State Pension Changes: Women

Amy Callaghan Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

Thank you, Sir Gary. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman. Yes, there is maladministration, and I will use that word again shortly.

Many of the women concerned may not have been actively engaged with Government or have had knowledge of or access to Government publications. In that case, how could they have been informed to an extent that would have made a difference? That is the crux of the matter and of the debate, and it is why we are all here. This is about equality for women, and there has been a level of unfairness in the pensions system.

It is important to remember that women born in the 1950s entered a labour market and a society that was different from what young women experience today. They began working in the 1960s, in their teens, in a workforce where women were paid less than men and were expected to leave their jobs when they married or began a family.

[Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and on his powerful opening speech. I am sure he will agree that it is important that we get on the record from the Minister today that the Department for Work and Pensions accepts the findings in the stage 1 report of maladministration. Most importantly, it must also act swiftly to compensate the women and the families of the women who have passed while waiting for compensation.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Everybody’s interventions so far have added to the debate and reinforced the issue.

Back when ladies started to work, there were no remunerated childcare schemes and it was not standard practice for ladies to be offered access to work pension schemes.

With all due respect to the Minister, the DWP has fallen down on this matter. The Department admitted in 2009 that direct communication with those affected by increases in the state pension age was limited. In 1995, leaflets explaining the changes were available from the Benefits Agency, but only on request. In other words, if someone wanted to know anything—if they even knew to ask—that is what they should have asked for. The fact is that the DWP has a responsibility.

Some 16 million voluntary letters were issued in the form of automatic pension forecasts projecting state pension entitlements, including to women aged over 50 at the time. Those letters did not include any details of state pension age or mention that it was changing, so those women were not fully notified. That is what this debate is about. When we look back specifically to the years between 1995 and 2000, we are reminded that we lived in a relatively pre-internet world, where information was not so readily available at the click of a button and social media did not exist. In the late 1990s, we had only five TV channels, and 24-hour broadcasting was still a thing of the future.

The DWP survey of 2004 asked working-age adults about awareness of state pension age equalisation. The results showed that, of those who were aware, 47% got their information from TV advertising, 37% were informed by reading a newspaper and only 2%—only 2%—cited the Pension Service as their source of information. The Pension Service had the responsibility, and it failed badly. Some 98% of those who qualified did not even know from the state Pension Service what should have been happening. That is a massive issue, and it has to be addressed. Furthermore, despite the efforts made through television and newspaper advertising, access to what we see now as the most basic avenues of communication was limited for women who were not securely housed or in unstable domestic environments.

WASPI women deserve to be compensated for the injustice they have had to face, and that compensation should be based on the principles of recognition, restitution and reconciliation. We could call them the three Rs—it is almost like going back to school—but here they apply to the WASPI women and pensions.

The first principle of compensation is recognition, and quite clearly there is a lot to do. The Government should acknowledge the harm and suffering caused by the changes to the state pension age, the inadequate communication of those changes and the failure to consult the women concerned for the reasons I have outlined. Recognition is important for restoring the dignity and trust of these women and for validating their experiences and grievances. It is also a precondition of achieving justice and reconciliation, as it shows that the Government are willing to take responsibility and to make amends for their actions. That is what this is about.

To date, there has been resistance to offering a formal apology to the WASPI women, and the Government have argued that the actions that were taken were lawful and reasonable. Let us be quite clear: they were not. That stance has been challenged by the PHSO, which found in 2021 that the Department for Work and Pensions had committed maladministration, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) referred to in an intervention.

The PHSO also found that, by failing to act quickly enough to inform the women about the changes to their state pension age, the DWP had not given due regard to the impact of the changes on the women’s lives and offered them no adequate support or guidance. The PHSO recommended that the Government should apologise to the women and pay them compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the DWP’s maladministration —I use that word because it is the right word; it describes exactly what happened.

Oral Answers to Questions

Amy Callaghan Excerpts

Monday 4th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

12. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the two-child limit on trends in the level of child poverty.

[Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

21. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the two-child limit on trends in the level of child poverty.

[The Minister for Employment (Guy Opperman)]

The Government’s firm belief is that the best route out of poverty is through work. In the most recent statistics—in 2021-22—there were 400,000 fewer children living in absolute poverty after housing costs than in 2009-10.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amy Callaghan]

A report by the Child Poverty Action Group showed that the two-child limit affects one in 10 children across the UK. It found that abolishing the policy would be the most cost-effective action that the Government could take to reduce child poverty. Why will the Minister not take that action? Is child poverty so low on his priority list that he has not considered it, or did he consider it and then decide that vulnerable children just are not worth it?

[Guy Opperman]

The Government are committed to a sustainable long-term approach to tackling poverty and supporting people on low incomes. We will spend around £276 billion through the welfare system in 2023-24, including around £124 billion on people of working age and children.

Cost of Living: Financial Support for Disabled People

Amy Callaghan Excerpts

Monday 22nd May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Robert, and thank you for your welcome help on that. I thank the Petitions Committee and the petitioners here today for shining a light on this important issue. I consider the word of the debate not to be “confidence” as the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) suggested, but “abandoned”. People right across these isles feel abandoned by this Tory Government. That applies even more so to disabled people—abandoned by an unkind, uncaring Government who fail to recognise their individual needs and to tailor financial support accordingly.

We need to remember and reflect on what we are actually debating. The cost of living isn’t a neat wee slogan to describe the tough times we are living through; we are debating how much it costs to live. We have all lived through the 2008 financial crash, and things are considerably bleaker now than they were back then. Currently, 46% of people right across these isles think their kids will be worse off than them, which, while shocking, is hardly a surprise, given interest rates, the soaring costs of goods and 13 years of Tory austerity. Food prices are up more than 19%, electricity is up 16% and gas is up 129%. In energy-rich Scotland, these price increases are harder to take. I have constituents desperately clutching energy bills at every surgery.

The cost of living is proving increasingly challenging for our constituents living with a disability. The Government’s £150 disability cost of living payment is, of course, welcome, but it is a drop in the ocean compared to the astronomical bills people face. What does the Minister expect disabled people to spend the £150 payment on—a weekly shop, half or less of some assistive technology, or to mitigate sanctions from his Department? Does he really think £150 is enough to make a tangible difference in the lives of disabled people?

Disabled people are disproportionately affected by the cost of living crisis. The disability pay gap means they earn an average of almost £2 less an hour than those without a disability. The rising disabled population makes that even more pertinent; it is a damning indictment of this unkind Tory Government. In-work poverty is real: because of the policies of austerity, folk the length and breadth of these isles are living in it.

