Disability Benefits Assessments

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I want to speak in this debate on behalf of my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran, who, in common with others across the UK who go through disability benefits assessment, find the experience extremely stressful. That is significant, as we know that poverty levels are consistently higher for disabled people. The latest figures show that 32% of disabled people live in poverty; with the cost of living crisis, that figure is likely to be higher now. In my constituency, 42% of families who rely on disability benefits are living in poverty. That is shameful. There can be no doubt that there is a deep mistrust between disabled people and the DWP due to the disability assessment process, which has been described as “traumatic” and “dehumanising”.

70% of disabled people feel that their benefits assessor did not understand their condition. Under this system, there is no way to make sure that an individual is assessed by someone who understands their condition. That might help explain why, since 2018, seven out of 10 tribunals dealing with mandatory reconsiderations of benefits have overturned the decision that was reached. In the past, I have heard various Government Ministers insist that this shows that the appeal system is working for claimants; it instead shows that assessments are not being conducted properly. In addition, it shows that seven in 10 claimants are put through the unnecessary stress and trauma caused by the appeal process.

Many people are incorrectly assessed and do not appeal. I know that from experiences in my constituency. Many people simply do not appeal as they feel so broken and defeated by the system. That means that they are deprived of the level of support that they need—a disgraceful indictment of the system. What of the cost of putting right decisions that are simply wrong and cause so much distress? Millions of pounds are wasted on fixing wrong decisions; £120 million was spent by the UK Government fighting disability benefit claims for PIP and ESA between 2017 and 2019.

In Scotland, the SNP Government have brought forward a new, simplified and compassionate adult disability payment system, which focuses on dignity, fairness and respect. It has built in from the very start a fast-tracking system for those with terminal conditions, following the judgment of clinicians. Those who are unable to work due to disability must be supported. Those who are disabled but can work must have the support they need in order to work. The Scottish Government aim to halve the disability employment gap by 2038, and leave behind the stigma too often felt by those who live with a disability. I hope that the Minister will use the person-centred system rolled out by the Scottish Government as a template from which the UK Government can learn.

The UK Government must follow Scotland’s lead, because the Scottish Government have prioritised making significant changes to how disabled people in Scotland experience accessing disability assistance; the system treats everyone with fairness and respect. If the system across the UK is not fixed, then Scotland’s system will put the system in the rest of the UK to shame.

Cost of Living

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I remind hon. Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when they are not speaking in the debate. This is in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give one another and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the cost of living in the UK.

I am delighted to have secured this debate today. It is very timely, and I honestly do not think that anything occupies the minds of constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran or indeed any other constituency more than this issue. It affects everyone. Everyone has noticed that their monthly outgoings are rising. Energy costs are up. Food prices are up. Fuel prices are up. Clothes prices are up. In that context, it is no surprise that consumer borrowing is also up, which will throw many into unsustainable debt as they struggle to keep up with essential bills. There can be no doubt that we are caught up in a genuine, biting cost of living crisis. It is simply not good enough that while our families, our communities and our pensioners are suffering, the Government are eating themselves alive over whether the Prime Minister knew he was actually at a party when he attended a party at the address where he lives.

I want to begin by saying a few words about the cost of energy. Gas and electricity bills are expected to rise significantly in April, when the energy price cap is predicted to reach £2,000 a year or £165 a month. That represents a 45% increase, although there are reports of even steeper rises. It is no wonder that National Energy Action believes that 6 million households will be in fuel poverty by April. That is a 50% increase from last year and it will hit hardest the poorest families, who spend most on energy as a proportion of their income. The reality is that wages are simply not keeping pace with the rise in the cost of living, as the Office for National Statistics has highlighted, with the Office for Budget Responsibility indicating that average real wages will be lower in 2026 than they were in 2008. Instead of a rising price cap, an emergency financial package must be introduced to support the most vulnerable and help families to cope during this crisis. The cost of living crisis is real and will only worsen as energy bills rise, alongside regressive tax hikes and inflation, pushing more and more people into poverty.

In addition the ending of the uplift to universal credit and working tax credit is imposing the biggest overnight cut to welfare in 70 years. The situation for too many of our constituents is critical. The changes to the universal credit taper rate are welcome, but they are not enough to help those who are struggling with this perfect storm of financial pressures. Let us not forget that apart from the suffering that the cut in universal credit will cause for those on low incomes, it will take £460 million out of Scotland’s economy. That money would be spent in local shops, stimulating local economies in communities in each and every town and city.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this vital debate. Behind those headline figures is a 30-year high in inflation. As she rightly stated, that disproportionately affects the poorest in our communities. Jack Monroe, known on Twitter as BootstrapCook, has written for The Guardian and referred to those real-life experiences. For example, a 500-gram bag of pasta that was 29p is 70p today. That is a 141% price increase. And it goes on and on and on. The hon. Member is right to point out that people on universal credit have had that massive cut of £1,000 a year or £20 a week. That money must be restored.

[Patricia Gibson]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the cut to universal credit is beyond words in its cruelty and its insensitivity to the struggles that real people face every day. It is a cruel irony that, just as the Scottish Government introduced the Scottish child payment, the UK Government chose to remove the £20 universal credit uplift across the UK—pulling the rug away from struggling households in Scotland. That example really crystallises a tale of two Governments.

Yesterday, I heard hon. Members in the main Chamber say, “If the SNP is so concerned about the cost of living crisis, it should do more in Scotland to support people who are suffering.” I say to the Minister that in Scotland the hated Tory bedroom tax—a tax, incidentally, that hits the disabled hardest—has been fully mitigated by the Scottish Government. I do not have time to mention all the support that the Scottish Government have brought in, using their own fixed budget, to support those who are suffering. It is deeply ironic that Members in this House talk about how the Scottish Government could do more when they are the very people who imposed the constraints that limit the Scottish Government’s powers to do just that. Give us the powers; if we have the powers, we will do more. The irony of calling for the Scottish Government to do more while tying their hands behind their back is well noted in Scotland.

However, the UK Government have a rich array of powers with which they could help to tackle this cost of living crisis—if the political will existed. They could introduce a real living wage. A real living wage would, as it says on the tin, relate to the cost of living—unlike the current, pretendy living wage. They could increase statutory sick pay, which is among the lowest in Europe. Unless the real living wage replaces the pretendy living wage, more and more people will find that they have less to live on as their pay is eroded by the rising cost of living.

The sad fact is that, shamefully, the UK has the highest poverty rate and the worst levels of inequality in all of north-west Europe, with 11.7% living in relative poverty. Around two thirds—68%—of working-age adults in poverty in the UK live in households with at least one adult working. That figure is at an all-time high. Poverty is driving unsustainable debt, with around 3.8 million households carrying an estimated £5.2 billion of arrears in household bills—a figure that has tripled since the start of the pandemic. People are borrowing more to pay for basics and essential bills.

