Single-Parent Families

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Hannah Bardell]

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

[David Linden]

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

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

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

[Amy Callaghan]

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

[David Linden]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

I call the shadow Minister, Alison McGovern.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Employment (Guy Opperman)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[David Linden]

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

[Guy Opperman]

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

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

Draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Administration, Investment, Charges and Governance) and Pensions Dashboards (Amendment) Regulations 2023

David Linden Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2023 General Committees

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank the Minister, as always, for maintaining her constructive relationship with Opposition parties.

I very much associate myself with the remarks the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) made about broad support for illiquid assets. Given that this statutory instrument in part rectifies previous drafting errors, we need to reflect a little on how we are channelling legislation through the House, particularly in relation to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, although that is perhaps a political point.

Like the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) at Work and Pensions questions on Monday, I want to press the Minister ever so slightly on the roll-out of the pensions dashboard. I absolutely understand the importance of getting things right first time—perhaps this SI is a good example—so I do not want to be on her case about the roll-out, which my party certainly supports, but we have concerns about commercial influence in the dashboard. I would certainly prefer to see the Money and Pensions Service, a public body, get the first year under its belt before that commercial influence starts. The principle of people having transparency, which is fundamentally what this SI is about, is, of course, hugely important.

I do not want to be on the Minister’s case about when the dashboard will be rolled out, but I would like a little more clarity about where we might be. On Monday, she was reluctant to say much to the right hon. Member for East Ham, but could she give us a nod and a wink about whether we will get more information before, say, the summer recess? That would be helpful. At this point, I will conclude my comments and wait to hear from the Minister, whom I greatly respect.

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

David Linden Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 6th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is right. This can apply to particular communities and to particular sectors. I suspect it is not deliberate, as I do not believe Ministers are looking to treat people unfairly, but I genuinely think there is a lack of understanding in how the system works for the self-employed and the degree to which fluctuating incomes are not captured by the scheme, as currently devised. That is why I urge the Government to review the position.

I particularly ask the Government to review how the minimum income floor interacts with self-employed people on varying incomes. I will explain it as briefly and as swiftly as possible. Eligibility for each of the three cost of living payments depends on receiving a universal credit payment of at least 1p during the corresponding qualifying month, as set out in the Bill. The position was the same for the original cost of living payments set out in the Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2022.

Equity, which represents self-employed people working in the creative industries and the theatre, challenged the 2022 Act as unfair and detrimental to the entertainment industry, and it seems to me that it presented good evidence. I refer to my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on opera and as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on theatre. I regret to say that Ministers did not make any changes, and I ask them to look into this in more detail and to think again as more evidence emerges.

When the minimum income floor is applied to self-employed universal credit claimants, their universal credit payments are, of course, reduced. For some claimants, the MIF reduces their payments to zero. The MIF is assumed earnings for UC claimants who are deemed gainfully self-employed, irrespective of whether those earnings are being received in a particular month. It is a calculation based on the national minimum wage and in a typical case the assumption is 35 times the hourly national minimum wage per week. On 2022-23 figures, that equates to £311.85 a week or £1,351.35 over a UC monthly assessment period.

The effects of that are unduly harsh for the self-employed with variable and unpredictable incomes, because it removes UC payments during periods of low earnings. The difficulty for people in the theatre is that, although they may well have periods when they are busy and above the threshold for any benefits, there may be weeks and months when they are not getting paid and the system does not pick that up. During those months when they are not qualifying they are likely to fall into debt, needing to borrow, and into arrears. That cannot be a fair way to deal with this. At a time when the entertainment industry and the theatre have been particularly hard hit during covid and the lockdowns and are still, in some respects recovering, the position seems to me and to many others to be unjust. It particularly hurts those who are starting out in their careers in the industry. I have been self-employed in the past and I know that at least one of the Ministers on the Bench has, but there is a difference between being in an established set of barristers’ chambers with a significant workflow coming through and being a young actor, musician or creative starting out. The inability to draw such distinctions and to be more nuanced in approach needs to be looked at, and I ask Ministers to do that.

The figures that have been demonstrated by Equity in looking at the DCMS workforce estimates show, for example, that between 2019 and 2021 the number of young people aged 16 to 24 working in music and performing and visual arts fell by 19%, which compares with a 14% drop among people aged 55 to 64. That was probably largely due to people leaving because of the impacts of the lockdown on that sector, but it is happening more among the youngsters, for the reasons I have set out. The number of black, African, Caribbean, black British people—those with minority ethnic backgrounds —in music, and performing and visual arts has fallen by 39%, which compares with a fall of some 9% among people with white ethnic backgrounds. Again, the people who find it harder to access careers in the arts sector to start with are the ones being most hard hit, because their incomes are more precarious, as it often takes them longer, by the nature of the business, to establish themselves. I am sure that is not an outcome Ministers wish to see, but that is the way the system, without any reform, is currently operating.

