Draft Pensions Dashboards (Amendment) Regulations 2023

David Linden Excerpts

Monday 3rd July 2023 General Committees

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I thank the Minister for her continued collegiate approach to this issue. As others have said, it is disappointing that we have had the delay, but there is no point in crying over spilled milk. What we need to do is ensure that we get it right.

The Work and Pensions Committee has been undertaking an inquiry into the plan for jobs and the thorny issue of why the over-55s have not come back to the workplace, and it strikes me that the pension dashboards will really important when people are making informed decisions about what they do in the latter part of their career. We all want to see it, but we want to see it delivered in such a way as is efficient and not besieged by technical problems.

The hon. Member for Reading East made reference to some of the stakeholders that have expressed concern. I will draw the Minister’s attention to the remarks of Dr Yvonne Braun of the Association of British Insurers, who said:

“Our members have indicated they’re willing and able to continue to comply with a voluntary timetable, although it would have been our preference that these remained a regulatory requirement to prevent a last-minute rush of firms connecting to the system. We ask that Government keeps this under review and considers making the staggered dates a regulatory requirement again if it should become clear that the wider industry is not taking the same approach.”

I think the Minister should bear that in mind.

While talking about this subject, it would be remiss of me not to say that pension dashboards work only if more and more people are opted in to pensions. The Minister knows fine well my views on auto-enrolment and how I would like it to go further. It would be churlish of me not to commend the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) on his private Member’s Bill, which goes some way to widening it. I think that we all look forward to a time when pension dashboards are in place, and most importantly people are making informed choices in terms of retirement.

One final plea to the Minister would be, once again, to look at things such as the Stronger Nudge to Pension Wise to ensure that people make decisions about retirement and later-life savings with as broad a picture as possible, and do not take decisions that will be, in the short term, financially disadvantageous.

In-work Poverty

David Linden Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. We may disagree about certain things, but hard-hitting facts are hard to ignore, especially when the truth hits us. I agree that the work of the independent pay review bodies is very important, but even this week we have seen the Government, including the Prime Minister, not accepting their recommendations. The Government are very selective in when they agree to the recommendations of the independent pay review bodies. That must change. They should either comply with them or completely disregard them; they cannot do both to suit their needs as required.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Can I just confirm that the position of the Labour Front Bench is that Labour would implement the recommendations of the public sector pay review bodies?

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Today I am not on the Labour Front Bench, but I am sure that the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), will highlight exactly what the Labour policy is in that regard. As far as I am concerned, I think it is very important that if we have independent pay review bodies, either they and their work are respected or we do not have them. I am sure that that will be teased out in due course.

The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast in March this year that real household disposable income per person—a measure of living standards—will fall by a cumulative 5.7% between 2022 and 2024. That would be the largest two-year fall since records began back in the 1950s.

One of my Slough constituents wrote to tell me that despite their family of five having a full-time worker and the support of universal credit, they still could not afford their children’s school lunches—an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) alluded to earlier. Imagine being a parent who has to send their children off to school knowing that they are hungry. They know that they have done everything they can to provide for them; they have worked hard, sought support and tried their hardest, but there is nothing more they can do and their children will be going hungry. It is a desperate situation for so many, and one we should not be seeing in the world’s sixth largest economy.

Child poverty in the UK is overwhelmingly related to in-work poverty. Some 67% of children living in relative poverty in our country come from working households. Households in which at least one adult is in work have seen a steep rise in poverty under the Tories. Absolute poverty has not fallen since Labour was in power. It has stagnated while the Conservatives have been in power, but, most concerningly, it has started to rise. Absolute child poverty is set to increase even more by the end of this year, meaning that another 400,000 children could be going hungry and cold day to day, or even homeless. Are the Government not ashamed?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir George. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing the debate. It is one of those hour-long debates where I come along and wonder how many people will be in attendance. It would be fair to say that it has been a well-subscribed debate, hence the need for a time limit. I am only sorry that the only two Conservatives present are here because they are mandated to be. I would have thought that in-work poverty might have meant a little more than that.

We can look at a number of issues when we consider in-work poverty. People will say that it is incredibly complex. In reality, it happens because people do not have enough money. That is the brutal reality. We do not have a real living wage in this country; we have a con trick. The Government talk about their national living wage, but it is not a real living wage. It also appears, bizarrely—I pressed the hon. Member for Slough on this point—that the two main parties are not of the view that the national pay review body’s recommendations should be implemented. That is deeply worrying; for many of those same staff we clapped during the pandemic, that talk will seem like hollow words if we do not back those recommendations.

The fact is that staff are struggling. I highlight the plight of members of the Public and Commercial Services Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) does a huge amount with them. The reality is that there are Department for Work and Pensions staff who administer the benefits system in the UK who are being fed by a food bank because of poverty pay in their Department. If that does not shame DWP Ministers, I do not know what will.

The Government could do a number of things to tackle in-work poverty. First, they could look at the woeful rates of statutory sick pay. People have to earn a minimum of £123 a week before statutory sick pay kicks in. The Government should also look at fixing some of the known problems with universal credit, which of course is an in-work benefit. We often hear from the Government about the importance of people working their way out of poverty, but the people I represent, many of whom go out and do a decent day’s work, are in a ridiculous situation. When they go to the supermarket, baby formula is behind the tills because people are stealing it, and butter is security-tagged. That is because people are put in a position where, frankly, they do not have enough money. That comes back to the same problem of in-work poverty.

The Government can talk all they like about the importance of working to get out of poverty, but as we have heard during today’s debate, the biggest problem for people who are in poverty is that they are not being paid enough. I will finish by saying that one of the best ways to tackle in-work poverty is to join a trade union, and to use its leverage in the workplace to get a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Employment (Guy Opperman)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing this debate. He and others have raised a number of policy issues that are not in my portfolio, but I will try to deal with them briefly if I can.

In respect of housing, I am not the Housing Minister, but the hon. Member will be aware that in 2022-23, the Government are projected to spend £30 billion to support renters. That is 1.4% of GDP. He may criticise that as an insufficient sum, but it is the highest of any country in the OECD in relation to spending on housing rental support—the next highest is 0.9% of GDP. Clearly, the figure is higher than when we came into office.

The hon. Member’s second point about housing related to the production of homes. We have built 2.2 million additional homes since coming into office. Housing starts are double the number we inherited from the Labour Government in 2010. More homes are meeting decent homes standards, and housing supply is up 10% in the last year for which we have figures. The most recent figures show a 20-year high in the number of new buyers.

On education, the hon. Member specifically raised free school meals. I am not aware that that is Labour Front-Bench policy, but he has the joy of the Back-Bench freedom to roam and create new policy. In any event, it is not even SNP policy. The SNP briefly adopted that, but obviously then parked it in a motorhome, and it has been driven off into the distance of some strange new world of new policy.

[David Linden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Guy Opperman]

Of course I will. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s defence of all matters motorhomes and policy.

[David Linden]

I am certainly not going to stray into the Contempt of Court Act 1981, as I am sure the Minister would not either as a former solicitor. Given that he seems to know so much about the free school meals position in Scotland, will he outline to hon. Members when free school meals kick in? I am sure he knows.

Cost of Living Support

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 20th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I too thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, although in reality it is a nine-page press release rehash of previous Government announcements. The only new thing today is the £150 disability payment. Will the Minister reflect on the excellent report from Scope, “Disability Price Tag 2023: the extra cost of disability”, which shows that, on average, disabled households have expenditure that is £975 higher per month? We know that, for example, as a result of specialised diets, higher transport costs, higher energy costs and higher insurance premiums, there is a cost to disabled people.

Unfortunately, the Government do not have a good record when it comes to disabled people, particularly the 2.5 million legacy benefit claimants who were so cruelly overlooked during the pandemic and did not get the equivalent of the £20 uplift. I welcome the £150, but I ask the Minister to reflect on the wise words of Scope, which says that that will not touch the sides. To that end, as the Government are not quite getting this, may I invite the Minister to come to Glasgow to meet me and the Glasgow Disability Alliance, where he will hear the message, loud and clear, that this simply does not go far enough and that far too many people are going to struggle unless the Government up their game?

[Tom Pursglove]

The key point I would make, which I set out in my introductory statement, is that there is a significant alignment; people receiving the disability cost of living payment are also receiving various other parts of the support package. Eight-five per cent of those who qualify for the disability cost of living payment are also receiving a mean-tested or the pensioner cost of living payment. They are receiving various parts of the package of support. We continue to keep those matters under constant review, as Members would expect. I have a meeting later today with a Minister in the Scottish Government and no doubt matters relating to the cost of living will come up. As a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, I am committed and determined to visit all parts of the United Kingdom and I will take away the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion about where I might go.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Linden Excerpts

Monday 19th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The reality is that after 13 long, cold years of Conservative rule, people have never worked harder, but never felt poorer. We know that 2.6 million people on fixed-rate mortgages are about to see their fixed rate expire, which will see their mortgage rates go up. Has the Secretary of State made any assessment as to how many staff in his Department will struggle to make ends meet when their mortgages skyrocket under this Conservative Government?

[Mel Stride]

The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies) has already addressed the approach that we would recommend to those struggling with mortgages and the approach that the Government are taking to that. I would point to the many in my Department, and indeed up and down the country, who may be, for example, among the 8 million low-income households who are receiving £900 cost of living support. There are also the £150 payments to those who are disabled and £300 payable to pensioners along with their winter fuel payments. Those, along with increasing the national living wage and the energy price guarantee, are real things that the Government are doing to help those who are feeling the most financial pressure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the SNP spokesperson.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Last week, I was in Aberdeen to attend the annual conference of the Scottish Pensioners’ Forum and outline why we think an independent Scotland would be the best place to grow old. In contrast, at the weekend, the former Tory leader William Hague wrote in the papers that his party should abandon the triple lock. Is that why pensioners are now supporting independence more than ever?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)]

I do not think they are. Also, the triple lock is very proudly a Conservative policy.

Cost of Living: Parental Leave and Pay

David Linden Excerpts

Monday 19th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. I join the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for opening the debate. I also welcome Ms Sheridan to the Gallery and thank her for creating the petition.

To pick up where the hon. Member for Strangford left off, I have a great deal of sympathy for the proposal that we introduce some sort of salary sacrifice scheme for mortgages. The reality is that 2.6 million fixed rate mortgages are due to expire before the end of the year. Unfortunately, my fixed rate mortgage expired in October, so my mortgage has doubled in the course of the last year. As a Member of Parliament, I can obviously absorb that cost to a certain extent, but as the hon. Member for Strangford outlined, for far too many families that will simply not be the case. It is perhaps no surprise that mothers are, for example, facing the indignity of having to ask for formula to be taken from behind the counter because there is a fear that it could be shoplifted.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North was spot on about the cost of living crisis. It has certainly been my party’s No. 1 priority; we have been doing everything in our power to support our constituents throughout this incredibly difficult time. It is because I have seen the impact of the crisis on my constituents day in and day out that I wanted to take part in today’s debate. I have seen the frankly devastating consequences of my constituents being unable to afford their weekly food shop and struggling to pay their energy bills. That is an irony that is not lost on people who live on an island that is energy-rich.