Further, the Chancellor could cut VAT on energy bills and provide emergency loans to energy companies that are teetering on the brink. He could rule out a rise in the energy price cap and reintroduce the £20 per week uplift in universal credit. If the political will existed—and I fear that it does not—the UK Government could replicate the Scottish Government’s child payment across the UK.

As household energy bills soar, fuel costs are rising too. That does not just hit motorists hard; it also has a wider impact on industry because it pushes up the price of food, goods and services. Amid all the pain being suffered by our constituents and communities, we are approaching the highest tax burden since the early 1950s because of the national insurance hike. The consequences for our poorest could not be more stark; they could barely be more harsh. The national insurance hike means that workers earning as little as £10,000 will soon pay a national insurance rate of 14.25%, regardless of income. If student loan repayments are included, graduates earning just over £27,000 will pay a marginal tax rate of 42.25%—and the Tories call themselves the party of low taxation! All of that will act as a drag on recovery. UK consumer confidence is at its lowest level for 11 months, as people understandably worry about surging inflation, which is expected to rise to a staggering 7% by the spring.

It looks much bleaker when we factor in the Brexit effect, which I know the Government do not like to talk about, but let us do so for a minute. The Office for Budget Responsibility—the UK Government’s own forecaster—suggests that the worst is yet to come. Make UK is an organisation representing 20,000 manufacturers, and it has said that Brexit will undoubtedly add to soaring consumer costs this year. Squeezed supply chains are under pressure, with customs delays, border red tape and labour shortages, and additional costs ultimately borne by consumers.

Last month, as the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) indicated in his intervention, we saw £15 added to the average price of groceries. The rate of food price increases is set to increase further this year, just as the national insurance hike is set to bite into pay packets in April.

Let us not forget the promises that were made—the pictures that were painted of the sunny uplands—as we approached Brexit. We were told that VAT on energy bills would be scrapped. Now we are told we cannot do that because it would be a “blunt instrument”. We were told that the price of food would go down. In the wake of Brexit, this message slightly changed to there will be “adequate food”, but we see the price of food rising fast.

It seems that there is one rule for one and one rule for another. As the Minister will stand up and tell us, there are lots of reasons why he cannot do more, there are lots of reasons why the Government cannot do more and hard choices have to be made. In that context, I cannot help but remember the words of Lord Agnew yesterday when he talked about the £4.3 billion of covid loans conveniently written off by the Treasury. He said “arrogance, indolence and ignorance” were at the heart of Government and were freezing “the Government machine”. He said:

“Schoolboy errors…allowing more than 1,000 companies”

that were

“not even trading when Covid struck”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 January 2022; Vol. 818, c. 20.]

to have loans could not be justified. I wonder how much pain people like the ordinary man in the street would have been saved by a cash injection from the Treasury of £4.3 billion.

We cannot forget the poor deal for pensioners in this crisis. The WASPI women—the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—have already been left high and dry as their pension age was increased with little or no notice, throwing their retirement plans into chaos. I want to head off once again the allegation that if the SNP Government are so concerned, they can help the WASPI women. I simply quote that section 28 of the Scotland Act 2016 prevents the Scottish Government from providing support on reserved areas, including pensions assistance or assistance by reason of old age. Once again, we need to burst the myth that the Scottish Government can solve the WASPI problem. It is a problem of the Government’s own making and it is down to them to fix it. If the Scottish Government had the powers, we would be happy to do so with all the levers of an independent country.

Those who have finally reached state pension age now find they are being clobbered again as the triple lock has been abandoned—right in the middle of a cost of living crisis. State pensions have to keep pace with the cost of living, otherwise, we will see older people languishing in poverty as the threat of a rise in morbidity from the cold looms large this winter. I will say that again, because it is outrageous: there is an expectation this winter that the death from the cold among older people will rise. I do not even know what to say about that, it is so appalling.

Pensioner poverty has risen to a 15-year high under this Government’s watch as 985,065 pensioners have been directly impacted by the breaking of the triple lock, despite the fact that UK pensions are the least generous in north-west Europe. Not only are they the least generous but they have been clobbered by this Government in the middle of a cost of living crisis. It is simply not good enough for the Government to fiddle while households, pensioners and one in four children in the UK suffer poverty as a result of the choices the Government are making—and it is a result of the choices they are making. The cost of living crisis is not inevitable, although of course there are factors at play such as global energy challenges and the all-too-predictable consequences of Brexit driving up prices due to supply issues.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I am grateful that my hon. Friend mentioned energy prices. Does she agree that the UK Government’s penchant for reducing investment in onshore wind farms, as well as removing subsidies for offshore specifically in Scotland, undermines not only renewable energy but the production of the cheapest energy that this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can provide, which would otherwise lower energy costs for our constituents?

[Patricia Gibson]

Absolutely. That is yet another example of this Government’s skewed priorities—no joined-up thinking, no strategic thinking. Of course, at the moment, they are a Government who are not focused on governing, but are tearing themselves apart with their own internal struggles.

However, there is action that the Government can, and should, take to see people through this perfect storm of rising costs. To stand by and do nothing to alleviate this very real crisis while so many of our constituents across the UK suffer—including the Minister’s constituents—is not acceptable and, as I said, shows skewed priorities. It punishes those on low pay. It punishes those seeking work and pushes them further away from the job market, because poverty creates barriers to work that need not be there. Perhaps worst of all, it punishes those whose health prevents them from working. Among all that, it punishes the children in all the households that are struggling during these difficult times, because it blights their childhood with poverty. I can tell the Minister that the scars of childhood poverty do not easily heal and are never forgotten. If this Government wanted to, they could do more. They could use their powers for good, to protect and support those they are supposed to serve. I urge the Minister to make the case to his Government to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point with characteristic commitment and compassion. We on the Treasury Bench note that and will make sure that it gets through. The particular levy he talks about is to tackle the impact of the pandemic on the NHS and to face a challenge that has not been faced adequately across many decades—to tackle social care—but the points he makes have been noted.

Coming back to the national living wage, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) made some points about how we can move forward. Let me reassure her that the Low Pay Commission forecasts that the national living wage will reach £10 next year. That is consistent with the target for the national living wage to reach two thirds of median earnings by 2024. We will not stop at the 6.6% increase.

[Patricia Gibson]

I note the interesting comments from the Minister about the national living wage and the planned increases, which I am sure will be welcome, so far as they go. Do his Government have any plans to deal with the age discrimination that is baked into the national living wage, which is not really a living wage?

[David Rutley]

I know where the hon. Lady is coming from. The issue is that younger people typically and often do not face the same cost challenges as other older people, because they are able to share accommodation costs with others. I do not regard it as discrimination, but I acknowledge the different costs that people face.

Further support for working parents has been put in place, doubling free childcare for working parents to 30 hours and increasing the value of healthy start vouchers by over a third, to boost the long-term health of young children. We are investing over £200 million a year from this year to continue the holiday activities and food programme, which provides enriching activities and healthy meals to children in all English local authorities.