On a recent visit to Deafblind Scotland, based in Lenzie in my constituency, my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) and I had a roundtable discussion with service users. We heard how challenging life can be for deafblind people, particularly given the increased cost of living and the cost of assistive technology. Across the UK, we have a public health service free at the point of need, but access to healthcare is still a class issue: 70% of people have had to limit access to medical appointments due to the lack of financial support with the increased cost of living, and we know that disabled people are less likely to be able to afford those increased costs.

I despise the word “mitigate”. The Scottish Government are not and should not be there to mitigate bad decisions made in this place. They are there to stand up and provide for our people—to lead, not mop up the mess of bad policy decisions and bad governance by the Government of Westminster. Unfortunately, that means that they now need to shield folk from the policies of austerity.

We forget that the Scottish Government are not just providing new policies relating to the social security system; they spend £594 million each year mitigating bad policies from this place, including the bedroom tax and the benefit cap. If those Tory welfare reforms had not been imposed, it is estimated that each family in Scotland would be £2,500 better off each year. The cost of living crisis would be much harsher for people in Scotland if it were not for those mitigations.

Now for the clear blue water between the Tory Government down here and the Scottish Government up the road—a tale of two Governments. The Tory Government have removed the very welcome £20 a week increase to universal credit, whereas the Scottish Government have not just uprated social security but introduced brand new payments, including the Scottish child payment, lifting children out of poverty. We do not pay for prescriptions in Scotland, which means that everyone can access the medication they need to manage their health conditions. The Government down here have failed to do likewise, which means that 51% of people have had to limit their access to medication.

The Tory Government are failing our constituents, and Labour has no policies to turn that around. Fortunately, although Westminster continues to fail the people of Scotland, they can rely on the Scottish Government to deliver fairness and equality. Of course, we look forward to our future as an independent nation within the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady sets the scene very well. I thank her for that intervention because it reminds us all of the impacts on a section of the community across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We see the impacts every day, and we are trying to convey that to the Minister so that he can grasp what we are focusing on and give us the answers that we seek.

Inflation rates for food have gone up in the last year by 13.1% in Northern Ireland. Expanding the payment to people who suffer with disabilities would help them to stick to their routines and be able to rely on what they need to stay alive. I am not exaggerating the matter—they need it to stay alive. That is what I see in my constituency on a regular basis.

In addition, I have had numerous constituents raise concerns with me regarding the amount it costs to run certain types of medical equipment; the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) said the same thing. I deal with these matters every week: people with stairlifts, pumps for feeding tubes, electric wheelchairs, bath seats, and, more than ever, mobility scooters. Those of us who are able-bodied do things for ourselves, but we have constituents who cannot, without help, deal with the extra charges that come their way. I compassionately and respectfully urge the Minister and the Government to provide some form of grant to help ease the costs for the many people who must run medical equipment. Such issues are not momentary; they are there for a lifetime. The sad reality is that some people require those pieces of equipment to survive and continue to live. It is often a matter of life or death for them. That is the cold reality of where we are today with some of my constituents and those of others who have spoken.

Those constituents are no stranger to the increases in electricity and gas, and it is unfortunate that so many of my constituents have to deal with the impacts of that. We must do more to speak on behalf of those who are disabled and struggling to pay the increased cost of electricity and heating payments. There is certainly a conversation to be had about disabled people and employment. We need to air that today as well—today’s debate is perhaps a chance to do so—but in a constructive way. For some of those on non-means-tested benefits, there is an option for getting into employment, which must be made accessible to them. I welcome the many employers who have made a constructive and positive decision to be disability friendly. It is wonderful to see so many encouraged into work by so many, but there is still more to do.

[Amy Callaghan]

On that point about accessible work spaces, it is very hard to get this place, which legislates for equality, to adapt for people with disabilities, so how can we expect other workplaces to take the onus themselves and make work spaces more accessible for people?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She speaks with knowledge, understanding and a really deep request for change that she has put forward clearly and capably. When the Minister responds, perhaps he can say how this place can improve its disability access. I know that much has been done, but we live with an old building and a lot more probably needs to be done than would normally be the case.

Being able to reliably apply for extra money will always be of help to people. I understand Government policy, I welcome it and think it is positive, but will the Minister outline the Government’s strategy for those with a disability who are returning to part-time work, if possible? Again, I speak with knowledge and experience. I am not smarter than anybody else—definitely not—but in such debates I just try to reflect what people tell me.

Some of those disabled people have a fear about returning to work, because they are not quite sure if they can do it. They want to go back to work, but the reality is that some of them cannot. Whether they have three days a week or perhaps two weeks together for which they cannot cope, for some people the return to work is not an option. Real compassion and understanding has to be paramount in trying to give people with disabilities the option to return to work. I seek from the Minister a clear understanding of Government policy on how that will be done in a way that reflects what people need. The fact is that they want to work, but the days and weeks that they are unable to work mean that they cannot, and we need to make that right.

In January 2023, the Resolution Foundation found that for the financial year 2020-21 the gap in household income between adults with a disability and adults without a disability was about 30% if disability benefits were included, which is quite a significant gap, and 44% if disability benefits were excluded. Furthermore, a third of adults in the lowest income group are disabled. Those figures are not the Government’s fault, by the way. Those are facts. That is where we are. That is the data. But it is about how we respond in a positive fashion.

One-off payments are all very well and good, and the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys referred to that. It is good that the Government have reached out and given that extra money, but perhaps what we really need is an ongoing vision for the next year or the next period of time, whereby those benefits and the help with energy payments and so on are provided in a constructive and statistical way, to ensure that there is a vision for the future for those people who are disabled? The assessment is good when it comes to whether there is a positive impact on the efficiency of paying bills, and the one-off payment takes pressure off, but I believe that it needs to be negotiated in a different way. Of course, the Government have reached deep into their pockets to ensure that there is help for people. However, the benefits must be felt over a longer time to truly help.

I will conclude with this comment. There is no doubt that the cost of living crisis has had an impact on everyone, but we do and we must look to the Government to consider the specific impacts right now. Again, I request the Minister and the Government to support people when times are increasingly difficult—and they are really not only difficult, but very uncertain.

Oral Answers to Questions

Amy Callaghan Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

Continual quality assurance processes are in place that monitor and keep tabs on the quality of the decisions made by any of the assessment providers that work with the Department. Of course, we always keep that under constant review. If there are specific issues that the hon. Lady is keen for Ministers to look at, I would be very happy to do that. She knows that I am always willing to work collaboratively and constructively along those lines. If there is feedback about areas where she or her constituents feel that improvements could be made, including on responsiveness, I would be happy to look at that. I also go back to the point I made about the reforms earlier, where, for example, the work we are doing to try to match expert assessors with conditions will really help to improve people’s confidence in decision making, as well as build capacity and performance.

[Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

T1.   If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Minister for Employment (Guy Opperman)]

Normally, the Secretary of State would make a statement at this stage, but, on behalf of the whole ministerial team, I will say just two things. First, overall, measures from the Department for Work and Pensions in the Budget represent an investment of £3.5 billion over five years to boost workforce participation. That includes: £2 billion of investment in support for disabled people and people with long-term health conditions on top of the Health and Disability White Paper; £900 million investment in support for parents; £70 million investment in support for the over-50s; and £485 million investment in support for unemployed people and people on universal credit and working fewer than full-time hours.

Secondly, DWP Ministers had the great honour of working with the amazing Len Goodman, who sadly passed away over the weekend. The pension credit video that he filmed with me last summer for the annual Pension Credit Awareness Day in June was the most successful piece of communications that we have ever done on this issue and massively boosted pension credit applications. I can tell the House that, throughout the day’s filming, he was kind, immensely professional, totally polite and a delight to work with, and he still had all the dance moves even at his age. He will be sadly missed by this House and by his many fans around the country. Our thoughts, prayers and condolences go out to his family.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am sure the whole House will join the Minister and others in remembering with fondness Len Goodman and in sending our good wishes to his family and friends.

[Amy Callaghan]

I thank the Minister for his answer. On Thursday, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) visited One Parent Families Scotland. The young single parents we met were outraged and upset about the young parent penalty, as they are receiving less universal credit than older parents. Does the Minister care to explain why he feels that younger parents are worth less than those who are over 25?

[Guy Opperman]

We do not feel that in any way whatsoever. I will write to the hon. Lady setting out the legal and statutory basis behind the policy.

State Pension Age: Review

Amy Callaghan Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend has landed a very important point, as I think he knows, and I will leave it there.

[Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Some 31% of pre-state pension age households have no savings at all. Will the Government finally establish an independent pensions and savings commission to ensure that pension policies are fit for purpose, and if not, why not?

[Mel Stride]

I have already identified that we have been bearing down on pensioner poverty. We have stuck with our manifesto commitment to the triple lock, which has seen pensions rise to historically high levels. This is the party that stands firmly behind pensioners.

Single-Parent Families

Amy Callaghan Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered support for single parent families.

There are a number of measures the Government preside over to the detriment of single parents, and I will come to some of them in a moment. However, the crux of the argument lies in the fact that the Government are failing single-parent families—they are failing the children and they are failing the parents.

In 2021, there were 3 million single-parent families in the UK. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s 2023 annual report, 40% of children in lone-parent families are living in poverty. That statistic should concern us all, and it demonstrates just how necessary this debate is. Being a single parent can make someone more vulnerable, and unexpected changes, such as the chaos of covid or the increasing cost of living, can have a huge impact on the quality of life of not only the children but the whole family. Shared Parenting Scotland told me yesterday that its evidence shows that, under this Government’s social security system, both parents end up worse off financially when they split up.

I predict that the Minister will give me a blow-by-blow account of everything the Tory Government are already doing, but the point of this debate is that what they are doing is not working. It is failing families, and single-parent families in particular. I will break this down into two categories: what the Government are already doing and need to do better to support single-parent families, and where the Government are being more of a hindrance than a help to single-parent families.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

In 2019-20, 34% of children in single-parent households were in relative poverty, compared with 20% of children in a household with a couple. That is an unacceptable gap. At a cost of only £1.3 billion, scrapping the two-child limit on benefits would lift 250,000 children out of poverty and mean that 850,000 children were in less deep poverty. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is something the Chancellor should look to include in his Budget this week?

[Amy Callaghan]

I absolutely agree with everything the hon. Lady just said, but I would go one step further and also scrap the benefit cap, which would lift 300,000 children out of poverty across the UK.

To come back to my two categories, the second was where the Government are being more of a hindrance than a help to single-parent families. In that category, I will put the Child Maintenance Service, the two-child policy, as outlined by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), the benefit cap and the rape clause. The two-child limit disproportionately affects women, as they are much more likely to be single parents than men. Some 47% of the families affected by the two-child limit are single-parent families. As I just outlined, it is estimated that removing the two-child limit and the benefit cap would lift 300,000 children out of poverty. I call on the Government to scrap each of those policies to help single-parent families.

I am keen to hear the Minister’s defence of the Child Maintenance Service, which puts vulnerable parents—mainly women—at risk of further manipulation from an abusive ex-partner. Not being assigned a designated case worker can cause the parent receiving the maintenance to relive trauma, with each conversation rehashing their situation and the breakdown of the previous relationship. CMS is a deeply flawed service that lets down single-parent families time and again. The entire service needs to be reviewed, and I call on the Government to conduct a root-and-branch review of it to make it more suitable and functional for parents. I am keen to hear whether the Minister is considering that point, given the number of times it has been raised with the Department.

The young parent penalty is also worth discussing. The arbitrary setting of two levels of universal credit seriously disadvantages those under 25—especially young parents—and to what end? This issue has been raised with the Department since the introduction of universal credit, most notably when over 100 organisations wrote to a former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about it, yet there has still been no movement for young single parents. They have the same financial responsibilities as other parents but receive approximately £66 a month less.

I will move on to where the Government need to change their current stance, which seems to be well-intentioned but is falling short. We in the SNP welcome the inflationary increase to benefits, but it is just not enough for single-parent families, who are disproportionately affected by inflation, given that most of their income is spent on food and energy. It is crucial that any additional money gets into families’ pockets urgently, so the fact that the increase is being implemented only in April is an unnecessary and harmful delay.

That leads me on to tomorrow’s Budget. It is expected that the energy price guarantee will remain at £2,500, which is welcome, but our constituents, and particularly single-parent families, are still struggling to pay their bills. We need bolder action from the Government to keep money in people’s pockets now, rather than have it lining the pockets of energy companies.

The Government could act on one of the SNP’s Budget calls—cutting the energy price guarantee to £2,000 and maintaining the energy bill support scheme until the summer. This would save families £1,400 on energy bills, which would be a much-needed saving for families, and particularly single-parent families.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has reported that, of all the groups of people in poverty, children and others in lone-parent families are the most likely to suffer food insecurity. This means that single-parent families are often among the most vulnerable people in our society. Approximately a fifth of households in my constituency think they will have to use a food bank. This appalling statistic speaks volumes about the Government’s record on social security. Choosing to crack down on benefit fraud—most of which is caused by continual error in the Department, with it paying people too much—instead of getting money into people’s pockets so that they can afford to live is utterly shameful.