While the pervasive crisis is clearly impacting everyone, the parents of young families are perhaps feeling the belt tightening the most. I caution colleagues that it is not necessarily a new issue; the Government in Westminster sadly have a long and torrid history of penalising young and single-parent households in particular. The SNP has consistently urged the British Government to improve parental leave and pay. Upon arriving here in 2017, I spent my first few years using just about every parliamentary mechanism possible to push the Government to introduce legislation that would give additional leave and pay to parents such as myself who had premature or sick babies, in addition to the maternity and paternity leave and pay that they are entitled to.

Whenever I leave this place, the proudest moment of my time as an MP will still be when my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) chose to take on that cause for his private Member’s Bill, which I am pleased received Royal Assent last month. In short, it means that parents of premature and sick babies, as we were with Isaac and Jessica, will never again have to go through that terrible time. I pay tribute to all who joined that long and hard-fought campaign. The legislation will change the lives of thousands of families and will undoubtedly make life that little bit easier for parents who are already experiencing a difficult time.

We have come so far, but we have so much further to go. Another colleague and friend of mine, my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley), has campaigned tirelessly for paid leave for anyone who has suffered a miscarriage. Alongside those campaigns, my party has continually—as have others, to be fair—called on the British Government to improve parental leave and pay generally. That issue is more important than ever, not just in the face of the ongoing cost of living crisis but in recognition that the world of work is changing.

Against the backdrop of the cost of living crisis, it is concerning that among OECD countries the UK has the second-lowest payment rates for maternity leave. Less than one third of gross average earnings are replaced by maternity leave and despite lengthy maternity leave entitlements, full-rate equivalent paid maternity leave lasts for only 12 weeks.

As a Scottish National party MP, I obviously disagree with the fact that employment law is reserved to lawmakers here in Westminster. Similarly, I remain bemused, as does the Scottish Trades Union Congress, that the Labour party refuses to support the devolution of employment law. But while such powers still rest here, I must urge the British Government to increase maternity and paternity pay, to review the eligibility for maternity allowance and to give partners an additional 12 weeks’ paid leave on a non- transferable “use it or lose it” basis within shared parental leave.

It is truly appalling that many workers still do not qualify for statutory maternity leave and pay, including those on insecure contracts, such as zero-hours workers. That is why the Conservative Government must act urgently to rectify this injustice by legislating to expand eligibility for statutory maternity leave and pay. However, the reality is that the British social security system is unjust and penalises parents, particularly young families. I am fed up doing so, but I again ask the Government to bring forward the long-awaited employment Bill that could deal with some of these issues.

As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North outlined on its behalf, the Petitions Committee has highlighted before that there is a real disparity in the treatment of maternity allowance and statutory maternity pay, particularly when it comes to universal credit, which further penalises self-employed mothers and those on low incomes. Under the Universal Credit Regulations 2013, and certainly in contrast to statutory maternity pay, maternity allowance is treated as unearned income by the Department for Work and Pensions, and is deducted in full from UC awards. For any of us who operate within the sphere of the DWP, it is clear that maternity allowance and statutory maternity pay should be equalised. I invite the Minister to address that point in her response to the debate.

In addition, the Government must end the young parent penalty in universal credit that denies single parents under the age of 25 the same level of social security as those above that age, pushing those impacted into poverty. I pay tribute to One Parent Families Scotland, which campaigns relentlessly against the young parent penalty.

It has also been a staple element of my party’s policy to oppose the two-child limit and its associated rape clause, or—to use the Sunday name that the UK Government prefer—the non-consensual sex exemption. This policy has been on the statute book for far too long. I suspect that the Minister will stand up and talk about the importance of families, but it is rather difficult for her to do so when there is a Government policy that has a state cap on the number of children that the Government will support and, more despicably, a rape clause attached.

These individual policies are all part of a larger picture of a social security system that penalises the very poorest and the most vulnerable. You are a committed Member of the Work and Pensions Committee, Mr McCabe, like myself, so I know that you too see this situation every Wednesday morning when the Committee takes evidence—overwhelming evidence that we need to provide greater support. The evidence that we see is the likes of research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that shows that families with younger children, and particularly lone-parent families, are predominantly headed by women and face a disproportionate risk of poverty.

It is clear that under the Tories, the current social security system is inadequate and is now at the stage where frankly it is falling apart at a time when people need it most. The SNP has long called for the British Government to fix these fundamental flaws. However, the sheer reality is that with 85% of welfare expenditure and income-replacement benefits reserved to this place, our hands in Scotland are tied. Yes, the SNP Government in Holyrood can do what they can, whether that is with the baby box, the best start grant or the limited devolved benefits and powers that we have, but the reality is that the vast majority of welfare decision making remains in the hands of a Tory Government we did not vote for; indeed, we have not voted for a Tory Government since 1955.

I will name just a few policies in Scotland: the fair work first policy promotes fairer work practices across the labour market; the baby box ensures that every child begins life with the essential items it needs; the Scottish child payment, which by the way is not confined to just two children, is now £25 per week and has been described as game-changing by charities; and free childcare is provided to all three and four-year-olds and eligible two-year-olds, saving eligible families £5,000 per child per year. I declare an interest as somebody who is a recipient of that.

The SNP is committed to social security being an investment in people, and it is part of the Scottish Government’s national mission to tackle child poverty, levels of which are still far too high. In April, all Scottish benefits were uprated in line with inflation, by 10.1%, at a cost of around £430 million. In addition to that, £5.2 billion was invested in benefits expenditure in Budget 2023-24, supporting over 1 million people.

I could go on listing the policies that the Scottish Government have put in place to support low-income families and to tackle child poverty, from the £50 million commitment to the tackling child poverty fund—providing £69.7 million for employability support for parents through the no one left behind approach—to providing £50 million for the whole family wellbeing programme and a further £30 million for the keep the promise plan for care-experienced children and young people. But the reality is that we are doing all this from our devolved budget while trying to mitigate poor welfare decisions, such as the bedroom tax, which is mitigated entirely in Scotland through discretionary housing payments. However, I would always remind people back home that what we spend on nullifying the bedroom tax is money that we cannot spend on health or education, for example. That is just the stark reality.

My party is committed to alleviating poverty and ensuring that people live in a fair and just society. On the other hand, the Conservatives here in London are intent on deepening inequalities and on cementing poverty and hardship across communities in Scotland, where they have no democratic mandate. Yes, we can enact all the policies I mentioned just a moment ago with one hand tied behind our back, but every additional pound that we spend on measures to help with rising costs must be funded from reductions elsewhere, given our largely fixed budget and limited fiscal powers. The Scottish Government are using those limited powers and resources to do everything they can, but this must be matched by the Government here in London. With every day that the UK Government fail to use their reserved powers to adequately tackle the rising cost of living, they are demonstrating that independence is the only way for Scotland to boost incomes and build a fairer society—and having social justice at its heart is so important.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr McCabe, and I thank everyone who has spoken in today’s debate. Despite the attendance, this is a matter of great importance to millions of people up and down the country. I am sorry to Nicola, the organiser of the petition, that more Members were not here to speak. I am sure we are all aware that other business is catching people’s attention today, but I hope that those who have heard the debate will see that there is a lot of interest and well-informed opinion about the challenges that new parents face.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for her introduction to the debate, which gave a comprehensive overview of the challenges that new parents face. She mentioned—I will discuss this in a little while—the huge costs that new parents face, which have increased in recent times. There is a chasm between those costs and the rates of statutory maternity pay, which have also been discussed. She gave us a whole range of facts and figures to demonstrate that, and the personal testimonies from mothers she has spoken to illustrate the real difficulties that many people are facing. She mentioned the Government line that maternity pay is in line with other out-of-work benefits, which shows how completely out of touch they are and demonstrates the lack of understanding about the huge workload that any new parent will face.

My hon. Friend rightly identified loopholes in relation to self-employment for adopted parents. Obviously that needs to be addressed, because we know that formally adopting a child is a huge financial commitment, and those financial barriers need to be removed. Her wide-ranging speech touched on childcare costs, the impact that maternity leave can have on a woman’s pay for the rest of her life—something that still exists, 50-odd years after the Equal Pay Act 1970 was introduced—and maternal mental health, which is grossly overlooked at times. Her conclusion that having a child is a calculation made on a spreadsheet really hit home. All parents look at that when planning a family, but when we look at the costs households face—huge increases in housing cost, student loan payments, an increased tax burden, pension contributions and childcare costs—we can see how, for many, the sums do not add up, and that brings home what a challenge this is.

It was a pleasure, as always, to hear from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It would not be a Westminster Hall debate without a contribution from him. Like him, I have three boys. I wonder how similar they are—it would be interesting to compare notes at some point. He made some valuable points about the cost of raising a family, with the cost of the first year being £6,000. It probably feels like more for many because babies grow out of their clothes so quickly and there are all the set-up costs.

We are fortunate in my part of the world that the charity KidsBank, which is based in Chester but operates in Ellesmere Port and Neston, provides new parents with a lot of those essentials. They are all recycled and donated goods, but it is a critical thing for those families who are on the breadline and who need that support. It shows how difficult it is to raise a family.

[David Linden]

The hon. Member makes the powerful point that more often than not it falls to the third sector to step in and support people. Does he agree that it is not a sign of the big society that these groups, however great the work they are doing is, fulfil that need, but a sign of a broken welfare state that is fundamentally beyond repair?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I thank hon. Members for joining us this afternoon. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for introducing the debate so thoughtfully.

As we have heard, being a parent is an incredibly important and rewarding job. It is one that comes with a unique set of challenges, from recovering from birth with a newborn to balancing employment and care and, in my own life, being a sandwich carer, so I absolutely understand the challenges. While I have the floor, I pay tribute to local firefighters who were battling a fire in Burgess Hill in my constituency just this afternoon, with members of the public being sent home and asked to be vigilant after another one yesterday in Sharpthorne. If you will indulge me, Mr McCabe, I thank them very much.

An 18-year-old will be coming into my house very shortly, and another teen. As a single mum and a woman returner, I really do get it, and I hope that some of my remarks will reflect that. I will be clear that I cannot answer all the issues, because they are not all in my remit, but I will undertake to write and share what I can and bring other Departments to account.