That situation is likely to get worse. In the first round of cost of living payments some 80,600 UC claimants were subject to the MIF, of whom 4,860 earned below their MIF and received a nil payment—that is about 6% of them. We are likely to be talking about a lot more people in 2023-24, because more claimants are now subject to the MIF than they were in the previous regime. That is simply because some 219,000 claimants were in a 12-month start-up period and therefore exempt during the qualifying period for the first payment. That of course has now ended for that cohort, so they will be subject to the MIF. If we were looking at the same percentages, we would be talking about another 13,000 people. That leaves us with the figure that Equity suggests of about 17,000 being affected.

This issue has been raised before, including by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), the Chair of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. He raised it with Ministers back in November 2022, and I am grateful to him for doing so. He asked the Secretary of State to consider a way to rectify the position of claimants who had had a nil payment during that period, but I regret to say that the Secretary of State rejected that request. He said that, among other things, simplicity of processing in the timeframe required and an inability to readily identify people affected were the reasons. I am not sure that simplicity of processing is, of itself, a good justification for causing unfairness to people. I thought that the Government were about fairness, more importantly, than they were about administrative simplicity. The suggestion that having the three qualifying periods reduces the risk of someone missing out completely does not work for every sector. It may work in some industries, but it does not work for the theatre and other sectors. The lack of flexibility and the rigidity need to be addressed.

Against that background, I hope that the Government will reflect on this matter. We want to encourage people into our creative industries, which is a thriving sector that does a great deal for this country. They work well for us economically, in social matters and for our cultural heritage, but it is hard for young people, in particular, to start out and this is a precarious life. We ought to have a system that more readily recognises that. It is not, as has been suggested, that the MIF is dealing with cases of fraud here; these are not fraudulent people, and we can sometimes worry so much about fraud that we exclude the honest from the system. We ought to get a balance on that. It has also been suggested that this was to weed out hobbyists who cannot sustain themselves in self-employment. I know lots of people in the creative industries who are not hobbyists. They work immensely hard to sustain themselves in self-employment but their incomes fluctuate to such a degree that they lose out on supplements and benefits that others who happen to be in slightly different forms of work with a slightly different pay structure get. That does not seem to be fair, which is why I tabled my new clause. I hope that the Government will reflect on it and undertake at the very least to review the matter again, look again at the evidence and meet people in the sector. I am not sure how often Ministers have face-to-face meetings. They should meet the people affected. Let us try to find a fairer way of making the Government’s objectives work for those people.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is not often that I find myself pleased in this place, but may I say how genuinely pleased I am to see you back in your place, Dame Eleanor? It is just right to see you in that place, so it is great to see you back.

I rise to speak to the amendments and new clauses that stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I am also happy to offer support for the amendments tabled by members of the Select committee, namely the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), as well as for new clause 7, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). I also support new clause 12, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) but not selected.

The House will recall that when I spoke on Second Reading, I stated my party’s support of the broad thrust of what the Bill seeks to achieve but was clear that it fails to address some of the wider issues impacting our social security system, which have only been highlighted further by the cost of living crisis. It is important to remind ourselves that these amendments, and in fact this entire Bill, are the product of the continuing cost of living crisis, which remains the single biggest priority for my east end constituents. We cannot forget that all of this comes against a backdrop of households continuing to face extremely challenging economic conditions. As such, there should be no doubt that my party welcomes the support laid out in this Bill, but we think that it does not go far enough to meet the needs of the poorest households struggling with the cost of living crisis. We have therefore tabled these amendments, in good faith, to try to make the Bill better.

The one-off cost of living payments in this Bill, as set out in the Chancellor’s autumn statement, are only a temporary fix, when it is clear that more permanent solutions are needed. Rather than offering one-off payments to shore up the incomes of struggling families, the British Government should reverse the damaging policies that are impacting the most vulnerable in our communities. They should be ending benefit sanctions, ending the benefit cap, ending unfair assessments, ending the rape clause, ending the five-week wait, ending no recourse to public funds. That list sometimes feels endless, but it is not, and the social security system is fixable if we have the political will. The amendments we have tabled today show that and highlight just some of the ways in which the British Government can point the social security system towards the people who actually use it and ensure they have adequate support, perhaps taking a leaf out of the Scottish Government’s book.

My amendment 2 ensures that universal credit claimants who have been sanctioned are not denied the vital cost of living payments. As the Bill currently stands, to qualify for the cost of living payment, claimants must be entitled to at least 1p in the month preceding the date specified by the Secretary of State in clause 2. However, if a claimant is sanctioned, their full entitlement could be taken away for a period of time. Many of those who have a sanction imposed will receive a nil award, which means that they do not receive the payment despite having an underlying entitlement to universal credit for that period. I have heard of cases where claimants have missed the bus or had to drop their children off at school, which has resulted, I am afraid, in their being late or missing an appointment at the jobcentre. That in turn has led to their being sanctioned and losing their universal credit for a number of weeks.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My hon. Friend makes a telling point about the universal credit uplift. Does he not think that, when it was made, it was a welcome admission that universal credit was not enough to live on, whereas the removal of the uplift has re-established that deficit for people and their families?