Gingerbread has found that single parents experience higher unemployment rates than couple parents, despite having the same desire to work. It found that those single parents who do work often want to work more hours than they are able to and must frequently abandon their career aspirations to take on work that better fits in with childcare arrangements and school hours. This means that many of them are on lower incomes than they would otherwise be. It also means that, at a time when employers are struggling to fill vacancies, they miss out on the potential of single parents, because of the way they structure roles. Although childcare costs are a key barrier in terms of single parents getting into work, those parents are also held back significantly by the shortfall of suitable, flexible, part-time jobs and a lack of tailored employment support from Jobcentre Plus.

The Scottish Government are providing almost £3 billion in this financial year to help households face the increased cost of living, including £1 billion to provide services and financial support that are not available anywhere else in the UK. That includes increasing the Scottish child payment by 150% to £25 per week per child. Has the Minister considered introducing a similar policy? We have also doubled our fuel insecurity fund to £20 million.

The SNP Scottish Government consider social security as an investment in people that is key to our national mission to tackle child poverty, and we are using the limited powers and fixed budgets we have to support children and their families. However, there is only so much that devolved Governments can do to support single-parent families when 85% of welfare expenditure and income-replacement benefits remain reserved here.

In 2021, the Children’s Commissioners for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland wrote to the UK Government to call on them to scrap the two-child limit, which demonstrates that this policy is widely condemned across these four nations. So I ask again: will the Minister consider scrapping the two-child policy alongside the benefit cap?

Roughly 120,000 children in the UK receive no child maintenance, and many more do not receive their full entitlement, so it is abundantly clear that the CMS is not sufficiently protecting these children. I would be keen to hear what the Minister has to say about that policy and what defence for it can he bring to the table. In my eyes and those of the SNP, it is indefensible?

To summarise, the UK Government are failing single-parent families; they could do far more to step up to the plate and help to support them. We need far more action, and far bolder action, from the UK Government to mirror the radical, bold action the Scottish Government are taking to tackle the levels of child and family poverty.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that they should bob up and down if they want to attract my attention to speak in the debate. I call Jim Shannon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady brings personal experience to the debate, which we all acknowledge. At the end of my contribution I am going to say just how much I admire single parents. I want to say that because the ones I meet regularly in my office are the ones who deliver each week. They are the ones who scrape and save and perhaps go without a meal. They do not get the help they need, when they need it. The hon. Lady is right about the parents who struggle and scrape to save every penny. They also give a level of love and affection to their children that helps build them up to enter society.

It is always a pleasure to come and tell some stories from Strangford, in Northern Ireland. That is not because Strangford is any different from anywhere else, but because it replicates every other constituency across the whole of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Office for National Statistics estimates that there are just under 3 million single-parent households across the UK, which equates to 15%. That is a big figure when we think of the pressures that those 3 million households are under.

[Amy Callaghan]

The hon. Member is a very good friend, and I thank him for giving way. On the note that all Members in this House have significant amounts of casework on this issue, does he recognise that they have cases relating to the CMS that have not been resolved over a number of years, because the Department is stalling on fixing the grave issues with the child maintenance system?

[Jim Shannon]

I do, and the Minister has responded on that on a number of occasions. I hope he will take the chance today to respond—I am quite sure he will. It is good to reinforce issues on behalf of our constituents. Child maintenance payments are incredibly difficult. Sometimes there is an absent father who, in drastic circumstances, may leave his job to reduce his income so that he does not have to give a contribution to his wife and children. I find that absolutely disgraceful. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire puts down a marker in relation to that.

There are fathers I have known over the years who seem to have a portfolio of buildings and properties but who for some reason do not make their child maintenance payments in the way they should. I find that incredibly frustrating. We are seeking from the Minister some methodology to feed in that information so that urgent action can be taken. I think that is what the hon. Member would like to see; it is certainly what I would like to see.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

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

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

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

[Amy Callaghan]

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

[David Linden]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

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

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

[Amy Callaghan]

I think the Minister might want to correct the record on support for independence—we are in a much better place than we were just a couple of weeks ago—and get back to the subject of single-parent families.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate is on single-parent families, not independence or the candidates for leader of the Scottish National party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

The Chancellor is looking at that matter. Clearly, any person who does not claim an entitled benefit is one person too many. We all accept that. We would definitely like to see a higher number of people taking the UC element of childcare. Support already exists, such as the flexible support fund, to assist that process.

The hon. Lady should also be aware that the whole purpose of the childcare is to assist people into employment. The published statistics show that the effect of bringing in the childcare, however imperfect she may consider it in the present situation, has definitely made a massive difference. For example, there are now 1.2 million lone parents in employment. There is clear evidence that demonstrates the importance of parental employment.

We can argue about the relative merits and improvements that have taken place over the past few years or decades. Bluntly speaking, there is the opportunity for childcare support, but that has to be married to the enhancements of existing benefits and the changes we introduced, such as the work allowance and the taper. Universal credit is designed to make work pay, so that not all a person’s net earnings are deducted from their UC.

Claimants with children or a limited capability for work will also benefit from a work allowance. The work allowance is the amount of earnings a UC household can earn before the single taper rate of 55% is applied, and their universal credit begins to be reduced. That has been reduced and changed over the past two years. Together with the changing of the taper rate and the work allowance, that boosts support for single parents and all families, who are dealing with this.

Much was made by the hon. Members for East Dunbartonshire and for Strangford of the issue of child maintenance, and I will try to address those points. I always enjoy the start of the hon. Member for Strangford’s speeches, because the first minute is normally a paean of praise to the individual Minister, irrespective of who that Minister is. I am always tempted to jump up and implore him to stop there, because that is the best part as far as I am concerned. My mum loves his speeches.

I accept the hon. Gentleman raised a number of key points. Child maintenance is devolved to Northern Ireland, and clearly the Department for Work and Pensions is not responsible for its delivery. In respect of child poverty in Northern Ireland, in the three years to 2019-20, 18% of children in Northern Ireland were in absolute poverty before housing costs. That is 6% less than in the three years to 2009-10. I accept that every percentage is too high, but I respectfully suggest that the statistics show things are better than they were. I take his comments on board.