I have noted discussion, not just today but yesterday, on concerns about the cost of living. We recognise that those exist, particularly in the case of energy costs. However, let me remind hon. Members of the measures we have in place to combat the adverse effects of the increase in worldwide oil and gas prices, which is a reaction to demand surging after the pandemic and the effect that has had on the global economy and our own economy. The energy price cap will remain in place at least until the end of 2022, to protect millions of customers and ensure they pay a fair price for their energy. Despite the rising costs for said energy, Ofgem has confirmed that the cap will stay at the current level this winter.

Secondly, winter fuel payments will be made to over 11 million pensioners this winter, ensuring that older people have the security and dignity they deserve. Households with someone of state pension age will receive £200, and households with someone over 80 will receive £300. Thirdly, cold weather payments help vulnerable people in receipt of certain income-related benefits to meet the additional costs of heating during periods of unseasonably severe cold weather. That includes older people receiving pension credit and those receiving an income-based benefit with a disability component or where the household includes a child under five. In 2020-21, just over 4 million payments were made, at a cost of just over £100 million.

Finally, this Government are supporting 2.2 million low-income households by issuing a £140 rebate on their energy bills through the warm home discount, which is worth £354 million. From this year, proposed changes will increase the scheme by £121 million, to be worth £475 million a year, with nearly 3 million households receiving a £150 rebate. As I said at the start, we are working across Government—I reiterated this yesterday, as did my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—to determine the appropriate response to assist vulnerable people facing rising energy costs. We recognise that people will be facing unexpected challenges with essential household costs. That is why in October we introduced a £500 million support fund to assist vulnerable households across the country this winter. The £421 million household support fund in England has enabled local authorities to provide targeted support to households in need of help with the cost of food, utilities and wider essentials; and the devolved Administrations received a total of almost £80 million through the Barnett formula, with Scotland receiving £41 million of that. I am pleased to see that they have all used the money to help households this winter.

Beyond this package of support, some people are struggling with debt pressures. The Government work closely with the Money and Pensions Service, and the wider free-to-client debt advice sector, to provide access to high-quality debt advice. The service remains the biggest funder of free debt advice in England. The DWP also uses appropriate touchpoints to ensure that those in receipt of benefits are signposted quickly and directly to expert financial help. To help those people, the debt respite scheme, also known as Breathing Space, came into effect in England and Wales on 4 May 2021. That gives someone in problem debt the right to legal protections from creditor action.

It is important to place the cost of living challenges in context. Prices are rising in countries around the world. As the global economy recovers from the pandemic, consumer demand is surging at the same time as global supply chains are being disrupted. We recognise and understand the pressures that this is exerting on people’s wallets, and their worries as they see the cost of food, energy and other essentials increase. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—indeed, all of us in government—are listening to those concerns and watching what is happening in the markets. As has been shown during the pandemic, this Government will do what it takes to support those most in need. I can assure hon. Members that we are continuing to actively work across Government to build on the existing support, already available, and to determine the appropriate response to assist vulnerable people facing rising energy costs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

I did not expect a dramatic policy announcement from the Minister today, but I was hoping, and I think we were all hoping, for a change of tone to signify that more would be done. I was hoping that, even if the Minister could not be specific, he would make a commitment that more would be done; that this Government would look more carefully at what could be done for those at the sharp end of the cost of living crisis. We in Scotland understand that, to truly tackle the cost of living crisis, we need all the powers over tax and welfare. That is what is needed to properly address those challenges in order to build a fairer and more just society. For Scotland, it is clear from the Minister’s answer and from yesterday that we must take our future into our own hands and build the just, fairer and more equal society that people in Scotland actually want.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the cost of living in the UK.

Underpayment of Benefits: Compensation

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

I think I have highlighted what we are going to do in response to this particular situation. The hon. Gentleman makes some other points about what we are doing on food security and for those vulnerable people. As he knows, we have created an additional support fund—in England, it is called the household support fund—of £500 million across the UK. A chunk of that money—around £21 million, from memory; it is over £20 million anyway—has gone to Wales, and the Welsh Government are using it to help vulnerable people. We recognise that there are people who need further support.

On universal basic income, people who have tried that out—ask the Finnish Government—said that it is not the way forward; it is untargeted and does not provide a work incentive. I do not think it is the way forward. Of course, we can always improve our welfare approaches, but that is not the approach that would help.

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

The Minister has said that we are talking about some of the most vulnerable people, so does he not think it shameful that 42% of families relying on disability benefits are still living in poverty? Can he tell us what long-term strategy his Government have to address that and lift those families out of poverty? Will he make sure that the DWP will permanently continue virtual and telephone health assessments to help remove some of the barriers for disabled people who need the support? Often, that is the most stressful part of the entire process of claiming support.

[David Rutley]

More needs to be done to make those processes simpler. Again, this specific area is not part of my portfolio or brief, but we have made significant progress in getting disabled people into work, and we want to move that forward with the disability strategy and a clear action plan. I know that my colleague the Minister for Disabled People will actively drive that forward across the nations, and will work very closely on that with the Scottish Government as well.

Supporting Single Parents into Work

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Dr Huq]

It is great that the hon. Lady has been to her local job club in a church; I have been to mine and I would advise all hon. Members to do the same. The figures are encouraging, but there is often a “but” hanging around. I will come on to part time and full time; she has slightly anticipated what I will say.

As I said, single parents are more likely to work part time: some 50% of them work part time compared with 25% of coupled parents. I thank Gingerbread, which arose from the film “Cathy Come Home” and is the main pressure group on these issues. Throughout the pandemic, it has undertaken four research projects: in December, February and May—and there is an ongoing one. The previous projects looked at debt and poverty, and the current one is a longitudinal study of qualitative interviews funded by Standard Life. It is due in September 2022, but I have some of the findings and I will draw on them.

Gingerbread found that the unemployment rate of 12% for single parents is double that for main carers in couples—the non-single-parent variety. The labour force survey does not completely capture the effects of the end of furlough, because it is published three months behind, so that will be interesting to see.

I will turn to the number of single parents on universal credit since the pandemic. As we know, universal credit is an in-work benefit paid a month in arrears. It causes a whole load of problems and its rate was recently cruelly slashed.

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

The hon. Lady is perhaps about to tell us that a child of a single parent family is much more likely to grow up in poverty. She also pointed out that single parents are much more likely to work part time. In view of that, does she agree that it is important for young single parents to have the same standard allowance for universal credit as parents over 25 years old?

[Dr Huq]

Yes, the hon. Lady makes a very good point. There are a lot of anomalies with universal credit; I think our last manifesto said to do away with it because it is not fit for purpose. The differential rates are not fair on the children. We called our group the all-party parliamentary group on single parent families because it is about the families and is not just a parent support club.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Patricia Gibson]

Does the hon. Lady agree that as well as the measures she is talking about, organisations such as the Department for Work and Pensions and the child maintenance service need to get better and more robust at supporting single parents who are fleeing domestic abuse?