Last week was Loneliness Awareness Week. As parents, I think we have all felt incredibly lonely and isolated. Being a single parent can be overwhelming and incredibly difficult. It can be hard work; the pressures are not new, but they are definitely challenging right now. Overall, it is a wondrous, joyous slog—let us all be honest about that. Just after fathers’ day, we reflect that the boost for gender equality and equal parent support is vital. I thank Nicola for being here today, and all the groups and charities that support parents through this precious and—as we all recall, if ours are a little older—challenging time.

Speaking of baby boxes, on a slightly different point, I remember that my mum and dad gave me a war chest. They had been struggling with long-term illness and not having a huge amount of money, but it was a labour of love and of many trips to Poundland, and it really made a difference. We know that everything makes a difference at the start, when the parent is feeling the pressure and has had a big change in their life, particularly if the child is their first. Of course, added to that are high inflation, the cost of living challenges and global pressures, which make it very difficult to look after that precious little bundle. That is why it is important that in April we increased the rate of all statutory parental payments by 10.1%, in line with CPI, and we will continue to take decisive action to help households. I will outline some more of what we are doing shortly.

It is our firm belief that the best way to help people improve their financial circumstances throughout their life is through work, but, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North said, only when the time is right. It is important that people are given a choice, so I strongly agree with the points she made. We need to be ambitious in enabling parents to progress in work; it must not be only people without children who can do that, so we need to get things right. We need to support children by enabling their parents to be there when they want. That is equally valuable, and the flexible parental leave entitlements for new parents support just that.

I recognise that this is a complicated area, as hon. Members have said—I have taken their points on board. It is also vital that adopters get a better deal and more assistance. My wider family has experience of that, and it is really important too.

Parents must have access to the range of support and entitlements they need for their child’s first year. We are giving working families more choice and flexibility about who cares for their child when the parents are at work. Our statutory maternity leave entitlement is rightly generous, but hon. Members have said it is not generous enough—if only I had a magic wand. We offer 52 weeks of maternity leave, of which 39 are paid through statutory maternity pay. For self-employed women, who are not eligible for statutory maternity pay—I was one, so I very much understand the insecurity—maternity allowance is available. Both payments are designed to enable women to stop working towards the end of their pregnancy and in the precious months after childbirth. That is in their and their baby’s best interest; it supports their health, wellbeing and, above all, bonding.

I fully recognise the role that fathers can and must play in that crucial time, their child’s first year. We have a real opportunity to boost gender equality and support parents; I will say more about that later. Statutory paternity leave and pay arrangements enable employed fathers and partners who meet the qualifying conditions to take up to two weeks of paid leave within the first eight weeks following the birth of their child or placement for adoption. Qualifying parents can share up to 50 weeks of leave and up to 37 weeks of pay. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) rightly said that shared parental leave gives mothers who wish to return to work the opportunity to do so, and rightly enables the father or partner to be the primary carer if they wish.

We want more men to confidently take the helm. Employers can really help with that by understanding that dads want and need to be there at key moments, not just the nativity or the parents evening. In fact, I am the guilty party who is never there for the parents evening, so it is flipped around in my world these days. If men can confidently be there, perhaps, as Opposition Members said, we can boost the take-up of the scheme, which started in 2015. We forecasted that between 2% and 8% of eligible couples would take part, and the actual take-up is broadly in line with that. It is increasing each year, but not fast enough. That is the challenge for us all: how we make the scheme something that people really feel they can take part in. In order to do that, the shared parental leave online tool is accessible for parents to check their eligibility and plan their leave together. We are currently evaluating the shared parental leave scheme and will publish our findings in due course.

There has been a clear message today on rates. The rate of all statutory parental payments is reviewed annually and, as mentioned, generally increases in line with the CPI. The Government will spend around £276 billion in 2023-24 on welfare support in Great Britain. I will come to further support for those who may be listening this afternoon who perhaps have not reached out for additional help. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North about the slightly indelicate link between out of work benefits and the support that we give to parents. I note her comments on that, and pretty much agree with her. I will take that away in terms of how we talk about supporting people who are out of work, and how we support pregnant working women when they are in the special position—let us be honest—of coming to the point when they want to do what is right for them next, and new mothers.

The Government spend approximately £3 billion on maternity payments. There is a balance to strike both in language and in any changes to the rate of SMP, taking account of economic circumstances and affordability for taxpayers. We also need to speak to stakeholders, some of whom have been mentioned, and businesses. It needs to be a holistic effort. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) gave a list of future plans that he may have, but in reality we want to ensure that we hear the asks both of the petitioners who have challenged us this afternoon and of the sectors and businesses, to ensure that we take people on any change journey. We have talked about planning, saving and spreadsheets where needed. I was—briefly, it feels like—married to an accountant, so I felt as if I was living in a world of spreadsheets. It is what we all have to do, and it is a challenge, particularly when we do not know what we do not know when it comes to parenting, and the impact that it will have on our back pocket.

I think employers can do more. The work of the civil service was mentioned. We have a very tight labour market. Consider a talented, skilled, brilliant woman who is adopting or becoming a mum in whatever way, whether for the first time or growing her family. Employers really need to think forward about job design and making it work for such women to return. I mentioned that I am a single mum; when I came to this place, I was a woman returner. Many of us are, and many mums, for various reasons, have been locked out of the labour market for far too long. They have incredible ability and talent. Employers have a chance to look at job design. In my constituency, Boeing has created a deliberate part-time role—not a role where a person squeezes full time into part time, but an actual role where they add value in a way that works for their circumstances. If we have more people in the labour market doing more, everyone will do better, so let us all challenge ourselves on that.

I have been given an extremely long speech, so I will try not to repeat things that many people will know, and will try to answer some of the questions. Hopefully I have covered the way in which things are calculated and equal access for adoptive parents. I agree with the point on the Healthy Start scheme needing a boost with regard to take-up. I will take that away to work on with colleagues. I think the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North made a fair point on outcomes and monitoring, and I note that.

My friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), talked about tax relief, which was reiterated by the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden). I am not in the Treasury, and I am delighted about that every day; until I get the call-up, I will pass on that headache for as long as possible. I say that very gently—did I actually say that out loud? My point is that it is a matter for the Treasury. I am sure it is listening and I will leave it to get on with it.

Regarding the Scotland Act 1998, I am delighted that the hon. Member for Glasgow East is using those powers. I note his point about under-25s; that is not my policy area, but he knows that I have a strong interest in youth policy and single parents. I undertake to understand his point and take it away.

For those listening to this debate who have a concern about mortgages, I said on the Floor of the House this afternoon, and I reiterate here, that if people are worried they should engage with their mortgage lender. There is support for mortgage interest out there. We have abolished the zero-earnings rule to allow claimants on universal credit to receive support while in work and on UC—support is now available after three months. People should engage with their lenders. We paid £25 million to 12,000 households in 2021-22 and we will continue to extend that support for mortgage interest rates. People should use the benefits calculator on gov.uk if they are concerned; there is help for households on that site and links to the household support fund, which I will come on to shortly.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East raised a concern about miscarriage leave. Miscarriages are a deeply challenging, personal and devasting experience for many women, as well as their partners and families. In this place we have got better at talking about such things, but it is still too unspoken and difficult in the workplace, which is something a friend of mine recently spoke to me about. The Government believe that individuals are best placed to know their own specific needs, and that good employers will rightly respond in a sensitive way to requests made by employees.

[David Linden]

I do not intend to make this issue a party political point. Knowing the Minister very well, I think there is a genuine willingness to try and fix the issue. It is not something that should be hard. I caution the Government, however, that simply hoping that employers do the right thing is not something that we can rely on in this place. The Minister is right that the vast majority of employers would agree if an employee went to them and said, “I have had a miscarriage. Can I have some time off?” The reason that we legislate in this place is to ensure that the few are looked after. It is for that reason that it is important the Government look again and do not just leave it to the market. They should step in and do what the state does best.

[Mims Davies]

I understand the point the hon. Gentleman makes. It is not an area that I am in charge of, but I am sure that those who are will be listening. Of course, if a woman unfortunately has a miscarriage, there are protections that extend to two weeks after the end of that pregnancy. That is a protection under the Equality Act 2010. I understand, however, the hon. Gentleman’s point about what happens before 24 weeks. This is a difficult one, which is why Nicola and the other petitioners, by bringing the petition to the House and making us focus on all of the issues, did the right thing. I have nearly got myself in enough trouble this afternoon, without creating any more policy in this Chamber, so I will refrain from saying more on that one.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point on the two child policy. We disagree on that point in terms of families on benefits facing the same financial challenges and choices when it comes to growing their family as those who are supported solely through work. It is important that child benefit continues to be paid for all children in eligible families, but it is right that we continue with that policy where appropriate. The hon. Gentleman mentioned those particular exemptions. Again, I note that it is a challenging area.

Opposition Members raised the issue of support for childcare. It is important to provide the right support for parents who are balancing childcare and returning to work. The Government have already put in more than £20 billion in the last five years to support families with the cost of childcare, and thousands of parents have benefited from that support. However, more changes are coming. We announced in the Budget that by 2027-28 we will provide £4.1 billion to expand the current free childcare offer to eligible working parents of children aged between nine and 36 months. I recognise that Government-funded childcare, which is free to the recipient, needs design. That was mentioned to a degree in the Chamber this afternoon. We are expecting to spend more than £8 billion a year on that funding and early education, which represents the biggest ever single investment in childcare in England.

I will quickly cover neonatal pay and pregnancy discrimination and then try to conclude, because I am mindful that I have spoken for some time. We are aware that more needs to be done to support parents whose children are in neonatal care. Many of us in the House know people personally who have been impacted by this issue. Again, the House has come into its own by talking about it and its impact on families.

In March 2020, following a Government consultation, we committed to introducing a new entitlement to neonatal leave and pay. The Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 will introduce an entitlement of up to 12 weeks of paid leave for parents whose child is admitted to neonatal care. The entitlement will support new parents during the most stressful days of their lives, ensuring that they can be there for their youngster. The Act received Royal Assent on 24 May this year, and we anticipate that the entitlement will become available to parents in April 2025. I hope that that helps hon. Members.

[David Linden]

The Act was originally my Bill, so I am familiar with it. There is a slight issue with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs dragging its heels. Notwithstanding what the Minister said about not being a Treasury Minister, will she at least write to HMRC following today’s debate, outlining that there is cross-party agreement? Indeed, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) has been excellent on this issue. There is cross-party agreement that £50 million has been committed in the budget line, but there is no need for us to wait that long because of the lag in HMRC guidance.

[Mims Davies]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. I know it was a deeply personal Bill for him and he will be strident on this issue. I will take away that ask as he wishes.