To respond generally on child maintenance, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire raised a number of matters. I refer her to the three parliamentary answers given by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), on 28 February, which set out in detail some of the points the hon. Lady raised. My suggestion to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire, because she is clearly very exercised on that point, would be that she sits down with Lord Younger, the child maintenance Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions—I am always pleased to give other Ministers the chance to have a meeting that is not my responsibility. I strongly suggest that she sits down with the officials and the individual Minister and goes through some of those key points. If she is interested in that, then, clearly, I will organise and facilitate it and make it happen.

While I accept that there is always criticism made of the system, the system is, with respect, both doing better than it was and under a transformational procedure.

[Amy Callaghan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Guy Opperman]

Of course I will, and I am going to try to answer some of the points that she raised.

[Amy Callaghan]

On the point of transformational change, I wonder what the Minister would say to my constituent, Felicity, who has been struggling to get maintenance for her son over a number of years because of consistent failures in the child maintenance system.

[Guy Opperman]

Well, the simple point is that I strongly urge the hon. Lady to raise that with the individual Minister. I cannot comment on a particular case, as she knows, but, without any shadow of a doubt, the Department is clear that our role is to support parents who choose to use its services, encouraging them to make a family-based arrangement to start with, or supporting them with the statutory scheme if they cannot.

The Child Maintenance Service is genuinely delivering a transformation programme and aiming to improve outcomes for children by enabling parents to set up, and then manage, their child maintenance arrangements in ways that suit their own individual circumstances. Significant improvements have been made to the online offerings, whether around applying for child maintenance or the development of a new service to help in arranging child maintenance. All of that makes for a more accessible service.

Let me give a few examples. In the quarter ending September 2022, 872,000 children were covered by Child Maintenance Service arrangements—an increase of 25,700. Our current estimate is that, as a result of regular child maintenance payments, 140,000 fewer children are growing up in poverty. Clearly, these matters are always difficult, always contentious, and always a difficulty between individual parents. We accept entirely that the principle is that child maintenance is designed to encourage parents to work together and make their own family-based child maintenance arrangements wherever possible, which is usually better for the children, but it can play a role in helping to lift children out of poverty and can help to enhance the outcomes of individual children.

I will turn back to some of the other points that I wished to make. Clearly, as a result of some of the decisions made in September, the child benefit itself—which is payable to anyone responsible for bringing up a child up to age 16, or under 20 if they are in approved education or training—will increase by 10.1% from April 2023 for the eldest or only child, and there will also be an increase for every other child. Alongside the financial assistance that child benefit provides, claimants also receive national insurance credits to protect their future entitlement to pension entitlements. Those can be transferred to grandparents providing childcare.

I will touch on a couple of quick points that were raised on other matters. There were multiple references to the Chancellor. On flexible working, the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), is obviously bringing forward legislation on that point.

There have been great changes there, and I can assure colleagues that the Department for Work and Pensions, as with other Departments, operates a very flexible working arrangement. It is not necessarily based in Whitehall, I can assure them. For example, I have two ladies who job share one of the most senior roles in Government in the Department for Work and Pensions. Between them, they cover one directorship in one of the most impressive job share and flexible-working examples I can imagine. Frankly, that is becoming the norm on a greater and greater basis.

I will conclude by stating that I accept and endorse the approach of the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire on how we are driving these matters forwards. I accept that more can be done on the Child Maintenance Service, and I encourage her to take up my offer of a meeting, on behalf of my parliamentary colleague. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to set out certain matters in detail, including the amount of support that is available to single-parent families. Clearly, I will report back to the Chancellor the last-minute additions to the Budget that many have put forwards.

We are committed to meeting the needs of individuals and single-parent families in the United Kingdom, and we continue to provide the Scottish and Northern Irish Governments with generous funding and support where these matters are devolved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amy Callaghan]

We have heard a lot today about support—or, indeed, the lack of support—for single-parent families. I thank colleagues from across the House for joining me in calling on this Tory Government to do so much more to support single-parent families.

Single parents should be praised, and we have heard personal examples from my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) and the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) on the Labour Front Bench. I will add the example of my nanna, Bea, who raised my mum and my aunt Pauline in a single-parent house. She had to work so damn hard to provide for them. All these decades later, we should have got to a much better place, where single-parent families actually feel supported.

I will pick up on some of the points made by the Minister. He wasted some time pondering independence and the SNP leadership contest, suggesting that he did not want to stand up and defend the Government’s record on support for single-parent families. On his point about child maintenance, I will certainly take him up on the offer to facilitate a meeting on my constituent Felicity’s ongoing situation, and more broadly on CMS in general.

The Minister glossed over some of the decisions made in September. Some recognition from him that this Government are responsible for inflation being where it is would have been appreciated, but to see the Government actually doing something to tackle the cost of living crisis for families would be even better still.

I thank Members from across the House for their contributions, and I hope the Minister takes away some of the points we have raised and actually delivers for single-parent families.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered support for single parent families.

Oral Answers to Questions

Amy Callaghan Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

As you know, Mr Speaker, I am very supportive of getting young people into work. The Dudley youth hub is a classic example of the Department’s working in partnership locally, providing a single location for employers to engage with the under-25s from Stourbridge and the wider area. Claimants can attend recruitment events and take advantage of a range of on-site services, and I know that they greatly welcome the opportunity to work with Argus Fire and Pegasus.

[Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Public and Commercial Services Union members in Scotland get a raw deal from this Government on pay, with many civil servants themselves using food banks. When will the Government give them a proper pay rise?

[Mel Stride]

As the hon. Lady will know and as I explained earlier, we are engaged in positive discussions with the PCS. It has been pointed out that many people working in the DWP are on the national living wage, and that will increase by 9.7% in April.

Social Security (Additional Payments) (No. 2) Bill

Amy Callaghan Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 6th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I add my voice to those welcoming you back, Dame Eleanor. It is so lovely to see you back in your rightful place.

I rise to speak to new clause 7, which stands in my name. As the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), has already said, new clause 7 is about reviewing the public health and poverty effects of the Bill. It requests that the Secretary of State

“review the public health and poverty effects of the provisions of this Act and lay a report…before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”

The reason why we need to do so is that we know our health, how long we live and how long we live in good health are driven by the social, economic and environmental policies that we in this place enact. Given that we now have a declining life expectancy in our country, addressing this issue cannot be delayed any further.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on health in all policies, I authored in 2021 a report that looked specifically at the health effects of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016. That report pulled together the evidence on the reduction in support since 2012 by successive Administrations—some £34 billion in support to working-age people has been cut since 2010—and the impact that that reduction has had on social security-driven poverty and, in turn, on health. If I may, Dame Eleanor, I will read out a section of that report:

“Each 1% increase in child poverty was significantly associated with an extra 5.8 infant deaths per 100 000 live births”

and

“about a third of the increases in infant mortality between 2014 and 2017 can be attributed to rising child poverty”.

