the issue of access to a journal for those who do not have the internet. Again, we need to make it clear that, obviously, an individual claimant can attend a jobcentre, which has computers that claimants can use to access their universal credit claim and their individual journal, or they can speak to a member of staff who can support them through the process.

Department for Work and Pensions

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to have been granted today’s debate about DWP spending.

I will focus in particular on universal credit, whose roll-out started 10 years ago in 2013. The DWP is forecast to have, by some considerable margin, the highest expenditure of any Government Department, at £279.3 billion in this financial year, followed by the Department of Health and Social Care, at £201 billion. DWP spending is the largest by a considerable distance.

Of course, the DWP forecast is uncertain. Almost all its funding counts as annually managed expenditure; it is hard to forecast demand-led spending. DWP’s admin spending—departmental expenditure limits—is 27% lower in real terms this year than in 2010-11. Universal credit spending is forecast to be £50.8 billion this financial year, which is £8.8 billion higher than forecast in these estimates last year, reflecting the recent much-needed uprating and a higher case load. In February, 4.5 million households were receiving universal credit payments.

A key argument in the business case for universal credit was the prospect of reducing fraud and error. Nearly a quarter of the £34 billion net present value gain expected over 10 years from introducing universal credit was due to come from lower fraud and error. In fact, fraud and error have been much worse than they were for legacy benefits. The Department’s statistics show that the universal credit overpayment rate decreased, but from an astronomical 14.7% in May 2021 to 12.8% last year. I know that the Department is setting out to address that problem, and that it has obtained resources from the Treasury to do so. Underpayments were at their highest-ever recorded rate last year, at 1.6%. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us about plans for tackling those problems.

An additional reason that it is so important to get decisions right at the moment is that universal credit is a passport to cost of living support payments. There was a strong case for merging the various benefits into universal credit, and the success of the system in getting urgently needed support out effectively during the pandemic was very important and very impressive. However, there are some big problems—above all, the problem of the five-week wait between applying for the benefit and receiving the first payment. With legacy benefits, the first payment would usually arrive a week and a half or so after applying. With universal credit, having spent hundreds of millions of pounds on what we were always assured was agile technology, the same thing now takes five weeks. That is a fundamental and unnecessary flaw; the security is absent from social security.

In January 2021, the Government rejected the Select Committee’s recommendations to eliminate the wait and instead pay all first-time claimants of universal credit a starter payment equivalent to three weeks of the standard allowance, just to tide people over. The Government response pointed out that claimants can access advances, but of course, those are loans. Repayments reduce the already low monthly awards, and repaying advances is a major driver of the explosive growth in food bank demand that we have seen. Our colleagues in the other place, those on the Lords Economic Affairs Committee—with its Conservative Chair—succinctly highlighted the consequences of the five-week wait in July last year:

“the five-week wait for the first payment…drives many people into rent arrears, reliance on foodbanks and debt.”

As such, I ask the Minister once again whether the Government will reconsider our recommendations, or whether we have to wait for a different Government for that fundamental flaw to be addressed.

I am very pleased to say that one area in which the Government have listened to the Committee is reimbursement of childcare costs for people claiming universal credit. I warmly welcome the lifting of the cap and up-front payments for childcare announced in the Budget, and I hope that our future reports will have comparable levels of success. Those changes will support people to be in work in future.

Last week, the Child Poverty Action Group published a fascinating report called “You reap what you code”, highlighting areas where the universal credit computer system does not deliver what it should. It gave the example that legislation and guidance allow some groups to submit a universal credit claim up to a month in advance, but the system does not allow that, nor is there an adequate workaround outside the digital system. As such, some care leavers and prisoners expecting release can miss out on an entitlement that they are due. For all its success in the pandemic—I am unstinting in my recognition of that success—the rigidity of the digital system is a problem. Can the Minister tell us whether a fix is planned for that problem of early claims, which the Child Poverty Action Group highlighted last week?

Does the level of benefits meet need in the way it is supposed to? Do benefits represent value for the taxpayer? The Committee is conducting an important inquiry into benefit levels in the UK, and will report in the first half of next year. Benefit levels are very low. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trussell Trust told the Committee that

“the basic rate of Universal Credit—its standard allowance (or equivalents in previous systems)—is now at its lowest level in real terms in almost 40 years (CPI-adjusted) and its lowest ever level as a proportion of average earnings.”