I turn to pregnancy and maternity discrimination protections. Ensuring that parents have the leave and flexibility that they need during this period is important, as is ensuring that they are protected against discrimination and do not suffer any detriment for taking that leave. That is why we are rightly extending pregnancy and maternity discrimination protection for those returning from periods of eligible parental leave. The Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Act 2023 will enable redundancy protections to apply from the point at which an employee told their employer that they were pregnant, until six months after returning from maternity, adoption or shared parental leave. The provision will protect individuals from redundancy and help mothers to remain, rightly, in the workforce.

Support needs to go way beyond the first year of a child’s life, so it is important that there are further entitlements for others. Time off for dependants is important as well, and I will update the House further on that.

It is important for me to cover flexible working. We are fully committed to ensuring that parents get the support that is right for them. The Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill received its Second Reading in the other place on 19 May. That Bill will increase the number of requests that an employee can make in a 12-month period, reduce the time allowed to administer requests, and support more effective conversations about what flexible working arrangements may work to the benefit of both employer and employee. Alongside the Bill, the Government will introduce regulations, as mentioned, to make the right to request flexible working apply from the first day of employment, bringing an estimated additional 2.2 million employees into the scope of the legislation. My understanding is that as soon as parliamentary time allows, this will be moving forward.

I mentioned cost of living support. Statutory parental pay is only one aspect of Help for Households. There is support worth £94 billion across 2022-23 and 2023-24 to help people with rising bills; the support is worth £3,300 per UK household on average. Included in that are cost of living payments to more than 8 million low-income households, about 6 million disabled people and more than 8 million pensioner households. I would say to anybody, “Please look at the benefits calculator. Please look at Help for Households. Please reach out to your local council or your devolved Administration, because there is extra support out there.”

I will close by reiterating the Government’s commitment to supporting parents as we continue to face high inflation. We understand the added, varied and complex pressures that we have heard about and discussed this afternoon, which parents are experiencing alongside the cost of living and inflation challenges. That is why we have done the right thing with the uprating, in line with CPI, of statutory parental payments—alongside other payments—by 10.1%. We will continue to take decisive action to help all households.

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions this afternoon, and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North for opening this petition debate. I will continue to support women—as long as I have breath, and a seat in this House—in any role that I have. It is great that we all come together on something that is so important. On some areas there will of course be disagreements, but as long as we continue to work together to support parents, at this most difficult time, in any part of our community—I am seeing some of my great local charities, the local food bank and other supporters on Monday; there is additional support from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, by the way, for local charities—we will really make the difference and ensure that no parent, whatever their situation, and no family ever feel alone.

People with Disabilities: Cost of Living

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Marion Fellows]

I wish that the hon. Member would take that back. In Scotland, we treat people with dignity, fairness and respect. We help them to fill in their adult disability payment applications, and we make it much easier for them—[Interruption.] The hon. Member is shaking his head, but he is wrong. We make it easier for people with long-term illnesses from which they will not recover. They do not have to go through continuous reassessments.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Will my hon. Friend point out to the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) that unlike the UK Government and their pernicious welfare system, the Scottish Government have actually worked with people with experience of the benefits system and those who have disabilities in designing that system? It is rather rich that he lectures us from a Tory Government who have been found to have treated people rather inhumanely.

[Marion Fellows]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. I am appalled at the remarks being made. I shall move forward and I will not take any further interventions in the meantime; I need to make progress.

The insufficient cost of living support, combined with an inadequate system of social security and an economic crisis created by this Government and their predecessors, have created an unwelcome perfect storm for those with disabilities, plunging millions into poverty. Disabled people often face higher costs for their energy, and they are saying that they need more heating—most disabled people need more heating to stay warm. Others say that they must use more electricity simply to plug in their assistive technologies. Those extra costs mean that disabled people have less money in their pockets and, in many cases, go without. The result is that disabled people are more likely to have a lower standard of living, even when they earn the same as a non-disabled person.

According to the British Association of Social Workers, 7 million people—almost half of those living in poverty in the UK—are either disabled or live with someone who has a disability. Families with a disabled loved one are seriously struggling as they have to make difficult decisions and cutbacks. Guide Dogs UK has highlighted how families with a child with visual impairment are being hit incredibly hard, and the mental health of parents is suffering.

The disabled poverty figures are unsurprisingly reflected in food bank usage, with the Trussell Trust advising the Work and Pensions Committee that disabled people are hugely overrepresented in food poverty. More than half of food bank users in the UK are disabled.

The covid pandemic deepened pre-existing inequalities in society for disabled people, and the rise in inflation has disproportionately hurt the most vulnerable in society. Disabled people and their households have, on average, lower incomes than their non-disabled counterparts in spite of incurring higher costs. Poverty and disability are often mutually reinforcing, particularly for working-age adults.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Thank you, Dr Huq—a double thank you for your late substitution this morning, for which we are all very grateful. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who clearly demonstrated a real passion for this important subject. I think her constituents would recognise that she is a real champion for those who need a voice in this area, and I pay genuine tribute to her.

I also pay tribute to the Minister, who I know will respond in full. He has immersed himself in the details of his role and has always shown himself willing to engage with stakeholders. I think we would all agree that there is a wealth of knowledge and expertise in local and national organisations, and the Minister is passionate to utilise that wherever possible. That has come through very clearly in his time as a Minister.

I pay tribute to local and national organisations up and down the country that provide people with advice and support in accessing the often complex and daunting layers of support that are potentially available. For example Tim Saint, of the Swindon Carers Centre, does a huge amount of work in our community to help people access support. During my time as a Minister, I was surprised to see how many people miss out on the various forms of support that we have all voted to give them, often because they are faced with a complex and daunting system.

We have made progress. Under PIP, including the legacy benefits of DLA, and attendance allowance, we are now spending £12.5 billion more in real terms on help for those with disabilities or long-term health conditions. Under the old legacy system of DLA, only 16% of claimants would access the highest rate of support. A few years ago, that figure had reached 33%, and for some health conditions, in particular mental health conditions, people are now six times more likely to access the higher rates of benefits. So we are very much heading in the right direction, and there are further opportunities to turbo-speed improvements with the forthcoming White Paper.

There are two key lessons the Government can focus on: speed and specialisation. First, on speed, there are lessons that can be learned from the welcome changes to the special rules for terminal illness. We were able to apply a policy change that was co-designed by stakeholders, their policy teams and end users—people with real-life experience. Using the same principles, we can widen the severe conditions criteria in the PIP system, removing up to 300,000 unnecessary assessments or reassessments each year.

The principle behind that is that we would look at specific conditions. We could then be fairly confident about the trajectory of that condition and set in place a timetable of support. For those people whose condition has perhaps changed more quickly than expected, there would still always be the option to have a light-touch assessment to speed up their access to the increased rate of support.

There is a sort of principle around this, which already exists with universal credit and the industrial injuries disablement benefit. An independent panel could look at these conditions, and one example would be motor neurone disease—I cannot understand what the point would be of putting somebody with MND through an assessment. Where we can be fairly confident of the deterioration of health conditions, we could put in place an automatic right to support, with the backstop that, if somebody’s condition, sadly, deteriorates more quickly, a light-touch assessment could then move them to the higher level of support much more quickly. Removing 300,000 people a year would mean we have more resources available to speed up the process for those who would go through the more standard, traditional route.

During covid, we made sure we kept the gateway open for new entrants, and it is a tribute to staff up and down the country that disability benefits continued. We used video and telephone assessment, a further benefit of which is that it allows for greater specialisation in terms of the assessors. Rather than relying on a fixed number of staff in each geographical location, we can assign someone with a particular health condition via telephone or video to other locations in the country. That also helps with the point about making sure that the assessments are right first time, so that people do not have to go through an appeals process further down the line.

I know that these broad themes are being considered as part of the White Paper, but they are a real win-win and they are probably things that people could rally around, regardless of which political background they are from. I certainly know from my time working with our very knowledgeable stakeholders and policymakers that there would be huge support for them.

A broader point is that not everything is black and white. As much as I admire the passion and drive of the speech by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw, there was a presumption that everything the Government do is terrible and that everything the Scottish Government do is good. I say that because I have a brother who is a proud Labour party supporter, another brother who is an SNP supporter, a sister who is a sort of Lib Dem/ Conservative and a cousin who is a Green, so we cover all the bases, and I was very much brought in the belief that things are not black and white.

To their credit, the Scottish Government identified that we could and should have made changes to the special rules for terminal illness and to PIP, which is the main disability benefit. The Scottish Government have had challenges; they had hoped to complete both those tasks many years ago, but that has proved a lot more complex, particularly when we start to unravel the complicated machinery behind those benefits.

In my former life, I attended inter-ministerial meetings with Scottish officials and Scottish Ministers, who were always a great pleasure to work with, and I absolutely admired their end goal. However, they also had that presumption that the system was completely broken and had to be completely changed. Therefore, they sometimes would not listen to stakeholders and policy experts in disability and health charities who wanted changes but not necessarily the changes the Scottish Government had settled on.

For example, there is a principle that the Scottish Government do not like assessors. I understand that, given a lot of the media coverage of the earlier years of PIP, in particular. However, there is a reason why, under DLA, only 16% of claimants got the highest rate of support, compared with 33% under PIP. Many of the people who navigate the system are the least well equipped to do so. Therefore, we are relying on a system where, in effect, their evidence—self-supplied—is the only basis for them to get DLA. However, assessors tease out additional things and fill in the gaps, which is why we have gone from 16% to 33%.

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman is giving an incredibly thoughtful speech, but I have a fundamental objection to assessments. However, even if I was to follow the former Minister down the assessment route, we would find ourselves in a ridiculous situation where the people carrying out the assessments have no professional qualifications to enable them to adjudicate on the condition. For example, in one recent constituency case, someone was actually asked, “Does your son still have autism?”. That is the level of expertise we are dealing with and that, I am afraid, shows that the system is broken.

[Justin Tomlinson]

That shows the slight misunderstanding here—and I say that in a good spirit. All the health practitioners who carry out assessments have at least two years’ experience and come from health professional backgrounds. However, the point where the hon. Gentleman is right is that they are not necessarily specialists in certain areas. If someone goes to a GP, the fact that they are the initial gatekeeper to the NHS does not mean they are an expert in everything—they refer people on to specialists. There would generally be five or six assessors in each location, so we cannot expect the collective knowledge of those assessors to cover every single health issue. Through the introduction of telephone and video assessments, however, we can refer people, and that is what I am pushing for. The point is: the role of the assessors was not broken, but it needed improving. That is what both the UK and Scottish Governments were looking to do.