[Dr Huq]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. One sad by-product of the pandemic is the rise in domestic abuse, with people locked up at home more. Yes, those organisations need proper domestic awareness training and to be sympathetic; they tend to have very much a “computer says no” mentality. In the civil service—the Minister’s officials might know about this—job sharing is incentivised, and there is even a register of jobs. Perhaps we could universalise that across all workplaces.

I have not had time to go into the mental health issues that we have seen post pandemic, or rocketing food bank use. Pre-pandemic, the UN rapporteur on extreme poverty, Philip Alston, found that 14.2 million of our fellow citizens are in extreme poverty. Who knows where that is now? With safety nets such as furlough and the £20 uplift now gone, single parents and their children are more vulnerable than ever to being pushed into poverty. Gingerbread estimates that 1.1 million single parents will be hit by the loss of the uplift, losing £1 billion over the next 12 months. Remember: the Government used to champion the just about managing. They need to do so again.

The APPG’s point is that all families matter. That is why we champion single-parent families. We heard from Adrian Chiles, Robert Peston and Shappi Khorsandi, and we would love one day to welcome that well-known opposition politician and son of a single parent, Marcus Rashford, to our APPG. We live in hope. We want to show that it is not always only the man from the Ministry who should make policy; some things get flagged as anomalies, but the single mum at the school gates often knows best. As we steer out of this pandemic, although the Government go on about the plan for jobs, they need to address the 1.8 million single parents—a quarter of all households. That really would be levelling up.

Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th November 2021 Commons Chamber

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

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. This debate has to finish at 6.51 pm and I intend to bring the Minister in at about 6.46, so I ask the two remaining speakers to take about six minutes each.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

When we first debated the changes to the triple lock in September, the Secretary of State suggested we take advice from my friend the former Pensions Minister, Steve Webb—with whom I speak from time to time, the Secretary of State, who is now in her place, and the Minister will be happy to know. We usually do so when he is highlighting cases of people having lost out on entitlements due to failures in DWP systems.

As well as holding the DWP portfolio for my party, I am here to serve the interests of my constituents and I can tell Members that I have not received a single email or letter supporting the suspension of the triple lock. I have, however, received email after email asking me to fight to maintain it and pointing out that our state pension is already the lowest in Europe, with people worrying how they are going to make ends meet this coming winter.

On Second Reading, the Secretary of State told us this suspension was to deal with a one-off anomaly caused by the pandemic. I wonder whether she or the Minister actually engaged with the Prime Minister on this in advance of Second Reading, because his comments on the subject do not align with that argument. The Prime Minister has told a very different story, where quickly rising wages are not just desirable but an intended outcome of Brexit. So I have to ask: whose explanation should Parliament believe on these wage increases? Do the Minister and the Secretary of State align with the Prime Minister on this now and if so why are the Government intent on leaving pensioners behind, far too many of whom are already on or below the poverty line?

I am happy to support the Bill as it has returned to us from the other place, which has worked admirably across the Benches to find this compromise. The Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), reminded us in his considered contribution that this is not just about pensioners now; it is about the young, people who cannot get on to the housing ladder and whose wages have been suppressed. We in this place need to ensure that the decisions we make about pensions now give people the reassurance in future that there will be a sustainable state pension for them to live on. The Bill in its current form acknowledges the distortions to the labour market caused by the pandemic, but also acknowledges that inflation is rising. Under that Bill, pensioners will be able to keep the heat on and afford their weekly shop.

I acknowledge that the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) at least tried to justify the Government’s position this evening, but I note that no other Conservative Back Bencher has had the appetite to do so. There is a simple choice before the House today. I cannot support the Government’s amendments, which will cause such harm to so many.

[Patricia Gibson]

I rise to support Lords amendments 1 and 2. The Tory Government’s abandonment of the link between earnings and pensions, smashing the triple-lock manifesto commitment, is truly disgraceful. We are told this is necessary because this year’s earnings measure is “skewed and distorted”. There are many things swirling around Westminster that are skewed and distorted, but the triple lock is not one of them. The UK Government commitment to the triple lock remains, we have been told today by the Minister, but he will understand that that assurance is met with widespread scepticism because today he is here to tell us why their breaking the triple lock must proceed.

We in the SNP tabled an amendment to this Bill requiring the Secretary of State to assess, and be held accountable on, the impact that the legislation would have on levels of poverty among pensioners in each of the devolved nations. It was shamefully voted down by the Tories, and Labour abstained, which it will have to justify to pensioners across the UK. Pensioners across the UK, and certainly in Scotland, have been watching carefully and will not easily forgive that betrayal.

This Government have not listened to pensioners and they have not listened to Members of this House who have defended the triple lock. I doubt they will listen to the Lords either, but I sincerely hope the Minister will prove me wrong.

We have been told today by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) that this would be “reckless” with taxpayers’ money. I find that insulting and wrong-headed, as will many of my constituents. What we have heard shows that the fiscal restraint we are told is necessary is being balanced on the back of pensioners, such as those in my constituency. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) about how money can always be found, and we need only look at the DUP deal to see that. Money can be found when it is considered necessary.

Politics is about choices and choosing to break promises. Hard commitments made to pensioners about the triple lock are being broken. We are watching and our constituents are watching and they do not approve. The Government tell us that wages are rising, as we have heard, and we know that inflation is rising, so what justification is there to break the triple lock—to change the goalposts in the middle of the game?

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Not only are the Government breaking their manifesto commitment and doing away with the triple lock, but already pensioners—our constituents—are in receipt of one of the lowest state pensions in the whole of Europe. Does my hon. Friend share my confusion that Conservative Members often seem to think that the current state pension is an argument for the Union, as if, if Scotland were independent, it would be even worse?

[Patricia Gibson]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that one of the so-called Union dividends is a pension that is a pithy amount compared with those in other developed nations.

There is genuine fear that this abandonment of the triple lock will lead to permanent and more damaging actions against pensioner incomes. The state pension is by far the largest source of income for millions of UK pensioners, and the triple lock has kept that secure throughout the pandemic. To break it now, as inflation creeps up and the cost of living becomes increasingly challenging, is a shocking attack on pensioner incomes, and it is part of a wider and increasingly obvious narrative from this Government. It is crystal clear, because we have the evidence. We know that women born in the 1950s had their pension age increased with little or no notice; we have seen unacceptable state pension payment delays for new retirees, causing genuine financial hardship and suffering; we have more than 2 million older people living in poverty; and with the triple lock abandoned, many pensioners are set to be £520 less well off next year. All of that will do untold damage to pensioners.

I again urge the Government to stop attacking pensioner incomes and at least keep one of their promises to the electorate by retaining the triple lock and preventing more of our pensioners from suffering hardship in old age. There is an opportunity today to do the right thing. The Government must take this opportunity, and they must take it with good grace.