They estimate from pretty careful research that a single adult needs £120 per week to cover essentials: food, utilities, vital household items and travel. That is excluding rent and council tax. Universal credit’s standard allowance is £85 per week for a single adult over 25. That is a shortfall of at least £35 per week, and deductions—for advance payments, for example—often pull actual support well below the headline rate.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trussell Trust call for an essentials guarantee. They make the point—which has been suggested this week in the press—that we might get a below-inflation uprating of benefits next year, making those problems even worse. I would be grateful if the Minister gave an assurance on that front, because that would be very bad news indeed.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Does the Chair of the Select Committee agree that the Government need to resist the temptation to try to plug the gaps with one-off payments? They should actually look at the wider, more structural problems that they have with the social security system, rather than just try to plug gaps when the system is falling apart at the seams.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I very much value his contribution to the work of the Select Committee. He is quite right, and I hope that we will be able to look at some of those structural issues over the course of the inquiry.

If universal credit did meet basic needs, other demands—including on food banks—would decrease. When the £20 a week uplift to universal credit was introduced, there was a significant drop in food bank use; when that uplift was removed, food bank use went straight back up again. Universal credit was intended to make work pay, but how can it achieve that aim if people do not have the means to pay a bus fare, for example? In evidence to the Committee, the Trussell Trust, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Public Law Project all highlighted not being able to buy public transport tickets as a significant barrier to work. As far as we can tell, the Government have made no assessment at all of whether benefit levels are adequate. If I am wrong about that, I would very much welcome the Minister telling us, but there is certainly no evidence of such an assessment ever having been made. I hope the Department will look very carefully at the findings of our report when they are published in due course.

One other point was highlighted in a briefing for this debate prepared by the charity Barnardo’s. That charity describes the two-child limit as the single biggest policy driver of child poverty in the UK, and says that ending it would be the most cost-effective way of reducing child poverty, lifting a quarter of a million children out of poverty and easing the poverty of a further 850,000 children. The cost of doing so would be £1.3 billion per year. I must say that I am puzzled about the justification for the two-child limit: it presumably reflects a belief that parents should not have more than two children, but as far as I understand it, that is not the Government’s view. Indeed, Government Members are understandably starting to worry about our falling birth rate, so why do we refuse to provide support for children beyond the first two? Is it not time to just scrap that limit, which does not seem to make any sense?

Another reason for higher DWP expenditure this year is the continuation of cost of living support. Expenditure is forecast to increase by just over £2 billion this year, due to higher payments—£900 in this financial year, compared with £650 last year—and higher take-up. Those payments have been crucial, but they do not fully meet need, particularly the £150 disability support payment. Last month, Maddy Rose of Mencap told the Select Committee that the payment is “clearly not commensurate” with the extra costs that those eligible incur, and we have heard other strong evidence to the Committee along those lines. Helen Barnard of the Trussell Trust told us last month that the cost of living payment

“has certainly helped the families that have got it, but of course, it is a flat payment. It is not calibrated for the number of people you are trying to feed, so it has clearly gone less far if you are a family with children than if you are a single person or a couple.”

That is one of the reasons why the Trussell Trust data shows a faster rise in food bank demand among families with children than among families without.

The lump sum nature of the payment is problematic. Citizens Advice, speaking for many, told the Committee that increments to universal credit would be better than one-off payments. Our colleagues on the Treasury Committee called on the Government last December to provide monthly payments over a six-month period to give more households support at the time of their greatest need and reduce the severity of the disincentives to work. The Government rejected that proposal, essentially due to the limitations of the IT system, but as we know from the pandemic, monthly universal credit can be increased overnight.

The need to meet a specific qualifying period for each payment window has led to what evidence to the Committee has described as

“a cliff edge where receiving a nil UC award one month—maybe due to a sanction or a higher salary due to backpay or a bonus—caused recipients to become ineligible for the entire cost of living support payment in that qualification period.”

I am looking forward to discussing cost of living support further with the Minister responsible for social mobility, youth and progression—the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies)—at the Committee tomorrow morning.