I am urging the Scottish Government to be cautious about relying too much on the claimant, because not all claimants are in a position to argue their case and understand the conditions. It is not even just a case of that; it is also about people being unaware of additional health conditions. I made a point earlier about those with mental health conditions now being six times more likely to get access to the highest rate of PIP. Many people do not realise that their mental wellbeing is being impacted by their physical health condition. They would enter the PIP system thinking, “My physical health condition is impacting on me. I’ll fill in all the bits on that and answer the questions.” However, the assessor’s questions on how that impacts mental wellbeing then begin to identify additional challenges that the claimant was either unaware of or had got used to and took for granted. That then gives them the additional points that allow them to enter the higher rate.

It is same around the special rules for terminal illness. We extended that from six months to 12 months, working with hospices, the health and disability charities and GPs. The Scottish Government, with very good intentions, tried to create a system where it was automatic. They then realised that not everyone can be dealt with automatically, because we are all terminally ill in the sense that nobody lives forever. Conditions then have to be put in, but that inadvertently creates a more complex system. It would have just been easier to say, as Northern Ireland did, “Actually, on this occasion, the UK Government—having listened to the stakeholders and health and disability charities—might be on to something. In this case, we ought to do the same.”

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I pay tribute to you for getting here in double-quick time as a late substitution. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on securing this debate on a very important topic.

The cost of living crisis has permeated so many different aspects of our communities. The topic is brought up continually in my weekly advice surgeries, where sadly constituents have repeatedly told me that they are struggling to afford their weekly food shops and monthly energy bills. It is very much either/or. I am sure that other MPs in Westminster Hall today can relate to that—how helpless it feels to be sat across the surgery table from people who are clearly struggling and who desperately need support.

In far too many cases, people fall between the cracks and end up without the help that they not only deserve, but are entitled to. That is far too often the case for disabled people, who incur hidden costs through no fault of their own. As we have heard repeatedly this morning, disabled people and their families spend a greater share of their income on food and energy, the commodities that face the steepest rises in inflation. Again, as we have heard, people with special dietary requirements are being hit particularly hard by food inflation, with statistics from January showing that households with specific dietary requirements are paying up to 73% more for their food than those who do not need to buy “free from” products.

Disabled people face many additional costs related to the treatment and mitigation of their disability, such as equipment or therapies. In some utterly awful cases, disabled people face the impossible choice between powering essential medical equipment such as wheelchairs and ventilators and putting food on the table. All those extra costs hit harder because disabled individuals and their households have, on average, lower incomes than their non-disabled counterparts, with 27% of disabled people living in poverty compared with 21% of non-disabled people. The result is that disabled people are more likely to have a lower standard of living, even when they earn the same.

According to research from Scope, on average, disabled households need an additional £975 a month to have the same standard of living as non-disabled households, and if that figure is updated to account for inflation over 2022-23, those extra costs rise to £1,122 a month. The price tag on disability feels incredibly dystopian. What kind of Orwellian society are we living in when having a disability incurs a price tag?

We have only to reflect on the words of Nye Bevan to understand the absurdity of the situation. Bevan said:

“Illness is neither an indulgence for which people have to pay, nor an offence for which they should be penalised, but a misfortune the cost of which should be shared by the community.”

Let me make it clear: illness is not an indulgence or an offence. People should not have to pay or be penalised. If Nye Bevan could understand that in the 1940s, I am puzzled as to why the current British Government are having so much difficulty with the concept.

The Government must do more—so much more—to use all the powers at their disposal to tackle the cost of living crisis on the scale that is required. While the uprating of benefits in line with inflation was welcome, for far too many it sadly came too late. The additional payment of £150 to disabled people, while welcome, will not provide the same long-term assistance as a sustainable benefit uplift. Indeed, Disability Rights UK is on record as saying that the “lack of meaningful increases” in disability benefits over recent years means that the extra £150 “doesn’t touch the sides”, and it is right.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw said, the Scottish Government are taking action within their devolved powers and within their fixed budget to try to help disabled people with the combined effects of higher energy bills, the general rise in inflation and the impact of Westminster policies. Yes, there are things that we can do—for example, the winter heating payment; the Scottish Welfare Fund; spending money on discretionary housing payments, such as the £84.1 million being made available this year; the council tax reduction scheme; and the most generous concessionary bus scheme—but the reality is that devolution was not, and in my view never has been, set up to be a sticking plaster for bad welfare policies made here in London.

Yes, the Scottish Government are doing all that, but they are doing it with one hand tied behind their back. The brutal reality is that every additional pound that we spend on those measures to help with rising costs has to be funded by budgetary reductions elsewhere, given our largely fixed budget and our limited fiscal powers. Scotland has already suffered a decade of British Government-imposed austerity since the financial crisis, which has disproportionately hurt the most vulnerable people in society and has resulted in under-investment in our crucial public services. The SNP Government in Holyrood are using their limited powers and resources to do everything they can, but that has to be matched by the British Government. With every day that Westminster fails to use its reserved powers to adequately tackle the cost of living crisis, it is demonstrating that independence is the only way for people in Scotland to boost their income and build a truly fairer society.

In closing, I emphasise what is at stake for my constituents, whether they are in Barrowfield or Baillieston. We find ourselves in a dire situation in which it literally costs to be disabled—there is a price tag on being diagnosed with a disability. The additional monetary costs associated with being disabled are compounded by the myriad ways in which society is set up to penalise disabled people.

The social model of disability tells us that people are disabled by barriers in society, not by their impairment or by indifference. The barriers can be physical, such as in buildings that do not have accessible toilets or libraries that do not have Braille versions of books; attitudinal, such as the assumption that disabled people cannot do certain things; or systemic, as in this case, when the cost of simply living as a disabled person is higher and Government support has systemically failed. It is only by removing those barriers that we can achieve equality and offer disabled people more independence, choice and control. That is why I believe that the Government must do so much more to protect the most vulnerable in society.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I call shadow Minister Vicky Foxcroft for the official Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Pursglove]

I will certainly and gladly take that point back to the Department. I am sure it is something I can pick up on during the many engagement sessions that I have, particularly with disability charities and disabled people’s organisations. I would be keen to hear their views on how the issue is best approached and what more we can do in the advice space.

I want to touch on the cost of living support in place for 2023-24. Members will recall the commitments that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in the autumn statement, including a firm commitment to support the most vulnerable people in our society. That will be delivered through 8 million low-income households getting £900 cost of living payments. I am delighted to say that my Department has already delivered 99% of the first cost of living payment of £301 to the 7.3 million households in receipt of a means-tested benefit such as universal credit. That in itself represents a £2.2 billion injection of help for households.

I am also pleased to confirm that we will shortly lay in Parliament regulations that will allow us to pay the additional £150 disability cost of living payment to 6.5 million people throughout the UK who receive an extra-costs disability benefit. Those payments will land in people’s bank accounts in the summer. We will also shortly lay regulations that mean that this winter pensioner households will again get an additional £300 on top of their annual winter fuel payment, as they did last year.

[David Linden]

There has been a bit of a problem whereby some of the cost of living payments have excluded those who have previously been sanctioned by the UK Government. In essence, that means that people are doubly penalised. Will the Minister confirm that any regulations he introduces will not include any provision such that people will be doubly punished, if they have been sanctioned, by not receiving the cost of living payment?

[Tom Pursglove]

I will gladly take that point back and speak to ministerial colleagues in the Department about that aspect. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), has generally led on the legislative efforts to put this package in place, but I would be happy to raise that with her and to get him a proper, full, considered answer to that point.

Let me deal directly with one key issue that has come up in the debate: the structure of the cost of living payment and the argument that the payment is itself too low. I stress that the rationale is different for each of the cost of living payments. The Government’s view is that it is right that the highest amount goes to those on means-tested benefits, given that those on the lowest incomes are most vulnerable to rises in the cost of living. Having said that, we estimate that nearly 60% of individuals who receive an extra-costs disability benefit will receive additional support through the means-tested benefit payment. More than 85% will receive either or both of the means-tested and pensioner payments.

I assure colleagues that we are absolutely committed to ensuring that disabled people and people with health conditions receive the support that they need, which is why in 2022-23 we spent nearly £69 billion in real terms on benefits to support disabled people and those with health conditions. We will continue that throughout 2023-24 by uprating disability benefits in line with last September’s consumer prices index inflation figures. That means we expect to spend around £78 billion in 2023-24, which is 3.1% of GDP. That is a stark statistic. I recognise that Trident is a significant issue for the Scottish National party, and the figure of £3 billion was raised, but I and the UK Government would argue that there are strong reasons why we have a nuclear deterrent, which is a debate for another day.

The scale of support that we provide—to the tune of £78 billion in 2023-24—to people with disabilities and health conditions is significant. By 2027-28, total disability benefit spending is forecast to be more than £41 billion higher in real terms compared with 2010-11. Spending on extra-costs disability benefits alone will amount to £35 billion this year, all paid tax free, and in addition to any other financial or practical support that disabled individuals may receive.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) asked about the adequacy of the disability cost of living payment and its evaluation. We are committed to an evaluation of the cost of living payments later this year. The disability unit is also working to build an evidence base to better understand and evidence the full impact of cost of living challenges for disabled people, across a range of sectors. It is trying to do that collaboratively and is drawing on the expertise, views and experiences out there to help us to shape that work.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Linden Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesman.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I can certainly assure the House that SNP Members will not be trumpeting ideas advocated by right-wing think-tanks such as the Centre for Social Justice.

The health and disability White Paper introduces a new universal credit health element, with eligibility through PIP that could be far more restrictive than work capability assessments. Indeed, the Tories’ new in-work progression offer will inevitably mean exposure to sanctions for disabled people. Given that the Department’s own published report, which it tried to keep under wraps for many years, shows what we knew all along—that sanctions do not work—why will the Minister not finally do the right thing and just scrap them?

[Tom Pursglove]

May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his marathon time yesterday? He put in an impressive effort. I know the training, commitment and dedication that go into running a marathon, so I congratulate him on it.

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the Centre for Social Justice. I think that these are genuinely common-sense reforms that reflect the feedback that we received from disabled people and from their representative bodies. We will work with them to make sure that we get this right. Replacing the work capability assessment is the right thing to do, recognising that we want to concentrate more on what people can do than on what they cannot do, and doing so on a tailored, individual basis.

Of course we know that more than 20% of disabled people could start work within the next two years, and that they want to do so and, with the right support, would. We think that the right way of dealing with that, and supporting that employment, is to work constructively with them on plans which work, meeting their circumstances and needs. That is what the Budget announcements were all about. There is good practice out there, and we want to extend it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)]

Local charities play an important role in providing support in our communities. I look forward to visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency later this month to see what Combat2Coffee can do to support veterans and their families, and I hope to take a keen interest in Tools with a Mission too, if possible.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

When he appeared before the Select Committee in November, the Secretary of State said that,

“the more transparency there is, the better. It informs public debate and allows a feedback loop for the Department. It is all part of holding us to account and that is extremely important”.

