Women’s State Pension Age
Gavin Newlands Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman raised the question to which by now I have probably responded two dozen times. The answer remains the same: we will look at these matters extremely carefully and diligently, which is what everybody who has an interest in them would expect us to do. The report was published as recently as Thursday, and it is now Monday. We will look at these issues very carefully indeed, and there will be no undue delay. We will ensure that we interact with Parliament in an appropriate fashion, as we did with the ombudsman.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Secretary of State talks about time, but it is nearly a decade since the start of the WASPI campaign, which has included rallies, protests, court cases, thousands of meetings to lobby MPs, and 273,000 women dying. Those who remain can perhaps see some light at the end of the tunnel. I say “some light”, because the ombudsman should have gone further both on the impact that DWP malpractice has had and on the recommended compensation. However, it looks like that light is actually a train, with the Chancellor and the shadow Chancellor in control. After all that those women—that includes my constituent, who was one of the test cases in the report and at times has treated the campaign like a full-time job—have gone through, is the Secretary of State really going to ask them to wait just a little longer and then break convention and ignore the ombudsman’s findings?
Mel Stride
Given that we have not yet responded to the findings of the ombudsman, for the reasons that I gave—this needs to be done in a diligent and careful manner—I am not sure that the hon. Member’s assertion holds water. The report was five years in the making. It covers highly complex matters, and many questions are raised as a consequence. We will look at those questions and those findings extremely carefully and come to the House without undue delay while engaging with the House in an appropriate way, which is what we did with the ombudsman.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gavin Newlands Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
We are reducing child poverty through the use of a large number of measures, not least ensuring that work pays, hence our increase in the national living wage in April and the reduction in the national insurance tax that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced recently.
Mel Stride
The limit to which the hon. Gentleman refers is there for a very good reason, which is that people in those circumstances should face the same basic decisions as those not on benefits. That is an important matter of fairness across those who receive benefits as well as the many who are paying tax. As for the number of children in poverty, that has fallen by 400,000 since 2010.
Gavin Newlands
Many of those people are in work, Secretary of State. Some £14 million has been paid to more than 10,000 children’s families in Renfrewshire thanks to the widely praised Scottish child payment. Praise has come from the Institute for Public Policy Research Scotland, which says that the Scottish Government are making employment for parents central to their child poverty strategy, but it says that devolved employment support programmes are
“held back by responsibility being split across governments and a reserved Jobcentre system which is more often focused on compliance than helping people reach their full potential.”
It recommends the full devolution of employment support to tackle child poverty. Will the Secretary of State listen to the experts?
Mel Stride
I am always very interested in listening to the hon. Gentleman and any ideas that he has about how we should improve our welfare system, but I point to the fact that this country has seen a considerable drop in absolute child poverty, after housing costs, of 400,000 since 2010.
State Pension Changes: Women
Gavin Newlands Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate in Jim Shannon hall this morning—[Laughter.] He is an assiduous supporter of the WASPI women.
There are over 12,000 WASPI women in Renfrewshire, and one is a constituent of mine whose case is currently with the ombudsman. She has worked alongside me and my office team for nearly nine years, trying to get justice for herself and the other 1950s women—that is how long this saga has been going on. Just the other week I held my thousandth constituency advice surgery, and she came along to it; we joked that I think she had been to 100 of them—but like the rest of my jokes it is not funny.
The ombudsman was in no doubt that maladministration took place under the DWP’s watch. What is scandalous is that the DWP refuses to accept those findings and instead has buried its head in the sand and left complainants in limbo. The ombudsman stated, “We would also have proposed recommending DWP provide appropriate remedy for others who have suffered injustice because of maladministration... However, DWP has refused to accept our findings of maladministration. Complainants, and others affected by DWP’s maladministration, urgently need resolution.”
1950s women have experienced huge financial detriment to themselves and their families through no fault of their own. Life-changing decisions were taken without the correct information, and only years later were those women suddenly confronted with the consequences of this issue—consequences that could have been avoided if the DWP had done its job properly.
The ombudsman said that the DWP is “not directly responsible or accountable” and that any “financial loss resulting from choices they made was not direct financial loss.” I could not disagree more with that conclusion. Women should have been taken at their word, not asked to provide counter-evidence to a standard that is utterly unrealistic and impossible for many. There has to be accountability for those failings that the ombudsman clearly highlighted, and be justice for the women let down by the system and compensation for those adversely affected by decisions taken by the DWP that were outwith their control.