Earlier in that report, it set out how significant those changes in social security were, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham mentioned. That reduction in value has not only been the worst in the UK but, I think, the worst in the OECD and the worst in the EU. As for its impacts, I have just mentioned the relationship with infant mortality. When Michael Marmot published his 10-year review of the impact on inequalities, he mentioned the contribution of the declining value of social security support, and the lack of protection that it provided to the most financially vulnerable. In turn, he related that to the contribution of the UK’s flatlining life expectancy—it was flatlining in 2017, although in my part of the world, in Oldham, it was actually declining. Now we are seeing declining life expectancy across England, and the reduction in the value of social security support is a major contributor to that.

I hope that the Minister will take a look at my new clause 7, which is about developing good policy that will benefit the constituents we serve. I also add my support for amendment 3, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham and the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), and for amendment 2, on sanctions, tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden).

[Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

It is great to see you back in the Chair, Dame Eleanor.

We are all broadly united in this Chamber today, in that we recognise that our constituents need additional financial support, but the reality is that we are here today because of 12 years of Tory austerity. The cost of living crisis has occurred because of Brexit and because of the policies of austerity, so it is welcome that we are having a debate on this Bill if even so we can go over broader DWP failings and mismanagement.

One example is that a very recent 38 Degrees poll found that 20% of my constituents fear that they may have to use a food bank. I am not convinced that these payments will help with that figure at all. This Government are giving our constituents the additional payments outlined in the Bill, yet they still impose the benefit cap, the bedroom tax, the rape clause and cuts to universal credit. Naturally, the British Government will sit here today hoping for a round of applause for these additional payments, but frankly, these pennies are nowhere near enough to make up for the grossly flawed benefit system that this Government preside over. This support is a start, and it needs to be just that. In the face of a Tory-made, Brexit-induced cost of living crisis, we need this Government to step up and step up more, again and again.

I have previously spoken in this House about my constituent Stacey, who I met in hospital while we recovered from our strokes together. Stacey and her family struggle to make ends meet. The Government will be aware of the significantly increased costs that disabled people face, so I would be keen to hear exactly what difference the Government think this £150 payment will make to them. I also echo the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) that an assessment should be made of the fact that legacy benefits were not uplifted during the pandemic in the way that universal credit was. It would be revealing to see the impact that has had, particularly on disabled people.

My constituents and people across Scotland are being failed by this Tory Government. Week by week, this Government try to steer conversation towards one topic or the next, but when I speak to my constituents, the issues caused by this Government’s failing, broken social security system are consistent. Dignity and the basic living conditions of our constituents are simply not a priority for this Government but an afterthought, hence them not bringing forward the uprating of benefits to before April. The House of Commons Library has published information showing that inflation is being felt worse than ever, and also that it is usual or the norm for this uprating to occur in April, but that no Government are bound by that; it is just common practice. These are not normal times we are living through, and support should be accelerated, instead of civil servants’ time being wasted applying the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. I would also appreciate some clarity on the timing of these additional payments—that should have been laid out before now.

Amendment 2 would fix a flaw in the Bill as it stands. It seems utterly unreasonable that any one of our constituents could miss out on this additional support because they have been sanctioned under this Government’s cruel sanctions regime.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend speaks about sanctions. Does she share my concern that in probably one of the grimmest league tables around, my constituents are No. 4 in Scotland for the number of people being sanctioned? Some 10% of claimants are being sanctioned, and one reason is public transport. We have significant challenges with public transport, because we cannot get enough bus drivers, and we cannot get enough bus drivers because of Brexit. Those constituents are facing a triple whammy—from the cost of living crisis, from being sanctioned because they cannot get there, and from the increasing cost of living and energy costs—because of the policies this Government have pursued.

[Amy Callaghan]

Unfortunately, my constituency of East Dunbartonshire rivals my hon. Friend’s and has a similar statistic for sanctions. It is not a position we want to be in, especially when we know that many of our constituents are sanctioned due to legitimate reasons, such as transport issues or potentially having to take their children to school.

Any Member walking through the Lobby tonight to vote against amendment 2 is condoning the Government’s sanctions regime—in fact, they are breathing more life into it by denying the most vulnerable much-needed support. We on the SNP Benches always welcome additional support for our constituents, especially in these times, but will the Government consider whether they are offering enough? What about the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign? Those women have been continuously let down by the failings of this British Government. They have run an incredibly powerful campaign so that politicians will listen. Are they supposed to be appeased by this additional payment? I know with certainty that they will not be.

What about UK pensioners living overseas? Will their pensions be uprated this time around? Will they receive this additional support? What about our pensioners who have remained in the UK? Additional support for them is of course welcome, but it highlights a glaring need for a concerted effort, or a more concerted effort, around the uptake of pension credit, of which £3 million goes unclaimed each year in my constituency of East Dunbartonshire alone. Hopefully that will be less this year, given the effort by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin). When will we see a much more active campaign directly reaching out to pensioners, encouraging them to sign up for pension credit?

What about single-parent families, already discriminated against by the British Government’s child maintenance system, which charges them to access money they are entitled to and places vulnerable women at further risk of manipulation and abuse? Where is the relief from their deductions? What about young parents on universal credit? They face the young parent penalty, denying them the same level of social security as parents over 25. Where is the relief from their deductions?

These additional payments are welcome, particularly against the backdrop of this Tory cost of living crisis and a fundamentally broken social security system, but these payments need to be made with the highest degree of urgency, and a timescale would be much appreciated. If the Government wanted to make a real difference, they could reintroduce the uplift to universal credit and extend it this time to legacy benefits. I urge Members to vote for our amendment 2 tonight, to stop our constituents missing out on this much-needed support due to sanctions being imposed upon them.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Welcome back, Dame Eleanor. You can gauge from the warmth of the response how much you have been missed. Pass on my thanks also to that young whippersnapper they appointed to act on your behalf, the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale). I say that, but then I realise that Hansard has no irony, does it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend, and she makes the point extremely eloquently. This is much more about getting people into work and progressing; it is not about some punitive sanctions regime. This is about individuals being supported to best progress. On those people who engage with us during the qualifying period, as long as they attend, we will be supporting them if there is any particular reason that they cannot engage with us, if they have good cause.