In light of that and in the spirit of the Department’s new approach to transparency, can the Minister provide me with figures on how many DWP staff are themselves reliant on universal credit?

[Mims Davies]

I know the hon. Gentleman takes a particular interest in transparency. I work strongly on the Department’s behalf, with the Minister in the Lords, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman with a response.

Local Housing Allowance

David Linden Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for this afternoon’s proceedings, Ms Elliott.

As others have done, I commend the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) for securing the debate, which is short but none the less important. We have had an interesting discussion, with thoughtful contributions from the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Neath (Christina Rees).

The debate of the hon. Member for Arfon allows my party to place on the record our asks on local housing allowance rates. For example, we want to see LHA increased in line with average rents. Likewise, we have called on the British Government to support renters by suspending the shared accommodation rate for under-35s and care leavers, which I believe remains a massive social injustice.

As we know, in November the Secretary of State confirmed that LHA rents for the 2023-24 financial year

“will be maintained in cash terms at the elevated rates agreed for 2020-21.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 24WS.]

My party has pushed the British Government to ensure that the approach to LHA rates does not go back to that taken by the pre-pandemic cuts, which made the private sector totally unaffordable for people in receipt of benefits in some areas, especially when we take cognisance of the long-term shortage of social housing that blights many of my constituents. We cannot have a conversation such as this without recognising the enormous damage done to social housing by the right-to-buy policy and the failure to build more social housing after that.

Ministers’ decision to maintain LHA rates at cash terms in 2023-24 means a further freeze for private renters and places additional and needless pressure on tenants, which in turn adds to pressure on the discretionary housing payment funding pot. Through discretionary housing payments, my colleagues in the Scottish Government are supporting tenants who are under severe financial pressure. In reality, the Scottish Government are plugging some of the gaps caused by the crumbling of the UK social security system here in Westminster.

To highlight one particular example, since the introduction of the punitive bedroom tax, the SNP Government in Scotland have spent £350 million on mitigating it. That has been done by way of discretionary housing payments, which in effect means that the bedroom tax is not in operation north of the border. The hon. Member for Arfon will correct me if I am wrong, but the situation in Labour-run Wales means that the bedroom tax is not necessarily mitigated—something their colleagues in Scottish Labour often forget to mention in Holyrood.

Obviously it is great that SNP Ministers have chosen to act to protect people from the bedroom tax in Scotland, but it is just one of the many areas where the devolution framework comes under strain, as spending decisions in Scotland are frankly taken to paper over the cracks of poor welfare policy made here in London. The inescapable reality is that every penny we spend on the discretionary housing payment to deal with Westminster’s heartless social security agenda is a penny less spent on devolved competences such as education, transport and health.

In summary, Ministers must do better and this Government must act urgently to improve some of the problems with local housing allowance that I and others have outlined today. Failure to do so, I am afraid, only highlights the need for Scottish independence, and for decisions about Scotland to be taken in Scotland—not to languish in the Whitehall in-trays of Tory Ministers the people of Scotland did not vote for.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to respond for the Opposition under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I congratulate the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) on securing this important debate. This is a niche issue for many people, yet it is so incredibly important. Rents are the single largest item in most families’ budgets. Not being able to pay the rent has the consequence of forcing families into poverty and also risks homelessness, as we have heard—I will return to that point in a minute.

I wish that, just occasionally, we could have a debate such as this with more than one Department present—it would be a good experiment and brilliant to have that opportunity. It is absolutely impossible to consider local housing allowances in isolation from housing policy. The fact that the housing market is so fundamentally broken is driving the crisis in rents and unaffordability, and therefore the pressure on the local housing allowance. The attempt to bear down on the local housing allowance drives up homelessness and has consequences for other Government Departments. It would be good to be able to hold two Ministers to account for the policies they pursue and their two different agendas, which usually—and in this case—involve a toxic pass-the-parcel game of responsibility and blame, with consequences for both.

As we have heard, the Government have accepted the need to uprate benefits in line with inflation this year—indeed, they have been proud of that fact. I do not think that should be a cause for congratulation. It should be the most absolutely fundamental principle of social security policy, yet they completely fail to accept that that same principle should apply to the local housing allowance. I would like the Minister to explain exactly why in this one area of policy, which affects the largest item of a family’s budget, the Government do not seem to believe that inflation exists. Of course, inflation does exist and, as we particularly heard from the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), rents are soaring across the country, but probably most severely in London.

There are two consequences. First, over 800,000 households in the private rented sector face a shortfall between their rent and their local housing allowance. Some 57% of all universal credit households in the private rented sector have that shortfall. Secondly, dipping back into the issue of housing policy, it forces households into the absolute worst end of the private rented market. In this place, we discuss what has happened to households stuck in the poorest quality housing and the conditions that people are forced into if they are concentrated at the bottom end of the market, even if they can get it, have been a big media theme over the course of this winter.

Although we are discussing the freeze that has happened, in particular since 2020, this is also not a new phenomenon. Since the Government reduced the LHA from the 50th percentile to the 30th, there has been a continuing series of freezes, of which this is only the most recent. It was all based on the belief that the setting of the LHA levels would be bound in itself to influence rents, because it was understood or believed that such a large proportion of the private rented sector was funded by it. That was only ever partially true, or only true in some places, and always failed to recognise that even in a broad market rental area, there are different housing markets, and what applies to one part of the private rented market will not apply to others.

We know that the blind spot over the local housing allowance uprating can be seen in the homelessness statistics, as well as being felt by tenants in the shortfall between actual rents and the support available. There is an average monthly shortfall between rent and local housing allowance of £100 a month. It is indisputably true that the shortfalls are driving tenants to lose their homes. The end of a private rented tenancy is the single largest contributor to homelessness almost everywhere in the country.

[David Linden]

Does the hon. Member agree that the Government have to look at the picture in the round? When someone is evicted from their home, it is ultimately the state that picks up the cost. We should consider local housing allowance a preventive spending measure and the Government are short-sighted on the issue.

[Ms Buck]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that homelessness is a cost on the central Government budget and on local authority budgets as well.

We have seen homelessness soar. Rough sleeping is up by 74% since 2010 and by 26% in the last year; there has been an 83% rise in the number of children who are now living in temporary accommodation as a result of homelessness. One in 23 children in London is now homeless. The squeeze on local housing allowances is undoubtedly a major factor driving that situation.

I have no doubt that the Minister will refer to discretionary housing payments, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham has made clear, they make only a tiny contribution towards the total cost of budget shortfalls. Those payments have been cut by one fifth in 2021-22, and again this year. In any event, they are restricted in various ways, including by the fact that they are only ever meant to be temporary, so they are not, and never can be, the answer to the fall in local housing allowance.

The poorest, the most vulnerable and those with the least bargaining power in a toughly competitive private rented market, among them families with hundreds of thousands of children between them, are forced to deal with evictions, with frequent moves, and with all the disruption that homelessness causes to education, employment and caring allowances.

As Policy in Practice demonstrated in an important research report yesterday, the broken housing market also drags a substantial number of higher earners and higher-rate taxpayers into means-tested benefits such as universal credit via the housing allowances system, which is a completely unintended consequence of the freeze.

Investment in social housing—a way of ensuring that those with the lowest incomes can enjoy secure and affordable homes—is by far the best solution to this crisis. A better managed private rented sector would also be good for tenants. We have been promised action on that for years but we are yet to see it. All of these things would be better for the public purse, too. In the meantime, freezes in the local housing allowance make no sense whatsoever and only serve to make a bad situation worse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

I hope to come that before I conclude my remarks. On the “no impact assessment” point made by the hon. Member for Arfon, we will publish an equalities analysis to the House of Commons Library, and I know the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) will keenly watch for that. On the recent question regarding shared rooms, there is an issue with the quality of data on room entitlements, so, if the hon. Member for Arfon writes to me, I will share with him further what I can best do to provide that.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I spent a bit of the afternoon reading the Government’s White Paper on health and disability, and have actually been very encouraged by one part of it that talks about the importance of transparency in decision-making processes in the DWP. Will the Minister confirm that there will be a change of culture now in the transparency and publication of some of these things, which, recently, some of us felt to be a bit murky?

[Mims Davies]

The hon. Gentleman points out the many questions he is asking about transparency, and I welcome that. Where policy is in development, we need to protect it, but, ultimately, if it needs to be transparent, I am very happy, where suitable, to share it.

On the point made by the right hon. Member for East Ham and others about temporary accommodation, it is, of course, an important way of ensuring that no family is without a roof over their heads. We are committed to reduce that need for temporary accommodation by preventing homelessness. We are investing £366 million into the homelessness prevention grant to support local authorities to prevent homelessness. The key point, and our main duty, is how best to support people so that they are not in that situation. I very much understand that, and I am keen to respond about how we are trying to do a little more about that.

It is important for Members to understand that the local housing allowance is not intended to cover all rents in all areas. In April 2020, in direct response to the covid-19 pandemic and the influx of new claimants because of the pandemic, we increased local housing rates to the 30th percentile of local market rates, costing nearly £1 billion and giving claimants on average an extra £600 in 2020-21. We have maintained that increase since then, ensuring that all those who benefited from the increase continue to do so.

I recognise that there are circumstances where extra help is needed, which is where we distribute the discretionary housing payments according to local need. Those payments play a critical role in providing support to the most vulnerable households in meeting their housing costs. Since 2010, we have provided nearly £1.6 billion in DHP funding to local authorities.

Of course, the competitive nature of the private rented market is driving up prices, alongside the annual review of LHA rates. I say to the hon. Member for Westminster North and the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham, we are absolutely determined to work around the quality and supply challenges that are ultimately driving that. Overall, the DWP Budget measures today represent £3.5 billion over the next five years to boost workforce participation.

In conclusion—

Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) (No.2) Bill

David Linden Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th March 2023 Public Bill Committees

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—

“(2) In section 3(1)(a), for “22”, substitute “16”.

(3) In section 5(1A)(a), for “22”, substitute “16”.”

This amendment would reduce the age at which automatic enrolment begins to apply from 22 to 16.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, in clause 1, page 2, line 8, leave out “3(1A), 5(1C),”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.

Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 2, line 10, leave out “3(1A), 5(1C) or”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.

Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 2, line 14, leave out “3(1A), 5(1C) or”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.

[David Linden]

It is, as always, a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North on getting his Bill through Second Reading, and I certainly commit my party to supporting the principles of what he is seeking to achieve.

Automatic enrolment of pensions is not an issue on which I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It is probably the only issue on which he and I agree these days—that says more about our political differences than anything else. In a similar vein, it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), who initially introduced the Bill before he moved on to the dizzy heights of ministerial office at the Department for Transport.