My constituent has worked for 50 years, paying her national insurance contributions all the way, yet does not receive a full state pension, and the ombudsman concluded that she would be due compensation at only a low level—1 or 2. That in no way equates to the enormous impact this issue has had on her physical and mental health, following decisions she took long before she was made aware of any changes to her pension age. There are too many women who have sadly passed away over recent years before seeing some closure for the injustice they have suffered. They will never see compensation or any kind of remedy for what they and their families have gone through.
It is time for this Government—or indeed any incoming Government—to do the right thing by these women and ensure state pension justice for all the women, including my constituent, who have been victims of the DWP’s failings and who have campaigned tirelessly against this injustice.
Gill Furniss
Yes, I absolutely agree with the hon. Member and certainly we are aware of the gender pay gap, which is getting bigger and bigger. I have referred to the fact that women generally live longer than men, so they lose out at that end as well, in that they get only half a pension if they are widowed.
Many of us have taken extended maternity leave to be with our children during their formative years, and we shoulder a disproportionate burden of care. By the time they are 46, half of all women will have taken time out of the workplace for care purposes, including stepping up to look after elderly relatives, meaning they will miss out on vital contributions to their workplace pension. Even if they are one of the three quarters of working-age women in employment, there is a 33% chance they are in part-time employment, increasing the likelihood that they will miss out on the benefits of auto-enrolment under the current regulations.
Under the last Labour Government, pensioner poverty halved. Yet on this Government’s watch it has risen so that one in five pensioners now live in poverty. That is scandalous.
Gavin Newlands
The hon. Member has made some strong points so far. She is talking about the last Labour Government. The last Labour manifesto promised £58 billion over the course of the next Parliament to give compensation to WASPI women. Will that be in the upcoming manifesto for the next election?
Gill Furniss
I am not here today to announce our manifesto or any of our manifesto commitments.
Gill Furniss
However, I can say that I have been meeting the WASPI women regularly since I took this role just a few months ago. I am honoured to be in what I believe is a friendly and honest dialogue with them, and I will continue to do that throughout the coming months and beyond, should I be in the same position.
Paul Maynard
I have given way a number of times, and I have been very generous. I am conscious that I need to finish my contribution and allow the hon. Member for Strangford to comment. I am sorry, and if there is time towards the end I will try to give way, but I need to set out the factual information that Members have been asking me to deliver, so I will make some progress.
The announcement in 1993 of the decision to equalise the state pension age addressed a long-standing inequality between men and women. Changes to state pension age were made over a series of Acts by successive Governments, following public consultations and debates in both Houses of Parliament. All women after 5 April 1950 and all men born after 5 December 1953 are impacted by state pension age changes. The state pension age is currently 66, and is due to rise to the age of 67 between 2026 and 2028, as confirmed by the recent Government review of state pension age. The Government also committed in the last review to conduct a further review within two years of the next Government, to consider the age of 68. The further review will be able to consider the very latest evidence.
The reforms have focused on maintaining the right balance between the affordability and sustainability of the state pension, and fairness between generations. Women retiring today can still expect to receive the state pension, but over 21 years on average, which is over two years longer than men. If equalisation had not taken place, upon reaching the age of 60 women would be expected to spend on average over 40% of their adult lives in receipt of the state pension.
I will say a few words about the processes of the ombudsman’s investigation, for clarification and to place them on the record. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman published its stage 1 report on 20 July 2021. PHSO found maladministration in the steps that the Department took between 2005 and 2007 in relation to notifying the women affected. In December 2022, the PHSO submitted its stage 2 findings and the original stage 3 findings for comment, and published a high-level summary on its website, concluding that the maladministration had caused injustice.
Following the PHSO’s stage 2 findings in December 2022, the WASPI campaign initiated judicial review proceedings against the PHSO, arguing that the ombudsman’s approach to calculating when letters should have been sent ignored pauses in the DWP’s letter-writing campaign, which meant that women should have had notice far earlier than the ombudsman had assumed and could therefore have made different decisions to avoid some of the financial impact. Following an agreement between WASPI and the PHSO, the High Court granted a consent order quashing the PHSO’s final stage 2 report in May 2023. The consent order specifically requested that the PHSO revisited those sections of the stage 2 report dealing with the 28-month delay calculation. The stage 3 provisional view on remedy had not been finalised by the PHSO, so it did not require consideration by the court.