Amendment 3 would extend the qualifying period for universal credit over two months rather than one. I understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley. Keeping the eligibility dates as close as possible to payment reduces administrative challenges such as out-of-date contact or bank details, and including two assessment periods extends the amount of time between eligibility and payment. [Interruption.] Sorry, but the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) was speaking. In this time, individuals will have the opportunity to—

[Amy Callaghan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mims Davies]

I will let the hon. Lady intervene, because she is making a racket.

[Amy Callaghan]

On sanctions, I appreciate the Minister giving way, and I thought she might enjoy a second just to reflect on some of the guff that she has been spouting. [Interruption.] I would say “guff” is a suitable word. I am absolutely scunnered by what she is saying, and I know my constituents will be too, given the high rate of sanctions in my constituency.

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Lady, and I think the point here is that this is not solely about sanctions. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow), this is about getting cost of living payments to the people most in need at this challenging time. SNP Members are continually talking about sanctions, and never talking about getting people into work and progressing. It is a continual bleating, and I think it is right that the hon. Lady reassesses the word “guff” in relation to fairness between the taxpayer and those people who of course need to be engaging with work coaches. It is important that we know what is happening with our claimants. Leaving people to their own devices and not seeing what is going on is no way to support them, and I do hope that SNP Members will look at that.

I am going to talk a little more about sanction cases: 97.6% of sanctions in the quarter up to October 2022 were applied for failing to attend a mandatory appointment at a jobcentre. These cases can often be resolved quickly by engaging with claimants, so that they turn up to the next appointment. If someone with no universal credit award due to sanctions re-engages with us, they could get one of the later cost of living payments. That is why it was so important that we look at those hard edges, and as I have told the Committee, we did look at them.

Clause 3 sets out the eligibility criteria for each cost of living payment, based on the entitlement of child tax credit or working tax credit. This clause ensures that only individuals who have been paid tax credits by HMRC in respect of a day in the qualifying period will receive a cost of living payment. Clause 4 is applicable to those who are entitled to more than one social security benefit or tax credit, so that they do not get duplicate cost of living payments.

Clause 5, on the additional payment for disability, means that there is a cost of living payment of £150 for people who receive an eligible benefit, and this will enable us to make payments to up to 6 million people. I fully recognise that disabled people may be likely to face extra costs to deal with the impact of higher inflation, as we have heard in the Chamber this evening, so I am pleased that we can make this additional payment. I can also confirm that many will qualify for both the disability payment and means-tested benefits, to a maximum of £1,050 in total in what is covered by this Bill.

Let me make a little progress in trying to whip through the clauses. On the administration of the payments, clause 6 makes appropriate arrangements for the recovery of overpaid cost of living payments. This means that, where a cost of living payment is overpaid, including as a result of fraud, recovery rules that apply to its qualifying benefit will apply to the cost of living payment. Cost of living payments are paid automatically, without the need to claim, and there is no separate right of appeal against a decision on entitlement. Individuals can, of course, exercise their right of appeal against the decision on entitlement in relation to the relevant qualifying benefit.

Clause 7, on the co-operation between the Secretary of State and HMRC, allows for relevant data to be shared to ensure that cost of living payments reach the right people, and to avoid the duplication of payments. In the event that a payment is made by HMRC when it should have been made by the DWP, or the other way around, this clause allows us to treat the payment as if it was made by the correct Department, and it avoids the need for recovery of cost of living payments in these circumstances.

I am pleased to confirm to Members that clause 8—on payments to be disregarded for the purpose of tax and social security—ensures that any additional payments made are exempt from tax, will not affect a person’s entitlement to social security benefits or tax credits, and are not subject to the benefit cap. This means that every person who is entitled to a cost of living payment will receive every penny in their pockets.

Clause 9 amends the Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2022 to ensure that provisions relating to overpayments and recovery of the qualifying disability benefit also apply to disability cost of living payments. This clause also amends regulations made by HMRC to simplify and clarify their position on the recovery of overpaid cost of living payments in the next financial year. These are essentially tidying-up provisions that modify existing legislation to clarify our policy intention.

Clause 10 sets out the definition and interpretation of certain terms used in the Bill. Clause 11 explains the procedure for the laying of regulations. Clause 12 defines the territorial extent of the Bill and specifies that its provisions extend to England, Wales, Scotland and now to Northern Ireland. These are standard clauses.

I will briefly respond to new clauses 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 14 laid respectively by the hon. Members for Glasgow East (David Linden), for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill).

New clause 1 appears to require the Government to publish analysis of the impact on household incomes of an earlier backstop date for the second and third qualifying day. New clauses 2, 3, 7, 8 and 14 require the Government to publish analysis on the impacts of the Bill on various groups, and I would point to a number of existing analytical publications. The Treasury has already published a distributional analysis of the autumn statement decisions; this shows the impact of the cost of living payments on households across the income distribution. Alongside this Bill, we have published an impact analysis which uses administrative data to look at the characteristics of those receiving the cost of living payments. This includes consideration of different characteristics such as age, gender and geographical location, including England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. My Department’s annual “Household below average income” publication looks at numbers in both relative and absolute low income and covers a wide range of characteristics, as I have mentioned.

I am pleased to say that my Department is planning an evaluation of the cost of living payments. In addition, we will consider what further information we can release in future. I hope, given the amount of data we are making available, hon. Members will withdraw these amendments.

Social Security and Pensions

Amy Callaghan Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[David Linden]

Given the ability of the Government to crash the economy in the mini-Budget by the now elusive right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss)—[Interruption.] Hon. Members have managed to wake up just in time to debate economics. They had nothing to say on food banks or child poverty, but when it comes to money, they are excited. The hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans), who is a parliamentary private secretary, must do better with his interventions if he wants to get into the Government.

Last April, Ministers in Edinburgh called on the British Government to reverse those policy changes. That would have put £780 million into the pockets of Scottish households and it would lift 70,000 people, including 30,000 children, out of poverty in 2023-24.

In its recent submission to the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Human Rights Watch also gave a damning review of the British Government’s restrictive social security policies, such as the two-child limit and the failure to reduce the cut to universal credit. It set out the negative impacts on the right to an adequate standard of living, to food, and to housing for families with children. It is a depressing state of affairs that thousands of families with children will be pushed into poverty simply because the British Government refuse to scrap the two-child limit on child tax credits and universal credit. In April 2022, 1.3 million children here in these islands were affected by the two-child limit—that is 8.7%, or one in 12 children—and that number will, sadly, continue to rise as nearly all low-income families with three or more children eventually become subject to the limit.

[Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members may jeer from a sedentary position, but they have the poverty of people right across Scotland on their hands?

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I understand that political ideology will separate us, but in the five years that I have been a Member of this House I have struggled to get my head around the fact that, while the hon. Gentlemen who do their surgeries on a Friday morning see the same people as we do in our surgeries, who come and say that the social security system is inadequate and has left them in dire straits, there is no conviction to come into this Chamber and say to the Government, perhaps as the hon. Member for Amber Valley has done, that this is wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson). Let me begin by saying that 1.7 million people in Scotland are turning down or turning off their heating as their bills rise. More than 70% of the poorest 20% of families are going without essentials, more than 300,000 Scots are cutting back on toiletries and sanitary products, and 42% of adults in Scotland are showering or bathing less. That is only a snapshot of a very bleak situation. Why is it happening? Because of 13 years of Tory rule. Tories are more interested in inciting a culture war than food on tables in Scotland. Scottish National party Members welcome an inflation-related increase in benefits, but why the delay? Why do our constituents need to wait until April? This should have happened immediately, because energy bills, food prices and mortgages have already risen.

Then there is the benefit cap, a grossly unkind policy that is illustrative of this Government—a Government who have removed the cap on bankers’ bonuses but will not scrap the cap on benefits, which has been frozen since 2016 and which dictates the amount of social security that our constituents can claim: meagre, tiny amounts in comparison with the billions that the Government are playing with. They continue to inflict even more hardship on the most vulnerable of families, 70% of whom are single-parent families. Even a glance at the welfare system over which this Government preside shows that people must bargain to access welfare, and they are bargaining with their dignity.

Let us contrast that with the social security system established by the Scottish Government. They introduced the Scottish child payment, which, despite being a brand-new benefit, has already been increased by 25%. That has brought the payments to £25 a week, a rise of 150% in less than eight months.

[David Linden]

May I point out that the Scottish child payment is not dependent on a family’s having two children, but is per child? Unlike the UK Government and the People’s Republic of China, we care about all children, not just the first two.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amy Callaghan]

My very good friend has made an excellent point. There is no limit on the Scottish child payment, whereas this Government have imposed an abhorrent two-child cap.

Pensioners have been abandoned continually by successive Tory Governments who have broken the triple lock, abandoned the WASPI women, provided a lower state pension relative to average earnings than most other advanced economies, and ended the free television licence. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s recent UK Poverty 2023 report, 1.7 million pensioners in the UK were living in poverty in 2020-21.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

How does my hon. Friend think her constituents who are in that position—people who are struggling on social security payments—must feel when they see all the blatant tax evasion that is going on, depriving Government coffers of money that could go towards providing them with a decent standard of living?

[Amy Callaghan]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that excellent point. On Friday, in my constituency, I met representatives of Pensioners for Independence, who cannot not understand why the UK Government are contributing such measly sums to our state pensions and our welfare system, and who see independence as a shining light and a way out of this despicable system. The people who have paid into the pension system their whole life are being completely short-changed by this UK Government.

We welcome an inflationary increase to benefits, which is entirely necessary given that inflation rates have soared due to economic mismanagement by this Government and the four preceding ones. But the welfare system in this place is fundamentally broken, potentially beyond repair. Worse yet, this Government are unwilling even to try to fix it. It would be remiss of me not to mention the light at the end of the tunnel for the people of Scotland: an independent Scotland, delivering fairness, equality and a complete social security system that is entirely fit for purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

That is an interesting question, and I have asked exactly the same of our food bank. I have asked it to give me the data on how many of the people are on benefits and whether they are in work or unemployed, because it is a mystery to me. It refused to give me that data, which I think is really surprising, because that is important to us as policymakers. We need to know whether people need to use food banks because benefits on their own are the cause or whether it is about in-work benefits and the low level of pay.

[Amy Callaghan]

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), it would be interesting to know how many people working in that jobcentre are having to access that nearby food bank. It would be really useful if the hon. Gentleman could inquire about those figures.

[Jerome Mayhew]

That certainly has not been raised with me. That is not information that I can supply, because I simply do not know the answer, but I would be amazed if they were using it. The people working in the jobcentre are very optimistic about the local economy and the opportunities that are available in Fakenham and more widely.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) raised in passing the role of immigration in low pay. In my submission, this is one of the areas where the Government have been right to limit immigration, particular low-skilled immigration, because that gives increased bargaining power to the lowest paid. Anecdotally, I have seen hourly rates across my constituency going up in industries that are seeking to attract harder-to-find staff. The hourly rate is going up to £9, £10, £11 and even £12 an hour for unskilled work in order to attract new staff where they are harder to find. That is a key benefit and a good economic case for taking control of immigration in a way that the SNP would not like to see.

Oral Answers to Questions

Amy Callaghan Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

[Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

A recent report for the Aberlour children’s charity found that the DWP deducts an average of £80 a month from Scottish families on universal credit to cover debts such as advance payments caused by the five-week wait. Does the Secretary of State think that it is acceptable that 56% of our constituents claiming universal credit have been left with such tiny sums of money that they have been forced to go without food or to eat just one meal a day? Will he consider replacing the advance payment loans with a non-repayable grant?

[Mel Stride]

On deductions from universal credit, the hon. Lady will know that, during the pandemic, when things were extremely difficult, we paused that entire process. As a matter of principle, it is important that, when claimants are in debt, arrangements are made such that they can work their way through that and come out of debt. That often means deductions—I say “often” because it does not always mean that, and our debt management team are always very aware of the circumstances of those with whom they are dealing. We also reduced the maximum amount that can be deducted—first, from 40% to 30%, and now to 25%—so I am satisfied that the balance is broadly correct, but wherever there are individual instances where somebody feels that they are not being treated appropriately, they always have recourse to appeal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the SNP spokesperson.

[Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Recent figures from the Department for Work and Pensions, acquired from an answer to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), show that the Department took £2.3 million from claimants in Scotland, at an average of £250 per sanctioned household. Sanctions against young people in Scotland have almost doubled since 2019, undermining the significant investment the Scottish Government are making in tackling child poverty. Does the Secretary of State stand by the practice of sanctioning the most vulnerable and leaving them hungry?

[Mel Stride]

As we focused on in our earlier exchange, the most important thing is that there is a proportionate response to those who are in debt, for whatever reason. It is appropriate that we help people out of debt, and reductions—or deductions—are part of that process. As I explained to the hon. Lady, the maximum that can be taken from the universal credit standard payment is now 25%—it used to be 40%. We are very careful to assess every case on its individual merits, to take into account the circumstances of those impacted.