It would be fair to say that the finer details of pensions policy do not generally get people’s excitement levels rising, although Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks, the hon. Member for Reading East and I find this stuff quite fascinating and exciting, so we rub along quite nicely. Although there is not excitement around pensions policy, there is scope for more political consensus. I believe that is true of automatic enrolment, which has generally been a success for our society. My only real criticism of AE is that there has not been a big enough attempt to include low earners and those of all ages. The Bill certainly makes great strides towards tackling that inequity, and it should help with some of the structural problems, such as the gender pensions gap, which does not get as much political attention as the gender pay gap.

I have no great desire to detain the Committee for any length of time today. I appreciate that the action is very much elsewhere—of course, I am referring to the local housing allowance debate in Westminster Hall this afternoon. The Minister knows and, I believe, understands my long-standing interest in extending automatic enrolment to everyone over the age of 16, not 22 or even 18, and for it to kick in from the first pound earned. The latter is particularly important for women, especially those who work part time and have not previously hit the threshold.

These are probing amendments. I am sure the Committee will be glad to know that I do not intend to press them to a vote. If Members want to be elsewhere, fear not; I will not press them to a Division. Amendments 1 to 4 seek to amend clause 1 to ensure automatic enrolment in a pension kicks in at the earliest stage—the age at which tax kicks in. They would put on the face of the Bill that automatic enrolment begins to apply from the age of 16, not 18, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North proposes. Amendments 2, 3 and 4 are merely technical amendments and are consequential in nature, so I will focus on the thinking behind amendment 1.

We all recognise that there are changes to the labour market, and that people’s employment journeys are changing. Many of us left the Chamber during the Chancellor’s speech when he was just getting on to that section of the Budget. He recognises that there are changes to the labour market. Likewise, the Work and Pensions Committee, on which I sit, is currently undertaking an inquiry into the plan for jobs and is trying to better understand some of the changes behind working practices and economic inactivity.

None of us—not even the Chancellor—has a silver bullet suggestion for how we fix the issues relating to under-25s and over-55s not participating in the labour market at the level they were before the pandemic. Following our recent cross-party trip to the USA, I know that I and others on that Committee certainly see apprenticeships as just one example of how we can offer a different path into the labour market.

That brings me very much to my own experience. When exam results are sent out, we politicians rightly talk about there being no wrong path for people’s employment journeys. Some, after school, move straight into further and higher education. Increasingly—this is my personal belief—they do so sometimes disproportionately for our economy. I use this analogy to explain it to folk: if I have a leaking roof or a leaking pipe, I do not want a doctor or a lawyer—I want a plumber. Perhaps, as an economy, we need to pivot a bit more towards some of the trades.

For others, and I am an example, the path on leaving school is a vocational qualification at first, such as an apprenticeship. It is with that in mind that I have tabled the amendments. We know from House of Commons Library research that, at any one time in the UK, approximately 572,000 people are undertaking an apprenticeship, sometimes for up to four years with the same employer, and from age 16. The Bill before us would exclude those apprentices from inclusion in automatic enrolment. I do not know why that is, especially when they are likely to have four years of contributions.

In responding to these probing amendments, will the Minister outline why the Government’s preference is for age 18 and not 16? Have they undertaken a specific impact assessment to age 16? If so, will they publish it? I know that the Government have published an impact assessment for age 18. It came through within the last hour, and I have looked at it, but it seems to extend only to age 18, not 16.

We all agree that automatic enrolment has been a success and extending it further to younger cohorts is clearly a good thing. On that, we will not disagree, but I do not understand why the proposal is to stop at age 18, not extending it all the way to 16, bringing it in line with the point when income tax kicks in, and including all workers. I very much look forward to the Minister outlining the Government’s rationale, and explaining why they would have any difficulty accepting amendment 1 to what is an otherwise excellent Bill.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am grateful to you and to fellow Committee members for joining me today to scrutinise this important legislation, especially on Budget day.

The Bill before us contains two clauses. I am grateful to hon. Members for their support for the expansion of automatic enrolment into workplace pensions, a long-standing public policy objective that enjoys widespread support in this House and the other place, and therefore allowing this Bill to proceed to Committee, despite the lack of opportunity for a debate on Second Reading.

The Bill has a clear and straightforward purpose: to allow the Government to lower the age at which qualifying workers are automatically enrolled into a workplace pension scheme from 22 to 18, and to allow the Government to increase the overall amounts being saved by abolishing the lower earnings limit of the qualifying earnings band for workplace pension contributions.

I acknowledge the work of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden)—my office buddy in this place—who championed a previous Bill in this Session with the same objectives and has handed the baton on to me, to carry forward improvements to retirement provisions for millions of our fellow citizens. He is a doughty champion for people up and down our country, as well as those of North West Durham. We are very lucky to have such a Member in the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.

I have respect for the hon. Member for Glasgow East, as he knows. I listened carefully to what he said. He set out his personal story beforehand, and it is very powerful. I reiterate the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North and by the hon. Member for Reading East. This was looked at as part of the 2017 review, and there will be a statutory consultation to follow it up.

[David Linden]

I must say that in moving the amendment, I had rather hoped that more consideration and debate would be given to it. With the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Reading East, I am baffled that the Labour party has nothing to say. Perhaps that is consistent with its policy positions these days. It was not that long ago that hordes of young people at Glastonbury were chanting the name of the former Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). This rather strikes me as a bit odd. I understand that the Government have not always been the kind of folk who tend to have lots of lovely things to say about the labour movement or young people, but I am particularly baffled that this Labour party has nothing to say, nor any explanation as to why it has arrived at this policy position, other than to say, “We agree with that lot.”

With that in mind, I have sought to stimulate debate—rather unsuccessfully—but I look forward to the Bill making progress, I hope. I do not disagree with the Bill itself, as I said, but when we come to later stages I hope that we can agree to improve automatic enrolment further and to give this a little more consideration than it has been given today. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Jonathan Gullis]

Thank you for educating me on Committee procedure, Sir Christopher. I clearly need to read up a lot more in “Erskine May”. I look forward to learning it at a later date.

I put clearly on the record my thanks to the Pensions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks. This gives me the opportunity to thank her for securing Government support for the Bill, which she has worked tirelessly behind the scenes to do since entering her office. She has been working to get it into Parliament and, I hope, implemented as quickly as possible to ensure this for young people, apprentices, in particular, two of whom I have in my constituency office. Jessica and Mya are 18, paid well and will now be able to start building up their pension, which is totally brilliant for them. I look forward to having ensured that they provide for themselves in future.

The automatic enrolment framework was introduced by the Pensions Act 2008 and was gradually brought in for all employers across the UK, starting in 2012. By January 2023, 10.8 million people had been automatically enrolled into a workplace pension and 2.2 million employers were complying with their duties, with about an additional £33 billion in real terms saved in 2021, compared with 2012.

In 2017, the Government carried out a year-long review of automatic enrolment, with a panel of independent, expert advisers, resulting in a report, “Maintaining the momentum”, which set out recommendations to expand the workplace pensions framework. The proposed measures were widely supported by parliamentarians, stakeholders—including those representing employers and workers—and of course the pensions industry. The Bill is the first crucial step in implementing those recommendations, in that it will provide the necessary legislative powers. Helping people to save for later life should be one of the Government’s key priorities, particularly as the Bill will have a significant impact on the delivery of long-term investment to areas outside metropolitan London where there are fewer young people in part-time jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Gullis]

May I put on record my thanks to you, Sir Christopher, and to everyone who has contributed to this short, constructive debate? I thank all Members who agreed to serve on the Committee, in particular the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, who has become a good friend in the House and a done a lot on pensions. Also, he may not want to admit it, but the hon. Member for Glasgow East and I are good friends, but I am sure that he will not put that on any endorsement leaflets any time soon.

[David Linden]

On a point of order, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the Committee inadvertently. We cannot have that on the record; my constituents will deselect me.

[Jonathan Gullis]

I look forward to doing a podcast with the hon. Gentleman very soon to discuss all the great work that he does in the House as a SNP Member.

The Bill makes certain that people in areas such as Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, where nearly one in four people are not auto-enrolled in a pension, will have more financial security in the long term. It will simplify the process to mean that for just a few pounds a week, and through the power of compound interest, people could be £30,000 better off in retirement. That is absolutely transformative, which is why the Bill is critical.

I also thank the hon. Member for Reading East, whom I hugely admire in the House. I assure him that I too will keep the Government’s feet to the fire from the Government Benches so that we get an actual implementation date, because I do not like references to wishy-washy mid-2020s. I want to see a date firmly in writing. I am delighted that the consultation will take place in the autumn and I look forward then to hearing about a firm date.

I want to finish by again thanking my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham—he deserves another shout-out—for his support throughout the passage of the Bill and for putting the case forward with Onward, a fantastic think-tank, which has done a lot of work with him to put the argument. I am delighted and proud that he was very kind in asking me to carry on his great work as he ascended to higher office and as I descended at the same time. I thank the Minister for getting the Bill supported by the Government, and for how she has worked with me, officials and obviously the Treasury, twisting arms wherever necessary to get the Bill over the line and, I hope, on the statute book.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.

[David Linden]

On a point of order, Sir Christopher. I thank you for chairing the proceedings in Committee and pay tribute to the Clerk, Chris Wilson, for his help in drafting amendments. I look forward to the Bill proceeding to the other House.

Single-Parent Families

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

As always, it is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. I extend my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) for securing the debate. It is timely to consider the impact that the cost of living crisis has had on one-parent families on the eve of the Chancellor presenting his Budget to Parliament.

Earlier this afternoon, I chaired the all-party parliamentary group on poverty. We heard a number of testimonies, including from single parents, on some of the changes that they would like to see to the social security system. I use the phrase “social security system” very deliberately. Likewise, the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, on which I sit, is embarking on an inquiry into the adequacy of benefits in the UK.

All those points feed into the juncture we find ourselves in at the moment. We know from public polling that there is now consensus in public opinion that the current social security system is inadequate—a point that has been made a number of times today. Perhaps that is because they saw the benefits system—the social security system—for the first time during the pandemic.

The inescapable reality is that families of single parents—90% of whom are women; let us not forget or gloss over that point—with children are more likely to be in poverty. Any reduction in income is likely to be particularly harmful, which means that, in the face of the ongoing cost of living crisis, the British Government must do more—so much more—to protect children from poverty. In doing so, Ministers must urgently address the barriers to work that single parent families face. My hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire and others have touched on the fact that childcare is a big barrier.

The SNP has been calling for a long-overdue root-and-branch review of the Child Maintenance Service, to make it work more effectively for the children whom it is supposed to serve. The Select Committee heard evidence from Viscount Younger of Leckie fairly recently, which did not inspire me that the Government are getting to grips with some of the issues in the Child Maintenance Service. My constituency postbag certainly reflects that.