We responded to the provisional stage 3 report in early February 2023. The PHSO sent all parties to the complaint a revised provisional stage 2 report in November 2023. That is the report whose publication we await.
Paul Maynard
I have already given way, and I am running out of time. I do apologise.
I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been made today. I would like to set out further the range of support available both for those making provision for their retirement and for those who have reached state pension age.
In 2016, the state pension was reformed with the introduction of a new state pension to be simpler and more sustainable. It had the clear objective of providing the foundation for private saving. In this way, the state provides a base to which people can add to provide the pension they want through their retirement.
The new state pension improves outcomes for many women, carers and self-employed people, who often did less well in the past. State pension outcomes are projected to equalise for men and women more than a decade earlier than they would have under the old system. On average, women receiving the new state pension receive about £18 a week more than women under the pre-2016 system. Under the new state pension system, women currently receive an average of 97% of the amount that men receive, compared with 85% under the pre-2016 system.
Automatic enrolment has helped millions more women to save with a pension, many for the first time. Participation rates for women are catching up with those for men. Pensions participation among eligible women working in the private sector was at 86% in 2022, up from 40% in 2012.
Pension credit is extra money to help with daily living costs for people over state pension age and on a low income. It tops up a person’s other income to a minimum of £201.05 a week for single pensioners and £306.85 a week for couples. People with a severe disability, carers and those who are responsible for a child or young person who lives with them can get more. Pension credit can also include extra amounts for certain housing costs such as ground rent or service charges. The pension credit case load is just under 1.4 million people, of whom 66% are female; in fact, of the total case load, 63% are single women. People receiving pension credit may also get help with other costs, including rent, via housing benefit, and council tax.
The latest statistics show that by 2021-22, the poverty rate for pensioners had decreased by two percentage points since 2010. For both female and male pensioners, there was a decrease of two percentage points over the same period. In 2021-22, there were 200,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty, after housing costs, than in 2010. By 2024-25, working-age and extra-costs disability benefit rates will increase by 6.7%, and relevant state pension rates, including the standard minimum guarantee in pension credit, by 8.5%, following the 10.1% increase in April 2023.
DWP Estate: Office Closures
Gavin Newlands Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Rutley
Right now, we are speaking to the colleagues affected. We have engaged PCS every step of the way to ensure we are following the right process so far as colleagues go. The engagement with parliamentary colleagues will take place as planned at 1 pm today, when letters will be made available. If the right hon. Member has further concerns, I will make sure that the Minister for employment contacts her after this urgent question.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
This issue speaks to the treatment of DWP staff, with morale in DWP offices across the country already at rock bottom, not least due to DWP management’s response to covid among staff. That has been an ongoing issue, but the Renfrew Jobcentre Plus office effectively closed after staff had to walk out after management refused to act after eight out of 18 staff tested positive for covid. In the end, 16 out of 18 staff tested positive. Can the Minister tell me what covid safeguarding, if any, is in place at DWP offices across the country, whether earmarked for closure or otherwise? Do they all follow the relevant local public health advice and regulations?
David Rutley
The Department has been following all the guidance that it needed to, and if there are concerns about that, I will gladly follow up with the hon. Member outside the Chamber.
Benefit Cap
Gavin Newlands Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Linden
It is a question on which I find myself reflecting an awful lot. We all come into politics for different reasons. As I outlined at the beginning of this debate, the Minister and I have very different ideological views on the merits of the social security system and perhaps, even in his case, on what role the state should have in people’s lives. We are all constituency MPs, and on Friday morning we will go back to our constituencies and sit in those cold, draughty community centres and talk to people who are impacted by these policies. I find it very difficult to believe that the Minister, who represents Macclesfield, does not have constituents coming to him and saying that the benefit cap is putting them in a very difficult position. This may be a case of Ministers focusing too much on policy, but in this instance I think it is a case of Ministers, and indeed the Government, not focusing enough on their day job or on the correspondence that they receive from their constituents, which overwhelmingly says that the benefit cap must go.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case as to why the benefit cap must go. One thing that we have not discussed is the pandemic, which has affected so many families in Scotland and right across the UK. I think that it is 88% of households in Renfrewshire that have been affected by the benefit cap. Does that very fact not highlight the callousness of this policy and the fact that it needs to go?