A very important aim in achieving effective spending is transparency over how the money is being spent and what is being achieved. The Department has had a very poor record in recent years, so I warmly welcome signs of a new commitment to transparency since the appointment of the new Secretary of State. Keeping things hidden, which has been the Department’s practice, has the short-term advantage for Ministers of avoiding having to answer sometimes awkward questions, but over the medium and long term, people depending on the Department form the impression that it is conspiring against them. The result is terrible mistrust, causing the Department very serious problems over time—for example, the very serious lack of confidence in the DWP among disabled people at the moment. It does not have to be like that, but changing things requires deliberate effort on the Department’s behalf.

None of the recently introduced employment support initiatives had regular performance reporting on introduction. I warmly welcome the Minister’s announcement of six-monthly performance reports for the restart scheme. That is one of the signs of welcome change in the Department’s approach, but it should be the norm and part of the arrangements built in at the outset, not something that has to be dragged from the Department kicking and screaming subsequently. Greater openness could deliver a wholly different relationship between the Department and the people depending on its services, with the Department seen to be working with those it serves, rather than conspiring against them.

An interesting suggestion in the Child Poverty Action Group report I mentioned earlier, “You reap what you code”, is that the source code for the universal credit computer system should be published. There would no doubt be some security concerns about doing that, but could not a small team—with experts from disability groups, Citizens Advice and software experts—be charged with reviewing that software and proposing improvements, perhaps in an annual report, a little bit along the lines of what the Social Security Advisory Committee does at the moment?

Let me briefly say a word about a different aspect of the Committee’s work. We have been worried by the cuts to the funding of the Health and Safety Executive, and one result has been drastically fewer inspections of workplace asbestos. We published a report on this last year, and called in particular for two things—a target to remove all workplace asbestos within 40 years together with a plan to deliver it, and a central digital register of all workplace asbestos and of its condition. The Government rejected those recommendations, although I do welcome the agreement of the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex, to meet a group of us, together with three industry groups and the Health and Safety Executive, to discuss further the idea for a register. That meeting will take place later this month.

I very warmly welcome the launch of the campaign by The Sunday Times at the weekend drawing attention to the continuing scale of the tragedy being inflicted by asbestos even now, a quarter of a century after its use was banned. It is still the biggest source of workplace-related deaths. The Sunday Times campaign headlines in particular our two recommendations, and I do hope that Ministers will now recognise the need to act. I welcome the fact that The Sunday Times will be running this campaign on a consistent basis.

I again thank the Backbench Business Committee for recommending today’s debate. I would be very interested to hear from the Minister specifically how Ministers are assessing whether the different cost of living support payments meet needs and whether they are reaching the right people, and also how and when Ministers will decide whether payments along these lines will be needed next year. I look forward to the debate we are about to have.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

May I start, as others have, by sending my thanks to the Chair of our Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), for securing today’s debate and for setting the scene so well? The debate takes place against the backdrop of an ongoing Westminster-made cost of living crisis that affects the livelihoods and lives of people across Scotland and these islands. The harsh, yet inescapable reality is that people in Scotland can no longer afford to pay the price for the economic mismanagement of a Westminster Government they did not elect. Indeed, we have not voted by majority for the Conservatives since 1955.

In May, CPI was still at 8.7%. Prices are still soaring and the cost of living under Westminster control is still far too high for many families who were already struggling to get by after 13 long, brutal years of Tory cuts, Brexit and economic mismanagement. We know that inflation disproportionately impacts lower-income groups such as single parents, who spend a relatively high proportion of their income on food and fuel. Indeed, new Trussell Trust research shows that families are going hungry as a result of the Westminster-made cost of living crisis, with one in seven people in the UK facing hunger in the last year due to a lack of money. Ministers often tell us that the reasons for food bank usage are complex. It is not complex—it is because people do not have enough money.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s latest cost of living tracker found that 5.7 million low-income households are having to cut down or skip meals because they do not have enough money for food, while the number going without items such as food, heating and basic toiletries has remained at about 7 million for more than a year—all of that in the sixth largest economy in the world.