[Guy Opperman]

I thank all colleagues for their contributions. The factual reality of the situation is that this Government are spending £129 billion on pensioners. That is £105 billion on the state pension and £24 billion extra on the various add-ons for pensioners, including winter fuel; free eye tests; bus passes; free NHS, obviously; pension credit—I could go on in great detail. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) asked whether the triple lock will return. I can assure him that that is the case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

The thing that has impressed me the most since taking on this ministerial responsibility is the sheer enthusiasm of our work coaches. I definitely recommend that my right hon. Friend’s constituents speak to the work coaches to find out what opportunities are available to them, particularly through skills and through restart, to get involved in new sectors through the sector-based work academy programme. Huge opportunities are available for people, and they need to be explored.

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

13. What steps her Department is taking to tackle levels of poverty among pensioners.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)]

15. What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the state pension in tackling levels of poverty among pensioners; and if she will make a statement.

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

Since 2010, the full yearly amount of the basic state pension has risen by more than £2,050. Latest figures show that 200,000 fewer pensioners are in absolute poverty after housing costs compared with 2009-10.

[Patricia Gibson]

With women born in the 1950s having their pension age increased with little or no notice, with state pension payments delayed, causing real financial distress, with more than 2 million older people living in poverty, and with the triple lock abandoned with many pensioners set to be £520 worse off next year, to what extent is the Minister proud of this Government’s record of standing up for pensioners?

[Guy Opperman]

The hon. Lady will be aware that the triple lock has raised the state pension and that this year’s decision is a temporary one, for one year only. In respect of her campaign for 1950s-born women, that matter was decided in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. If Scotland wishes to take action on this, there are various sections of the Scotland 2016 that she could address herself to.

Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading
Monday 20th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[David Linden]

I do not seek to detain the Committee for long, not least because I spoke on Second Reading and because there are only two amendments before us.

In speaking to my new clause 2, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends, I also offer support to new clause 1, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). In truth, the two new clauses, although worded differently, seek to do much the same thing: hold the Tory Government’s feet to the fire, not simply allow them to stick their head in the sand when it comes to pensioner poverty.

I bitterly regret that the Bill got a Second Reading, particularly with the help of Scottish Tory MPs, but as the Bill will soon be an Act, it is now incumbent on us to ensure that at least Ministers fully understand the sheer impact of such bad legislation on our constituents and the consequences of this Government’s ditching yet another manifesto pledge to pensioners about the triple lock.

[Patricia Gibson]

Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment with the Minister, who talked earlier about how the Scottish Government should top up the income that pensioners would be deprived of? The Minister knows full well—if he does not, it is worrying— that section 28 of the Scotland Act 2016 forbids the Scottish Government from topping up pensioners’ benefits except

“by reason of old age.”

I am sure that the Minister is well aware of that.

Does my hon. Friend also share my view that rather than expecting the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to continually clean up the injustices of this Government, we would be far better off having all the powers to prevent injustices in the first place?

[David Linden]

I would caution the Minister that my hon. Friend, a former teacher, is not someone whose office or classroom he would want to be summoned to for a telling off. She has quite eloquently set him right on what I am sure was inadvertent misleading of the Committee.

I will return to new clause 2, because I would not want to stray too far from matters before the Committee. My new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before the House an assessment of the impact on levels of poverty of the uprating of state pensions next year by price inflation instead of earnings growth.

During the Brexit referendum, we were repeatedly told that Parliament would be taking back control. My new clause would merely require Ministers to be transparent and lay before Parliament an impact assessment of poverty, which I am sure any responsible Government would undertake. If indeed Parliament is taking back control, I am sure that agreeing to the new clause will be no problem at all for the Minister; I therefore hope that he will not oppose it. I commend new clause 2 to the Committee.

Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 20th September 2021 Commons Chamber

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

Finally, in this Bill, it is official: the Government will break their triple-lock promise to pensioners. The state pension will not increase with earnings in 2022-23 after all. Well, well, well: we can hardly be surprised. The betrayal of the commitment to the triple lock can be filed under the same heading as the broken pledge not to raise national insurance and the pledge to maintain the commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on development.

Those broken pledges fly in the face of yet another pledge from the Prime Minister:

“to restore trust in our institutions and in how our democracy operates.”—[Official Report, 15 January 2020; Vol. 669, c. 1019.]

I wonder whether anybody on the Treasury Bench can tell me how that is going. We are discussing the Elections Bill later this evening, but we do not need to look at that to see what restoring trust is worth. With the contents of the Elections Bill, even the Government realised that the assault on democracy that that constitutes meant they could not call it the electoral integrity Bill any more, because that really would be taking the mickey.

This particular broken pledge of abandoning the triple lock is an attack on the largest source of income for UK pensioners, on which they rely. Recent indications show that the number of pensioners living in poverty is rising. I wonder whether those on the Government Benches can even begin to imagine the anger, fury and sense of betrayal of those women born in the 1950s, some of whom have only just qualified for their state pension after so many years of being robbed of it, only to find a new betrayal—the abandonment of the triple lock. That is why SNP Members seek to require the Secretary of State to assess and to be held accountable for the impact that this legislation will have on poverty among pensioners in each of our constituencies. I will stand up for pensioners in North Ayrshire and Arran, just as all of my SNP colleagues will stand up for pensioners in their respective constituencies. This is what we have committed to do and that is what we will do.

It is a cause for shame that this cut is taking place fully in the context of the fact that we in the UK have the lowest levels of proportion of pre-retirement wages of all our European neighbours. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) pointed out, UK pensioners receive about a quarter of the average working wage when they retire, whereas pensioners in Austria and Luxembourg receive 90% of the average working wage. When will the UK Government devote a percentage of GDP to pensioner benefits that is similar to that in other advanced economies?

The other element to this scandal is that it takes place in the context of too many workers being excluded from automatic enrolment into workplace pensions. The failure to extend that impacts low earners and disproportionately impacts women, widening further the gender pensions gap. Why has that not been fully addressed?

The state pension remains an important source of income for pensioners living in or at risk of poverty because of the very low uptake of pension credit. I ask those on the Treasury Bench: what steps have been taken to increase uptake of pension credit—something I first raised four years ago? What has been done about that? I suspect—I fear—that nothing has been done about it. So much for levelling up.

The Government say they are breaking the triple-lock pledge because this year’s earnings measure is “skewed and distorted”. Well, I have heard people say the same thing about this Government’s priorities. Age UK has expressed real concern that this may not just be a one-off measure but a sneaky way of ditching the triple lock altogether. That might explain why there has been no impact assessment. Where is the impact assessment, given we have 2 million pensioners living in poverty and the triple lock is abandoned? That is a staggering oversight and complacency on stilts towards pensioner poverty.