David Linden
Absolutely. My hon. Friend is a doughty champion of the children of Renfrewshire. This is a topic that we discuss regularly in our policy teams. He is right to place on record the extreme challenges that that poses to his constituents. I am sure that his constituents will reflect on the fact that the only way of ensuring that we do not have things like the benefit cap is to secure the powers of Scottish independence.
I was saying how often it feels like groundhog day in Westminster. While we on these Benches are focused on the people of Scotland, the Tories are far too focused on naval gazing and internal party politics. Indeed, the Chancellor seems more interested in preparing his suite of Instagram graphics for his next leadership bid than resourcing appropriately our social security system.
The fact of the matter is that the entire system is in desperate need of reform—reform that the Tories will not implement because it does not fit their political game of pitting people against each other in our community. While 85% of welfare policy remains reserved to the Westminster Government, we should only expect further policies that encourage poverty and austerity. From where I am standing, it is clearer than ever that the only way to protect Scotland’s interests and to build that fair and equal society that we all want to see is for Scotland to become a normal independent country. I am absolutely clear that we are on that path and that we will get there, but there is recognition, even on these Benches, that it will not happen overnight. That is why Ministers must act now, and that is why Ministers must scrap the cap.
Supporting Single Parents into Work
Gavin Newlands Excerpts(2 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Huq
Let’s not go there. If what the hon. Lady has mentioned is tested first in Scotland and we bring it here, I am not averse to that.
The way the welfare rules operate and the “first work” agenda mean that there is pressure to move into any job as quickly as possible. That means that many single parents are moving into flexible jobs below their skill levels, so they are over-qualified: there is a mismatch between their qualifications and what they end up doing. I do not want this to be a load of moaning, so I will propose some solutions.
The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), gave a bubbly, well-received presentation to our APPG on single parent families. She outlined a range of different measures to support claimants into work. There is job entry targeted support for people who have been unemployed for three months. There is Restart for those who have been unemployed for a year. Again, there are anomalous situations where, for instance, someone who has been furloughed for 18 months would not qualify for Restart despite technically not having worked. Those sort of loopholes need to be fixed.
There are schemes to get disabled people back into work. Why not have more programmes for helping single parent families? There could be more tailored support, and more single-parent awareness among job coaches. There is also an issue with the variability of job coaches; perhaps there should be more standardisation there.
We all know that good quality, affordable childcare is vital in getting parents back into work. Childcare costs are paid in arrears under universal credit.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I, too, am a member of the all-party parliamentary group that the hon. Lady mentioned. Childcare and getting back into work is a massive issue. I look back to my own situation over a quarter of a century ago when my mum was trying to get back into the workplace after she and my dad separated. Once, when I was 12 or 13, she secured a new job and I was off school sick—whether I was actually sick or not, I cannot remember. She went to work, and one of our neighbours phoned the police because I was in the house alone. The police turned up, phoned her work, and she had to come home absolutely mortified, and gave up her job. There is a real issue with childcare.
I want to praise Home-Start Renfrewshire and Inverclyde in my constituency, which I have met with a few times and does a great job. However, the hon. Lady is absolutely right—agencies like that need a lot more support from the Government than they have currently.
Dr Huq
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. He is an officer of our APPG on single-parent families, and it is interesting to hear his own experience. I hope that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children did not cart him away. The readaptation programme into work can be a big deal when someone has taken time out, and more tailored support needs to be provided.
There is a legal challenge under way to prevent childcare costs from being paid in arrears, which was initially won but was then lost on appeal. We are still hopeful that the Government will see sense on that. I have often heard the flexible support fund touted as a way to get people back into work, but looking at the sums involved, it is for something like getting a pair of shoes or a bus fare to an interview. I do not know whether the Minister has had to pay childcare costs recently, but they are blooming expensive. We need a distinctive fund for childcare costs or, better still, for them to be paid upfront. We could take a leaf out of Northern Ireland’s book, where just last week a £1,500 non-refundable lump sum was announced to help people who have found a job get back into work.