The average interest rate for a two-year fixed-term mortgage has risen to 6%. The Resolution Foundation has said that average annual mortgage repayments are set to rise by £2,900 for those renewing next year. In short, that is the eye-watering Westminster mortgage premium that Scots are paying for the pleasure of a Tory Government they did not elect.

What is more, analysis by the consumer group Which? shows that the prices of popular family meals have risen by 27% in the last year. The Irish and French Governments have reached agreements with major supermarket retailers to reduce food prices, while the Tory Government are sitting on their hands. It is those low-income families I represent in Parkhead, Shettleston and Baillieston who are paying the price for the sheer intransigence of Conservative Ministers here in London. Even at this late hour in the cost of living crisis, I urge the British Government to use all the powers at their disposal to tackle that crisis on the scale that is required. That does mean that they will have to be bold and radical, and the same is true of the pro-Brexit Labour party.

I turn specifically to universal credit, which is obviously the main focus of the debate. In short, the British Government’s continual refusal to fix the extensive and known-about problems with universal credit is unacceptable, and it is without doubt subjecting some of the most vulnerable people in our communities to additional and unnecessary hardship. With the three main parties in this place now agreeing on the principles of universal credit, there is an opportunity, so we should put our heads together to look at what we can do to fix it.

I will start with the level of universal credit. JRF research shows that support has eroded over decades and that the basic rate of universal credit is now at its lowest level as a proportion of average earnings. Indeed, the JRF’s latest cost of living tracker warns that about nine in 10 low-income households on UC have gone without at least one essential for the third survey in over a year.

For most people referred to food banks in the Trussell Trust network, the design and delivery of the social security system are major contributors to their inability to afford the essentials. The majority of people—indeed, some 89%—referred to food banks in the Trussell Trust network receive a means-tested benefit such as universal credit, but that did not provide them with enough to cover the cost of the essentials. As the right hon. Member for East Ham said, JRF and the Trussell Trust are together calling on Ministers to implement that essentials guarantee to ensure that, at a minimum, the basic rate of universal credit covers life’s essentials and that support can never be pulled below that level.

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

Is not another problem the insane part of the system where people pay back money because of advances and the level of deductions—more than £60 a month is being deducted from my hon. Friend’s constituents’ and my constituents’ universal credit? That envelops that cycle of poverty.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that point on the record. He was my predecessor on the Select Committee and follows this work well. I will come to debt and deductions, because that is one of the big issues raised in the evidence that the Select Committee receives, certainly by the stakeholders that we meet. He is spot-on to draw attention to the £60 from each of our constituents that is paid back to the Government when it could be spent in our local economies.

New CPAG research finds that the digital aspects of universal credit routinely lead to wrong amounts being awarded to claimants—often those who are most vulnerable—and to breaches of rule of law principles. That is why I have repeatedly called on the Government to reverse their cuts to universal credit and working tax credits. Let us not forget that this was the biggest overnight cut to welfare in 70 years, inflicting hardship on people who were already struggling. To have done that as we came out of the teeth of the pandemic was particularly cruel.

Rather than offering one-off payments to shore up struggling families’ incomes, the DWP should reverse the damaging policies that are impacting on the most vulnerable people. It should reinstate the UC uplift at £25 per week and, of course, extend it to legacy benefits. Let us not forget the 2.5 million disabled people, so ably advocated for by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who were cruelly left behind without that uplift during the pandemic. The Government also need to remove the benefit cap and the two-child limit with its associated rape clause. They also need to halt the punitive sanctions regime so that all households are lifted out of poverty now and in future.

I turn to the benefit cap. As the Poverty Alliance points out, the cap’s design means that those who require the highest level of support from the benefit system are the most likely to be affected. That is simply unjust. Based on the latest departmental figures, 114,000 UK households have had their benefit capped and 86% of those are families with children. The benefit cap disproportionately impacts lone-parent families, the majority of whom are women—a point made by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) —as well as larger and ethnic minority families.

The same is true of the two-child limit. Thousands of families with children will be pushed into poverty because Ministers on the Treasury Bench refuse to scrap the two-child limit on child tax credits and universal credit. A new London School of Economics study found that the policy’s impoverishment of larger low-income households has helped few parents get a job. Instead, its main function has been to push families further into poverty and to damage their mental health.