For all those reasons, I support the reasoned amendment from the Scottish National party. This cut, falling on pensioners, will push more pensioners into poverty. The Government know that. The cut disadvantages women, who are more likely to be poorer in retirement. The Government know that. It is yet another kick in the teeth for WASPI women. Just like with the universal credit cut, this Government are imposing cuts that they know will cause real financial distress, but they go ahead anyway. What does that tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, about their vision of society? The only conclusion that can be drawn is that they do not care about the people they are supposed to serve. No other conclusion can be drawn. This Government have no interest in the greater good, only in sectional interests. That is why inequality is rising and will continue to rise. No wonder support for independence is rising. Increasingly, the people of Scotland want no more of this Government. Scotland needs a Government who govern for all the people with all the powers of an independent country. That is what the people of Scotland will choose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

I am not going to repeat the points I have made, but I manifestly disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. I would point out that we could add on the £24 billion of top-ups that this Government put forward over and above the £105 billion of state pension, so with respect we are in disagreement. There is also a significant degree of support for winter fuel, NHS prescriptions, free eye tests, the over-75s free TV licence and a variety of other matters.

[Patricia Gibson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Guy Opperman]

No, not for the moment.

SNP Members raised many points, and I want to address them. No mention was made, surprisingly, of the powers under sections 24, 26 and 28 of the Scotland Act 2016, which give the Scottish Government the ability to intervene on such matters, should they wish to do so, including the WASPI matters. No mention was made in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), who asked what currency an independent Scottish pension would be paid in. No mention was made of the ability to pay Scottish pensions upon independence, because of course answer there is none.

Reference was made to pension credit take-up, and I want to address the points made.

[Patricia Gibson]

rose—

[Guy Opperman]

I am about to answer the points the hon. Lady raised specifically, if she will bear with me.

Pension credit take-up was raised. We are doing a variety of things on that, including the pension credit awareness day in June, the engagement with the BBC—I met its chief executive only last week—the stakeholder roundtable in May, and the working group established with all the key partners in this matter, let alone the various other ways in which we have changed things and the over 11 million communications to pensioners up and down the country. The Government are proud of their record.

Universal Credit and Working Tax Credits

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are still 3 million people on legacy benefits. We estimate that about half of those people would be better off on universal credit and that a significant number of people would see no change, yet the scare stories and the fear that the Opposition generated are why people are still not transitioning across the system. They will do just that now, because this Parliament voted to end legacy benefits; it voted to have universal credit, so we are still, through our action programme, going to move people across to universal credit. I am with my hon. Friend that many people would actually and substantially be almost certainly better off if they moved. For those people, we have to have a managed migration. We have, of course, already put in place a transitional payment.

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

The Secretary of State said a moment ago that we are spreading scare stories. Can I say to her—she may wish to comment on this—that talking about the very real impact of losing £20 per week for people who are already struggling is not a scare story, but reality?

[Dr Coffey]

I recognise what the hon. Lady says. I am talking about the fact that universal credit has been demonised ever since it was introduced, yet people on legacy benefits—about half of them, we believe—would be financially better off if they moved over to universal credit, regardless of the £20. A significant proportion more would see no change to their financial income. People are scared to move over and that is why there is a missed opportunity for them to access some of the support we have today.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

My hon. and learned Friend is right to place on record the impact of the pandemic on not just young people but women in particular, especially older women. On Monday we will have before us a Bill that suspends the triple lock; that is another betrayal of a manifesto commitment from the Conservatives—something that may not come as a surprise to those of us on these Benches.

I want to emphasise the sheer number of organisations that are campaigning for this uplift to be kept in place. One hundred organisations, including charities, children’s doctors, public health experts and research groups, have signed a letter calling on the Prime Minister to abandon the plans to cut universal credit. One such signatory was Bright Blue, a Conservative think-tank; some on the Government Benches are members of that very think-tank. We have also seen a letter signed by no fewer than six previous Conservative Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions who have condemned the proposed cuts. All the devolved Governments have also called for the £20 uplift to remain.

Analysis by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that more than a third of working-age families in 413 parliamentary constituencies will be hit by the cut. Of those, 191 are represented by Tory MPs. The Scottish Conservative MPs on the Benches opposite me—if they have bothered to turn up for the debate—will know the consequences of the universal credit cut that they plan to reaffirm tonight. They know the statistics; they know the threat of poverty that hangs over their constituents; and yet they do not care.

In Moray, 6,110 households will be at risk of sliding into poverty. If he does not vote for the motion tonight, the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) clearly does not care. In West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, 3,620 households will be going into winter facing harsh decisions between heating and eating. If he does not vote for the motion tonight, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) does not care. In Banff and Buchan, 6,280 households will have to face relying on foodbanks to feed themselves this winter. If he does not vote for the motion tonight, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), does not care. In Dumfries and Galloway, 8,190 households will experience huge anxiety and worry over their financial futures, which will take an immense toll on their mental health. If he does not vote for the motion tonight, the right hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack) , does not care.

In Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, 7,150 households will have their incomes slashed by £1,040, a figure that has become increasingly necessary during the difficult months of the pandemic. If he does not vote for the motion tonight, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) does not care. In Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, 6,050 households will be victims of this heartless Tory austerity policy, which will cement poverty and inequality in that community for years to come. If he does not vote for the motion tonight, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) does not care. It will be clear that the Scottish Conservatives do not care about some of the most vulnerable people in our constituencies.

[Patricia Gibson]

My hon. Friend has set out a powerful series of facts. Given what he has just said, does he agree that it is interesting that the Tories in the Scottish Parliament make great play of trying to address the attainment gap, something which cannot be done as long as children are living in poverty? The House of Commons Library tells us that inequality in Britain has been the worst in north-west Europe in every year of the 21st century for which figures are available.

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the difference between what the Conservatives say in the Scottish Parliament and what they do—that is, in Westminster, probably not vote for this motion tonight. Of course, there is a wider question: what is the purpose of devolution? Is it meant to be a sticking plaster for bad social security policy coming out of Westminster? The Scottish Government can introduce measures such as the game-changing Scottish child payment, and can go further and double that, but if the Government vote for this cut tonight, it will mean that the Scottish child payment is essentially nullified, and that will be in the hands of Scottish Conservative MPs.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Some 10,406 of my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran, where one in three children lives in poverty, will be negatively impacted by the cut. The Government are willing to impose such a cruel cut when they know the severe consequences that it will have for those on whom it will fall.

That tells us the vision that the Tories have for society. It is a vision of a society in which the disabled should be punished for having an extra bedroom through the bedroom tax, which the Scottish Government fully mitigated; a society in which the local housing allowance is frozen, which is why the Scottish Government invested £80 million in discretionary housing payments; a society that is relaxed about child poverty, while the Scottish Government introduced the Scottish child payment for those on the lowest incomes.

But the Scottish Government, with their limited powers, cannot mitigate every single cruel cut imposed on Scotland by a Tory Government who were roundly rejected by the people of Scotland. That is why we need all the powers of an independent country: to protect our people from Tory Government cuts that we did not vote for and that we reject. When the time comes, soon, the people of Scotland will make their voices heard. They will make their own decision, take their future into their own hands and look after their own families—and they will vote for independence.