All of those options would be much better than the current skills underselling we appear to have. The Government’s flagship 30-hours policy seems to be very elusive in terms of finding a provider which can offer it, as there are such complex eligibility criteria for that entitlement. Only 20% of families at the bottom third of the earnings curve are eligible for that at all. That policy needs to become reality.
Universal credit being paid in arrears means many parents are caught in a trap, as shown by many of the rich, qualitative studies in the Gingerbread findings. One woman found her dream job, correct for her skill level, but she could not do it because the childcare costs would have left her unable to pay her rent. I hope that the Minster will look at redressing those things.
Some parts of the Budget, I must confess, are welcome. However, tinkering around with the taper rates, although an improvement, is not as good as the money that was taken away—£1,000 a year for the poorest, or £20 a week. I urge the Government to look again at reinstating that. There is nothing to address the high upfront costs of childcare that make moving into a job difficult for parents. We need more support to help single parents back into work that reflects their skills, with specialist single-parent advisers, as there used to be in job centres. That would be a good starting point.
Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill
Gavin Newlands ExcerptsMonday 20th September 2021
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2021 View all Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 20 September 2021 - large print - (20 Sep 2021)
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said in his excellent speech from the Front Bench, the UK lags far behind most other industrialised countries when it comes to what its Government spend on its older people and their pensions. Most of the EU spends more. The US spends far more. The vast majority of OECD countries spend more.
It should be clear that that is not an accident of history or just an outcome of circumstances; it is the result of decades of deliberate policy decisions by Governments here, including the current Administration. I must ask the question: what exactly is the point of a triple lock, if at any time the Secretary of State and her Cabinet colleagues can jimmy it open and bust open promises that were made not just once, but multiple times over many years?
Just three months ago the Prime Minister’s official spokesman told us,
“we are committed to the triple lock”,
when asked a direct question about its removal. That pledge existed only for as long as it actually meant anything—as soon as actual expenditure on pensions was involved, those promises disappeared quicker than a Prime Ministerial bridge.
This attack on pensioners’ living standards should not be looked at in isolation. As the families of many pensioners are being hammered by rising energy prices, soaring food prices and shortages, regressive tax raids, the scrapping of free TV licences and the shameful cuts to universal credit, this Bill is just the latest attack on the social contract and the welfare state. Those rising energy prices threaten to put more pensioner households into fuel poverty, and removing the triple lock will magnify that impact. Already more than half of single pensioners live in fuel poverty, while 13% of older households live in extreme fuel poverty. Those numbers will undoubtedly grow if today’s Bill is passed. In a wealthy, energy-rich country such as ours, that is an absolute disgrace.
The Bill is not only a betrayal of older people around the country, but economically illiterate. The Government are reducing the spending power available in our economy at the very time our industries need that consumer spending as part of the recovery from covid. The same argument can be said for the shameful cut in universal credit, which could be happening at scarcely a worse moment for all the reasons I have outlined. Moreover, we know that almost every penny of that uplift went directly into the economy, because people had to keep food on the table, clothe their children, keep the lights on and stay warm. The Government will look back on this moment with deep regret, I guarantee it. The political consequences will only be outweighed by the social and human consequences.
The £4.5 billion that the Government propose to keep from pensioners is money that could be circulating in our economy, supporting jobs and businesses on our high streets, stimulating demand in our producers and manufacturers and supporting the recovery. With this change, that money will be lost from our economy and from the job-creating cycle. Pensioners in this country, as has been outlined already, should know that what is offered by the UK Government, and the system they have created, is far below almost every EU country. This Bill is another attempt to decouple the UK from the European and global mainstream, in social security as in so many other areas of life.
Attacking the welfare state has been this Government’s hallmark since the current Prime Minister came to office, since his predecessor came to office, and since her predecessor came to office. Indeed, one can look through the books of Tory Prime Ministers going back decades and pick out one ideological attack after another, not least the disgraceful way that successive UK Governments have treated the WASPI women. If this cut saw the money saved kept in the DWP budget, the Government could at least argue that they were diverting money to different priorities—I do not accept that that would be necessary, but it would at least have some logic to it. However, that is not what is happening. Instead, the Government’s social security policies, combined with the more general havoc they are wreaking on the economy, will leave millions of pensioner households worse off.