North of the border, the SNP Government are using their devolved powers to try to ensure that children and families are supported during this difficult time. They are working hard to prevent them from being pushed into further hardship but, again, it is an undeniable fact that the Government in Edinburgh are very much operating with one hand tied behind their back due to the limitations of the current constitutional settlement on these islands.

To be blunt, for all the good that my colleagues can do with the Scottish child payment, to name just one example, it is the intransigence of this Westminster Government that actively hinders our ability to adequately lift one-parent families out of poverty. For example, the Scottish Government can do things such as bringing forward that game-changing Scottish child payment of £25 a week, but when the UK Government take away that extra £20 universal credit uplift, it almost wipes it out.

[Hannah Bardell]

I want to pick up the point my hon. Friend is making about the Scottish child payment and the profound impact that it is having. Many of my Livingston constituents have told me what a huge impact it has had. I compare those experiences, although they are profound, to my mum’s experience. She talked about being double taxed. She was taxed on her income and, when she paid her childminder, she was taxed on that income. Many women faced that, and still face that in other parts of the UK, but in Scotland, at least, we are doing what we can with the limited powers that we have.

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on; it is about how devolved powers are used. I will come on to that and the question of what devolution is for, but she is right to praise the Scottish child payment. It is something on which we have managed to get cross-party consensus. One of the few things that I have enjoyed about the SNP leadership debate, which has been absolutely terrible in my view, has been watching the candidates try to outbid each other on the Scottish child payment. That is a good thing; we should always strive to do more to protect families and children. The fact that it is so much the focus of that debate can only be a good thing. It has been a ray of light in what has been an otherwise dreary contest.

We know that inflation disproportionately impacts low-income groups such as single parents, who spend a relatively high proportion of their income on food and fuel. According to the Resolution Foundation, the poorest tenth of households experienced an inflation rate of 11.7%. It is against that worrying backdrop that I remain concerned about the British Government’s approach to social security. I do not want to be churlish; of course, any additional support is welcome, but these kinds of one-off payments are only a temporary fix. Permanent solutions are needed. Rather than offering one-off payments to shore up the incomes of struggling families, the Government should reverse the damaging long-term policies that are impacting the most vulnerable. That is why I will not tire of calling on the Government to reinstate the universal credit uplift, and, indeed, to increase it to £25 a year and extend it to all means-tested legacy benefits.

At 1 o’clock, the APPG on poverty took evidence from the Disability Benefits Consortium and we remained baffled as to why the 2.5 million disabled people on these islands were completely overlooked and forgotten during the pandemic when that £20 uplift was put in place. Ministers need to go further than that. They need to scrap the benefit cap entirely and get rid of the immoral and heartless two-child limit, which is utterly incompatible with the Government’s own family test. In this place, we rightly talk about the importance of a compassionate society—even the Conservatives. There is this thing, I believe, called compassionate conservatism. I do not know how a two-child limit is in any way compatible with compassionate conservatism.

[Amy Callaghan]

Does my hon. Friend consider that the rape clause and the benefit cap do not align with their vision of a compassionate society at all?

[David Linden]

Exactly. Quite rightly, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire should not be sparing the blushes of the Conservatives, who are mandated to turn up to this debate—that is why there are two of them here. The reality is that there cannot be a compassionate social security system when there is this arbitrary cap in place that takes no cognisance of the cost of living. It is not compatible with a compassionate society to turn around and say, “We’ll pay for the first two children, but, by the way, do you see that third one? Out on their ear.” It certainly is not compatible with a compassionate society to turn around to women who have experienced rape and sexual violence and conceived a child as a result and say, “Okay. You have told us that this third child was born as a result of rape. Can you prove that?” That is my question to the two Conservatives who are here. Perhaps that is a problem; that got through the policy process. Was it two white men sitting there thinking, “This policy is absolutely fine”? I can tell the House that the women I speak to at Glasgow East Women’s Aid in my constituency are appalled that, years and years on, we have the abhorrent rape clause.  I know that Ministers find this issue incredibly uncomfortable, and they often tell me, “Don’t refer to it as a rape clause.” They want to refer to it by its official name, which is the non-consensual sex exemption. Let us just think about that for a minute: in 2023, the state asks women in this country to prove that they have been raped, simply so they can get state support. It really should shame the Government.

Some 86% of households trapped by the benefit cap are families, often headed by single mothers—the very people we are debating today—and it is the Government’s job to support families, not to subject them to further hardship. The Minister and the Government can and must do better. They should take heed of the wise words of John Dickie of the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland, who calls for the

“cruel and irrational benefit cap…to be scrapped at source by the UK Government as a matter of utmost urgency.”

Those are not my words as a nasty, nationalist MP. They are the words of John Dickie of the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland—somebody who is a respected expert in this field—and the Minister would do well to reflect on that.

The continued refusal of Ministers to fix the extensive and known problems with universal credit is unacceptable, and it is clearly subjecting vulnerable people to wholly unnecessary hardship. Even more damning is the fact that this hardship has been noted outwith these islands. The Government like to fly around the world—it was San Diego yesterday—on Union Jack-clad private jets and talk about the importance of global Britain, but let us look at global Britain. A recent report from the Commissioner for Human Rights at the Council of Europe, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) is a member, found that the level of support provided under universal credit was a key contributing factor to child poverty. The report, published in November, stated that policies such as the two-child limit and the benefit cap

“restrict the amount of benefits a household can receive, regardless of their specific needs, and thereby continue to exacerbate child poverty.”

In its recent submission to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Human Rights Watch also gives a damning review of the British Government’s restrictive social security policies, such as the two-child limit and the failure to reverse the cut to universal credit, and sets out their negative impact on the right to an adequate standard of living—things such as food and housing for families with children.

I want to refer briefly to the wonderful folks at One Parent Families Scotland, because they have been campaigning for an awfully long time to end the benefits-related discrimination against single parents under the age of 25. People under 25 are entitled to a lower allowance of benefits than those aged 25 or over, but before the introduction of universal credit there was an exemption for single parents in recognition of the costs of caring for a child alone. Now that the exemption has been removed, children are certainly paying the price. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire set out, young single-parent families are now up to £66.13 worse off per month under universal credit compared with the legacy system, which equates to a drop of 20%. Denying young single parents—largely women—the same level of social security penalises children on the basis of their parent’s age and pushes young families into poverty, with an incredibly detrimental impact on their rights and wellbeing. It frustrates me that Scottish Government officials rightly talk about getting things right for every child, yet baked into the social security system is an inherent unfairness.

It is one thing for me to stand here and quote respected committees, international bodies and think-tanks, but I want to highlight some local examples from the east end of Glasgow, which I am incredibly proud to live in and represent. Last week, I was joined in Tollcross by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn). While we were at Tollcross advice centre, Matthew Leach, the financial inclusion officer, told me of several examples—he even provided me with case studies—that highlight the folly of the UK’s current social security system. Time constraints mean that I cannot read them all out, but I will certainly send them to the Minister’s office this afternoon to highlight just how challenging the Government’s policy makes life for single parents in these islands.

As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has said, life is hard enough for everyone right now—the cost of living crisis means that everyone is having to do more with less—but we know from today’s testimony alone that life is particularly hard right now for single parents, and the fact that the British Government are making life harder only adds insult to injury.

In conclusion, Westminster must do better. If it will not, an independent Scottish Government stand ready to step in and fulfil their obligations to families, whatever shape, size or format they come in.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

I call the shadow Minister, Alison McGovern.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Employment (Guy Opperman)]

Well, it is the word of the day so far. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. It is an honour to respond to this debate secured by the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan). We are in Brain Tumour Awareness Month; I know she did not suffer a tumour as such, but as a fellow recoverer from neurosurgery, I join her in celebrating the month. We say many thanks to Headway and the Stroke Association, which have done great work supporting her, and I put on the record my thanks to the Brain Tumour Charity, the National Brain Appeal and Brain Tumour Research, which have done great work supporting me, and to Neil Kitchen, who, with a very small chainsaw on my head, performed the operation that kept me alive after I collapsed in Central Lobby in 2011.

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate on an important issue, which I want to try to address in some detail. I accept the dubious honour of being the warm-up man for the Chancellor tomorrow, and there were many and varied pitches to him. I note those by the hon. Members for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), for East Dunbartonshire, for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—I will come on to his points on childcare—and for Livingston (Hannah Bardell), and by the shadow Ministers, the hon. Members for Glasgow East (David Linden) and for Wirral South (Alison McGovern).

The hon. Member for Livingston made the good point that we should celebrate single parents. I utterly endorse that. In this moment of personal reflection, I put on the record my thanks to my mum. When my parents split up, she brought me and my brother up alone. She is presently disabled, just out of hospital and very unwell. She worked for MI6 when not many women were entitled to do that. I will be getting her into trouble for revealing that piece of information, but I think she is safe from any retribution from the security services.

Without a shadow of a doubt, we need to celebrate and support those who have the honour and distinction of ploughing a lonely furrow in trying to ensure that upbringing is done in the most appropriate way possible, to the best of their ability, in circumstances not necessarily of their own choosing. We all understand it is complicated.

There are a number of points I need to address, but I want to start with the overarching point, which is the degree of support that the Government have provided over the last couple of years and will provide on an ongoing basis. I think that it contextualises the individual benefits and support that already exist. Clearly, we have to take in mind the Chancellor’s autumn statement, which reflected our commitment to support families across the UK, setting out a series of measures on top of the £37 billion announced in May 2022. About 8 million households on means-tested benefits such as universal credit will receive payments of up to £900, and obviously state pensions and benefits will increase by 10.1%, increasing expenditure on social security and benefit pension rates by £22 billion for 2023-24.

It is fair to note that we have never spent as much as we spend on the welfare system in this country; we are spending record levels.

[David Linden]

Politicians always like to twist statistics, but if we compare what we spend as a proportion of average earnings, is it not the case that we are pretty much back to the days of Lloyd George in terms of our spending on social security?

[Guy Opperman]

I manifestly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not have my Lloyd George statistics to hand, but given that the welfare spend in the times of Lloyd George was effectively minimal and that we are now spending £245 billion through the welfare system in 2023, including £108 billion on people of working age, record sums on the state pension and record sums on the disabled, I suspect that the House of Commons Library would be delighted to correct the hon. Gentleman on the error of his Lloyd Georgian ways. Of course, were I to be mistaken, I would be delighted to be corrected by the Library.

I was not expecting the hon. Gentleman to rely on Lloyd George in support of the Scottish National party cause. I noted with interest and curiosity his description of his three colleagues who are running for the SNP leadership as dreary—or of the process as being dreary. I could not possibly comment. I am sure that they will be able replacements for Nicola Sturgeon. The statistics and the polls show that independence is a whole lot less likely than it was three months ago, but I am sure that the winner will turn things around in a heartbeat.