Gender Pension Gap

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Monday 19th April 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I am delighted to have secured this important debate on the gender pension gap, which stands at a shameful 40.3%—more than double the gender pay gap of 17.3%. That is truly shocking, and I hope that the debate will both highlight this terrible inequality and perhaps persuade the UK Government to take some fairly straightforward measures to address it if they are truly committed to pension justice and equality.

We are all aware of the justifications for women’s state pension age being raised, but equalising state pension ages is very different from pension equality. We could simply throw our hands in the air and exclaim that women have always had lower pensions than men, and that is just the way it is, but it need not be this way. It is simply unacceptable that all types of pension provision—whether state pensions, workplace pensions or private pensions—inherently discriminate against women. If they choose to do so, the UK Government could tackle this and thereby tackle the poverty that too many women face in old age. This can wait no longer, as an increasing proportion of women are simply not able to rely on their partner’s income in retirement, and nor should they be required to.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend most sincerely on securing the debate. The average woman in her 20s in the UK will have to work almost 40 years longer than her male counterpart to build up the same pension. Indeed, a female saver can expect to have £100,000 less in retirement savings thanks to time taken out of the workplace to raise children. In the previous debate, the Government spoke an awful lot about levelling up. Does she agree that, if the Government are serious about levelling up, the first thing they could do is tackle the injustice of the gender pension gap?

[Patricia Gibson]

Absolutely. I know that the Minister will be listening intently, and I hope he will take away the reasonable and straightforward suggestions that I will make this evening, so that we can truly level up in the way that the Government say they want to.

Women born in the 1950s—WASPI women, or Women Against State Pension Inequality—have suffered hugely as their state pension age was accelerated, giving them insufficient time to prepare for retirement. Despite the clamour of outrage, the Government have refused to do anything to address the hardship caused to the women affected. I wish I could say that that policy decision was the only one that targets women in retirement. I wish this was the only measure I could find that has transformed retirement into a time of financial uncertainty and fiscal pressure for women. Sadly, it is a mere continuation of policy choices that have contributed to—indeed, exacerbated—the gender pension gap under which too many women now labour.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady, myself and others in this Chamber have supported the WASPI women the whole way through. Does she agree that there is not only a legal obligation but a moral obligation to deliver for them and that the WASPI women in our constituencies who have contacted us deserve to know that the battle has not ended for them?

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is impossible, in all conscience, to have any debate about pensions and not mention the plight and difficulties into which the WASPI women have been thrust. Indeed, it would be remiss not to mention them and to pay tribute to the dignified campaign that they have fought and continue to fight.

Let us take pension credit as an example. The uptake of pension credit is only around 60%—a matter that I have raised repeatedly over the years in the House, urging the UK Government to do more to improve uptake. Doing so could play an important part in helping to close the gender pension gap, since women are much more likely to need to rely on pension credit, which is additional support for the poorest pensioners, as their lifetime earnings tend to be lower than men’s. However, the so-called triple lock on state pensions does not apply to pension credit. This means that the poorest pensioners, who tend to be women, do not have the same income protection as those pensioners who are better off.

In addition to this gender penalty, the very lowest earners, who we know tend to be women—I keep saying it because it bears repeating—are excluded from building credit on their state pension. Those who have a job earning below the lower earnings threshold get no credit for their state pension at all, and that applies even if a person has more than one job. This exclusion disproportionately hits women hard as they are more likely to be in part-time work. When the Minister gets to his feet, I hope that he will explain why this stubborn inflexibility in the national insurance system has not been addressed and when we can expect this pitfall—that is what it is—to be removed, as it contributes to the impoverishment of women in retirement. The lower earnings threshold should be abolished so that all workers can claim credit for state pension, no matter the level of their earnings.

The gender pension gap is exacerbated in all sorts of sneaky and labyrinthine ways, some of which most women do not know about due to the arcane nature of the system. The UK Government could fix many of these problems almost at a stroke; why this has not happened is curious.

For example, even if a woman is not currently in paid work, if she claims child benefit for a child under 12, she will get national insurance credit towards her state pension, and is treated as though she has contributed to national insurance while she claims that child benefit, when her state pension is calculated. Even if her partner’s earnings deem her ineligible for child benefit, she needs to apply in order to get national insurance credit. Who knew?

If a woman finds out subsequently about this rather silly and pointless method of gender discrimination—well, too bad. She cannot backdate her claim. In addition, research has shown that huge numbers of women simply do not know how child benefit claims affect their state pension calculation. And who could blame them? It would be fairly simple for the UK Government to address this by allowing all women who are looking after their children to claim state pension credit. Why not? What is the obstacle to this change, which could play a part in reducing the shameful gender pension gap?

Let me turn to the issue of temporarily leaving the workforce to look after children adversely impacting on a woman’s pension. Workplace pensions discriminate against women, who tend to earn less and to have interrupted careers, meaning that they are active in the workplace for fewer years than men. This means that their workplace pensions are lower, as well as their state pensions. This could be mitigated if the Government introduced a family carer’s top-up, whereby the Government would pay the equivalent of the employer’s contribution—at least at the level of minimum wage—into women’s pensions if they are taking time out as carers. This would equate to around £820 per year and would boost pension outcomes for women by 20% if they took 10 years out of the workforce to undertake caring responsibilities and return to the workforce thereafter. Importantly, research shows that this could close half the pension wealth gap that is created by taking time out of work to care for others—so far, so good.

It was always traditionally the case that women were forced to leave company pensions if they married or switched to part-time working. I have lost count of the number of WASPI women who have told me that they were forced out of occupational pension provisions when they married. However, we know that women also tended to be less likely even to be offered an occupational pension in the first place due to the types of jobs women traditionally did. Again, we have inherent bias against women’s workplace pensions.

We also need to remember that some workplace pensions do not aggregate women’s pensions following maternity leave. Not merging periods of pension service means that women have a reduced pension when they retire, relative to their male counterparts. Surely it cannot be beyond the wit of this Government to regulate pension provision so that women’s pension rights can be preserved whilst caring responsibilities are attended to?

If this litany of how women get a raw pension deal and suffer institutional bias seems to be long, I am afraid it is set to become longer still, because we have not yet considered auto-enrolment. This much-heralded programme to ensure all employers provide workplace pensions leaves out, ignores and simply does not take into account millions of women.

How can that be? It is actually very simple. Those who earn less than £10,000—again, disproportionately women of course—do not benefit from auto-enrolment and therefore do not benefit from their employer’s pension contribution. Again, it does not matter if someone has two part-time jobs, because if each pays below £10,000, they miss out on auto-enrolment and the employer’s contribution to the pension.

New research from the Pensions Policy Institute shows that almost half of single mothers are currently ineligible for auto-enrolment—almost half. Does the Minister think that is acceptable? What will he do to persuade his Government to remove the £10,000 earnings limit for auto-enrolment so that the threshold can be reduced to the very first pound earned? When one considers the part that that measure alone could play in helping to reduce the gender pay gap, I can think of no good reason not to do it.