In conclusion, the Bill is more evidence of how the UK’s welfare state is becoming something for the history books, rather than a living system. We are a long, long way from the days of Beveridge and the five giants. It is not a route we in Scotland wish to continue down. The UK is sowing the seeds of its own demise by providing its own contrast between an island that forces pensioners and millions more into deeper and deeper poverty while the fat cats continue to collect the cream, with a Europe where security of retirement is a fundamental right supported by the state. In case you have not got the gist yet, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be voting for the amendment.
Draft Social Security Co-ordination (Revocation of Retained Direct EU Legislation and Related Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Gavin Newlands Excerpts(3 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see a son of Glasgow in the Chair, Mr Gray. I will not detain the Committee for particularly long, and will not be forcing a vote on today’s proceedings either, but I want to put a couple of quick points on the record.
The explanatory memorandum states:
“The territorial application of this instrument is the entire United Kingdom. The changes being made to DWP areas of social security policy, which is transferred in Northern Ireland and partially devolved in Scotland, are in this context subject to the foreign affairs reservation.”
However, it is our view that the revocation of retained EU law that has effect in respect of devolved social security benefits is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. The DWP has obviously made these regulations with UK-wide extent, but with no carve-out whatsoever for devolved social security matters, on the basis that it considers the draft regulations to relate entirely to reserved matters, by reference to the foreign affairs reservation. In our view, the UK Government have construed the foreign affairs reservation in part I of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 far too widely. The modification, including repeal, of retained EU law on social security co-ordination, insofar as it has effect in respect of benefits, is devolved by the Scotland Act 2016. It is quite clearly a devolved matter.
I ask the Minister to confirm whether these powers are indeed fully devolved or not, but sadly the United Kingdom Internal Markets Bill, which runs roughshod over the devolution settlement, will make that point moot, as every aspect of devolved Government is undermined and could be overruled. It therefore follows—before I veer too far off course, Mr Gray—that these draft regulations will be ultra vires and thus ineffective in relation to devolved benefits.
It was only on 16 November, three weeks ago, as the UK Government laid their regulations, that the need for a Scottish statutory instrument became clear. Failing an agreed approach, Scottish Ministers were left with no choice but to table an SSI, which they have now done. The outcome is undesirable, as it will result in UK and Scottish legislation seeking to achieve the same result in relation to devolved benefits. Not only does that mean less legal clarity; it is a further example of the UK Government ignoring the needs and wishes of a democratically elected devolved Government. No disrespect to the Minister, who I have met with before, but I feel that the approach thus far has been high-handed and arrogant, which has increasingly frustrated Scottish Unionists, even those from his own party.
Covid-19: DWP Update
Gavin Newlands Excerpts(3 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]
Many people have had to apply for universal credit for the first time, but it is clear that, despite DWP staff working hard, the system simply cannot cope, and it was never intended to operate under such extreme circumstances. Constituents are waiting weeks for DWP phone calls and those unable to verify their identity online are told that the application does not exist, and therefore they cannot claim. What is the Secretary of State doing to prioritise new claims for universal credit, many of which are from people who have paid money into the system for decades and now find that their contribution means next to nothing?
Dr Coffey
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman; I think UC has reacted very well to the increased challenge. However, I would say to him that there were initially problems with the online verification. There is an additional scheme called “Confirm your identity”, and between that and “Verify” it should be very straightforward for people to get through that part of the claim. I can assure him that he can also arrange for constituents to contact the DWP helpline and be processed that way, too.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gavin Newlands Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
My constituent, Jennifer Bell, was made redundant following the collapse of Thomas Cook, but secured a job with Jet2 late last year, which fell through given the DWP’s refusal to pay for a training course. She has now landed a job with Virgin Atlantic, which involves five and a half weeks’ training in Crawley. However, her application to the flexible support fund at Renfrew jobcentre for accommodation costs has been denied, despite other former colleagues having secured funding at other jobcentres. Will the Minister please look into this discrepancy for Jennifer?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, which came through to us in jobcentres after the collapse of Thomas Cook. I am happy to take it away as a learning point. We are doing all we can on the Flybe issue, and I urge anybody affected to go to their local jobcentre and ask for support and benefits.