I wonder why Ministers are so furled to the two-child limit. The vast majority of them are actually quite embarrassed by it, and that is before we get to the associated rape clause, or as the Government like to call it, the “non-consensual sex exemption”. When this Government go around lecturing people about the values of global Britain, I am pretty sure they do not tell folk that the state will only support the first two children in the family, but if someone can prove that their child was born as a result of rape, that is okay.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

indicated dissent.

[David Linden]

The Parliamentary Private Secretary is shaking his head at that, but probably because he is so embarrassed.

The five-week wait for a first payment is needlessly pushing people into hardship. The issue could easily be fixed by implementing the Scottish National party’s proposal to turn advance payment loans into non-repayable grants after the claimant has been deemed eligible. The Trussell Trust, which I referenced earlier, has consistently shown that the five-week wait for universal credit is a key driver in the need for food banks, both during those five weeks and after the payments have started.

I want to draw attention to the young parent penalty in UC, which Ministers must end. It denies single parents under the age of 25 the same level of social security as those above that age, and it pushes those affected into real poverty. Let us not forget that when under-25s go into Aldi, Lidl, Morrisons or whatever supermarket, they do not get a discount on their shopping because they are under 25. I find that Ministers have an obsession with that.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

The hon. Gentleman has campaigned on this issue, as have I. Does he agree that the response I received from the previous Secretary of State on this point—that under-25s were treated differently because they tended to still be at home with their parents—is a pretty spurious argument and excuse from the Department?

[David Linden]

That is right. It was not unusual for the previous Secretary of State to say things which, after some scrutiny, might not make sense. The hon. Lady is right. For Ministers to hide behind the housing crisis—caused by this Tory Government—as some kind of justification for ensuring that people under 25 get less support does not stand up to scrutiny. That point was hammered home to me on Friday, when I was in Drumchapel visiting the Christians Against Poverty debt centre, to meet staff and volunteers there, to whom I pay enormous tribute for their sterling work.

According to One Parent Families Scotland, as a result of the young parent penalty, young couple parents are around £100 worse off per month than single parents, and around £65 worse off a month than over-25s. That research found that 55% of children with a mum under 25 are in relative poverty, and 49% are in absolute poverty. Let us never forget that those statistics are the result of the structural inequality put in place by intransigent Ministers. Although I certainly welcome the change whereby people on UC will now be able to claim childcare support upfront, I am afraid that does not change the fundamental issue that the amount of UC that people receive is simply not enough. Families will still be required to make up the 15% shortfall in their overall childcare costs under UC rules.

An issue that continues to come up in evidence at the Select Committee is that far too many households face destitution because of DWP rules that push them into debt through sanctions and reductions—a point made eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). Aberlour Children’s Charity produced a report that states that half of families with children in Scotland who receive universal credit are having their incomes reduced by the DWP to cover debts to public bodies. I hope the Select Committee will be able to drill into that a bit more. It is increasingly a problem, and I am sure I am not the only MP who sees people raising it regularly at advice surgeries.

It is well established and on record that the SNP completely opposes the widespread use of sanctions, as there is clear evidence that they do not work. Indeed, evidence from the Department’s report admits that sanctions have a minimal effect on moving people into work. Instead, people who are sanctioned end up earning less than those who have not been sanctioned, or simply become economically inactive.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making such important remarks. Does he agree that the impact of sanctions is detrimental to people’s mental health? We are facing a mental health crisis. If we want to support people getting into work, we need to make sure that they are not struggling on the breadline.

[David Linden]

The hon. Lady is spot on. Sometimes, Ministers overlook when they take those decisions—yes, they might be driven by focus groups and such things—that the state bears the cost. If somebody hits a period of mental ill health or is made homeless, the health service or the local authority will pick up the pieces. It is not without cost for the state. I would like Ministers to have the wider picture as they pursue sanctions, because the research shows that they do not work.

[Margaret Greenwood]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous. Does he agree that the issue of poverty is so concerning for small children because it impacts on the development of the brain and how well they will be able to learn? If a child has a good five years at the start of their life, that will see them through life. So many children in desperate poverty who do not know whether they will get enough food are also in receipt of the anxiety their parents are in, as they battle those stressful situations.