If that was not bad enough, those who are auto-enrolled into their workplace pension are often forced to pay an additional 25% for their pensions if they earn between £10,000 and £12,000. Again, that situation tends to affect women disproportionately and is due to the type of pension an employer may use, which operates on a net pay basis. That means that the employee has to pay extra to their pension provider instead of receiving the tax relief they could have in a different type of pension scheme, such as a relief at source scheme. Sadly, it seems that most employers use the net pay scheme, so contributions are collected before tax.

However, if the relief at source scheme were used, women would benefit from an additional £8,000 in their pensions over their working lives. We have, quite frankly, a disgraceful situation in which women, who are most in need of help in building up their pension pots, are forced to pay more, usually without knowledge of how they are being financially penalised. If we want pension equality, why are the Government not legislating so that employers and pension providers ensure workers are enrolled into schemes that will qualify for tax relief?

If, after all that, a woman finds herself widowed, her late husband’s life annuity will probably not provide her with any income, meaning that after the shock of being widowed many women are thrown into poverty, financially unprotected. Similarly, if a woman is divorced, she may find herself in poverty in retirement. Indeed, she is more likely to do so. It seems clear that there are institutional, inherent, ingrained and unfair barriers to women being able properly and fairly to build up a pension pot that will offer them protection from poverty in their later years.

The obstacles, problems and barriers have been set out clearly tonight, and the Minister has been listening to the potential solutions. I urge him to respond to each barrier and to indicate what his Government will do to address the shocking and unacceptable gender pension gap that exposes women to poverty and hardship in their later years, because it does not have to be this way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, because I am coming to that specific issue. He will be aware that we conducted a review of automatic enrolment and that we are committed to implementing its findings by the mid-2020s. We intend to remove the lower earnings limit, which will benefit low earners, and for the first time everyone will get an employer contribution from their very first pound of earnings if they are enrolled or opt in. That will improve the incentive to save, especially for women and those individuals working part-time in multiple jobs. In addition, the review also proposed extending eligibility to those aged 18, which will support younger people with the opportunity to start saving earlier for a more secure retirement. Clearly, there is a benefit in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for example, 7,000 people are currently automatically enrolled, and thanks are due to the thousands of employers who are supporting them in that process.

[Patricia Gibson]

While the Minister is talking about auto-enrolment, will he say whether he has any concerns about the issue I outlined about the employer using the net pay basis, instead of the relief at source scheme, so that tax relief can be earned?

[Guy Opperman]

The hon. Lady raised the RAS—relief at source—issue, which is a legitimate one. It is a matter governed by the Treasury. Obviously, I speak for all the Government, so I can try to address that point. She may have missed it, but in the Budget the Government announced a call for evidence on pensions tax relief administration, in line with the Conservative Government’s manifesto commitment to review comprehensively relief at source tax arrangements. The call for evidence is now closed and the Treasury is continuing to analyse the responses to it. The Treasury will, in the usual way, respond and publish its response shortly. Although the hon. Lady legitimately and rightly raises a matter that, to be fair, is also in the Conservative party manifesto as an issue to be addressed, the Treasury is addressing and has the matter in hand.

I will briefly touch on the very important issue of the self-employed. We remain committed to developing effective, durable retirement solutions for the self-employed. We commenced trialling a research programme in 2019-20 to test differing approaches aimed at improving retirement savings for self-employed people, looking at the role of behavioural messages and saving mechanisms using financial digital platforms. Some of those trials were paused during the covid pandemic for obvious reasons, but the work is done such that we hope to recommence trials this summer. We are also specifically working with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to incorporate self-employed pension solutions into the Making Tax Digital programme that HMRC is rolling out, which I believe will genuinely assist the issue in relation to the self-employed.

Turning to the desire to make pensions simpler, more understandable and more practical, we are taking several measures to address that. In particular, the House will be aware of the pensions dashboard, which we took through in the Pension Schemes Act 2021. We are also driving forward the two-page annual pensions benefit statement, which will take the dozens of pages that were very hard to comprehend and make them into a simple two-page statement. We believe simplicity is key. We want all savers to be easily able to understand their pensions savings, so they can plan for the retirement they want. We believe that communications should be designed with savers’ needs in mind to encourage such engagement. Effective engagement will require a continued partnership between the various providers—the Government, the advisory community and the savers in the longer term.

I also want to outline to the House—I believe it is relevant to this debate—the pilot projects that we are conducting up and down the country on the midlife MOT. This builds on the work of the private sector, in particular Aviva and others, looking particularly at interventions between the ages of 45 to 50. Effectively, it is looking at wealth, work and wellbeing. We have committed several hundred thousand pounds to a number of pilot projects from Cornwall to the north-east and all across the country to ensure that there is a piloting of particular interventions to try to get people engaged with their pensions at an earlier stage and to see whether real differences can be made. I thank the Financial Conduct Authority for meeting me on this issue today as we try to drive forward this innovative change.

The hon. Lady also raised the state pension and a number of issues in respect of it. She will be aware that the state pension has never been higher in this country. When we came into government, it was barely £66 billion in 2009-10. It is now approximately £100 billion-plus. There is a well over £1,000 real-terms increase by reason of the triple lock. Clearly, pension credit has increased as well. She will also be aware that our reforms have seen the gap reduced between the state pensions of men and women. The new state pension system, introduced by one of my predecessors, corrects some of the historic inequalities of the previous system. Over 3 million women stand to receive an average of £550 more per year by 2030. The state pension outcomes are expected to equalise more than a decade earlier than they would have under the old system. We believe that the new state pension, introduced from 2016, gives equal value to national insurance contributions and credits, providing access to the same level of entitlement for all. There is also a comprehensive framework of credits available when people are out of the workforce, for example caring for children or elderly relatives. This will protect people’s state pension position for those periods.

We have introduced the “Check your state pension forecast” service, which I strongly recommend. There is also a desire for everyone to find out whether filling any gaps will increase their payments when they reach state pension age. In particular, that should be done in respect of gaps since 2016, because filling in the gaps, by either receiving credits or making voluntary national insurance contributions, could increase state pension.

The hon. Lady raised a number of additional points that I want to try to address. She raised the campaign on the women’s state pension age increase. Clearly, these were decisions made in the early 1990s and then legislated for, fundamentally on grounds of equality, in 1995. The notice period, I suggest, was several decades. Whatever the hon. Lady’s views or mine, this matter was then taken to the courts, and both the High Court and the Court of Appeal rejected all legal claims of the state pension age campaigners comprehensively, in highly detailed judgments.

This Government, at the same time, have raised the living wage, increased the personal allowance to £12,570, introduced free childcare, introduced the returners programme and addressed shared parental leave, and spent record sums already on universal credit, disability support and, as I say, state pension.

I thank all hon. Members for participating in this debate and showing a clear passion for improving pension outcomes for women. I believe that this Government and previous Governments have made progress. I accept that there is more to do and that closing the gender pension gap remains a priority for all.

Question put and agreed to.