[David Linden]

I am proud that the Scottish Government invest in things such as the best start grant, the baby box and free school meals, to ensure that young people get the best possible start in life. My local authority in Glasgow is spending millions of pounds on holiday hunger programmes, to ensure that children who receive free school meals during school term time are still being fed. It is a damning indictment on the state that we have to spend money from local authority budgets feeding children because their parents do not have enough money. That is the situation we are in, in the fifth richest economy in the world.

Remarkably, as I am sure we will hear when the Minister responds to the debate, Ministers are still forcing more people into the sanctions regime, which further demonstrates the fundamental issue with the British Government’s attitude to those on low incomes: preventing vulnerable families from receiving the social security they are entitled to and, most importantly, when they need it the most.

Before I draw my remarks to a close, I want to turn to the local housing allowance. The freeze of LHA rates for three consecutive years is placing additional and needless pressure on tenants and housing associations, and is likely to increase poverty and inequality. That is why Ministers should protect household incomes and support renters by restoring LHA rates to the 30th percentile as a minimum. The SNP has long called for the British Government to fix those fundamental flaws in our social security system but, as is so often the case, it falls on deaf ears each and every time, to the extent that every time I take part in one of these debates, it feels like groundhog day.

The blunt truth is that the Scottish Government cannot change those policies while 85% of welfare expenditure and income replacement benefits remain reserved to this institution here in London. That includes universal credit. By all means, I am happy to take part in debates and make suggestions about how we repair the social security system, but it is difficult to conclude anything other than Westminster—whether the Tories or the pro-Brexit Labour party—has zero appetite to genuinely step in and sew up a system that is failing some of the most vulnerable people in society. For that reason, the only way genuinely to bring about that compassionate, fair and dignified social security system in Scotland is with the full powers of independence. Frankly, that cannot come soon enough.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Employment (Guy Opperman)]

It is an honour once again to present the case on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions in an estimates day debate. I have lost track of the number of times I have done this, but I have certainly done so on numerous occasions during my seven years at the Department.

It is, first of all, my privilege to thank all DWP staff—whom I regard as a massive help and not a hindrance, as some may have suggested—for the fantastic work that they do up and down the country.

[David Linden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Guy Opperman]

No.

The Government have never paid more for the pensions that we support in this country, we have never paid more for the benefit support that we provide in this country, we have never paid more for the housing support that we provide in this country, and we have never paid more for the disabled in this country. As we celebrate the 75th anniversary of the national health service, let me also put on record my thanks to the NHS. I have had my life saved twice by the NHS, once after I collapsed in Central Lobby in 2011. I got into politics because of my attempts to save my local hospital, and I am proud to have visited Hexham General Hospital this week to see the amazing new maternity suite that has recently been opened.

Much has been said today about a variety of issues, but I want to try to put the debate in context. The Government clearly understand the pressures that households are facing. We are all familiar with the root causes of our higher costs, including the global factors: the illegal war in Ukraine brought about by Vladimir Putin, the aftermath and consequences of the pandemic, and the furlough scheme and the other support that we set out in great detail and the country provided at a time of difficulty. We are committed to delivering on our priority of halving inflation, which will help to ease those pressures for everyone and raise living standards.

Alongside that work, we continue to implement a significant package of cost of living measures to support the most vulnerable during 2023-24. We have increased benefits and state pensions by 10.1%, and raised the benefit cap by the same amount so that more people feel the benefit of uprating. For low-paid workers, we have increased the national living wage by 9.7% to £10.42 an hour; that represents an increase of more than £1,600 in the gross annual earnings of a full-time worker on the national living wage. That increase, and the increases that we made in the national minimum wage in April, have given a pay rise to about 2.9 million workers. To help parents, we are delivering a significant expansion of childcare support, including a 47% increase in the maximum amount of universal credit childcare payments. As I said in the House last week, that is a dramatic increase. In addition, where there are gaps in provision, notwithstanding the above cost of living payments, the £842 million extension of our household support fund into 2023-24 means that councils across England can continue to help families with grocery bills and other essentials.