[David Linden]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I tend to take the view that if the British Government concluded in March and April 2020 that social security was inadequate for the then economic climate, social security is indeed inadequate in the current economic climate. I welcome the fact that the Select Committee is looking at benefit provision. The all-party group on poverty, which I co-chair with Baroness Lister, is taking evidence on this separately tomorrow.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey has outlined, it was a huge disappointment when the British Government decided against retaining the uplift. Since its removal, I have heard anecdotally that many people have struggled with the sudden loss of income—the largest drop in support in the modern welfare state. Any of us who interact with our constituents can outline how challenging that has been.

Similarly, new clause 5 would require the Secretary of State to produce an assessment of the impact on household incomes— as well as on fuel and food poverty—of the Government’s failure to extend the equivalent uplift to legacy benefits. As with the previous iteration of the Bill relating to cost of living payments, it is welcome that the British Government have included Scottish payments for disability in the eligibility criteria. Although I wish sincerely that the London Government would look towards Holyrood as a guide for more of their social security policies, I appreciate that Ministers have been working with my colleagues in Edinburgh and have ensured that people in receipt of Scottish disability payments will also get the additional payment.

It is widely acknowledged that disabled people are far more likely to live in poverty than non-disabled people and are particularly vulnerable to the rising cost of living. For instance, I have heard testimony in my constituency, in the Lilybank area, of vital medical equipment—not something that can be turned off or turned down a wee bit to take cognisance of energy prices—leading to extortionate electricity bills. Despite that knowledge, legacy benefit claimants, many of whom are long-term sick or disabled, were unjustly denied that uplift during the pandemic. That was a monumental injustice, and it certainly adversely financially impacted many people throughout the pandemic, which was already causing heightened health anxiety. It is only right that an assessment be made of the failure to extend the uplift to legacy benefit claimants.

We must also consider where inflation will be at the time that payments are made. In January this year, the consumer prices index was still in double digits and near the highest levels in about 40 years, at 10.1%. However, we know that the poorest often experience a high rate of inflation; according to the Resolution Foundation, the poorest tenth of households experienced an inflation rate of 11.7%. What is more, recent Office for National Statistics stats show that food and drink inflation remained close to the highest rates since the 1970s, with the soaring price of milk, bread and other basic essentials pushing prices up by almost 17% in a year.

Recently, the British Government rightly increased social security benefits and the state pension in line with the CPI, so it seems only logical that that should apply to the cost of living payments that the Bill makes provision for. Therefore, our new clause 6 would ensure that

“all payments due under this Act are increased by the rate of inflation as measured by the latest Consumer Prices Index at the time of payment, if that is higher than the original amount.”

We do not know what the economic landscape will be later this year, so the new clause was tabled as an insurance policy in the event that inflation does not fall as has been forecast. It is unfortunate that some of the amendments are not in scope; the money resolution was so restrictive that it prevents our bringing forward amendments that would assist our constituents in a more meaningful way.

However, I have highlighted some of the inadequacies in the UK’s social security system, mainly the punitive sanctions regime. Instead of providing a robust safety net for millions of households, the surge in sanctions demonstrates the uncaring approach of a Westminster Government who Scotland did not vote for and who are pushing people further into poverty during a cost of living crisis. People across Scotland are paying a very steep price indeed for poor economic decisions made in this Palace of Westminster.

It does not have to be like this. We can make better policy if the Government accept that they do not have a monopoly on wisdom. I have tabled the amendments in good faith and I believe they would vastly improve the Bill. I hope the Minister can come to the Dispatch Box later and confirm the Government’s support for amendment 2, which I believe can make this legislation much better for not only the people that I represent, but the people that we all represent in this House.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you back in your position, Dame Eleanor. I rise to speak to amendment 3, which stands in my name and the name of the Chair of the Select Committee. It is an attempt to ensure that what the Government are legislating for is consistent with what they are generally trying to do with universal credit and with these payments: to ensure that we do not create a cliff edge and a lumpy system in which people miss out through no fault of their own.

Under the amendment, rather than looking back and seeing whether someone has received 1p of universal credit in the previous month, we could simply check the two previous months and, if they received a payment in either or both those months, they would still get each of the individual £300 payments. It is designed to prevent a situation where somebody misses out on the individual payments because they have had some kind of strange anomaly in their UC record.

That anomaly might be that they are paid four-weekly and happened to get two payments in one assessment period, that they got a bonus or a few extra hours that tipped them out for that period, or that the employer has made a mistake, has not processed their payroll in time and has then managed to process two payments in the same month, as occasionally happens. Those are not really the intended position. I think we all expect that, for most people in a job, their monthly income is relatively stable—subject perhaps to a bit of overtime or the odd bonus here or there—and so their UC claim over a year is not affected; they get a bit more one month, a bit less the next and it all averages out over the year.

With the impact of these payments—not quite one-off payments, but three-off payments—that will not quite be the situation. If someone happens to have a month where they earn a bit too much, they could miss out on £300, which could be a material part of their annual income. That might drive people to be careful about whether they take extra hours and thus enforce the wrong behaviour. Having to plan for whether they will be £300 worse off if they get another £50 of wages or similar is not the behaviour that universal credit was designed to drive. It was designed to make clear that work would always pay, and we are in danger of doing something that goes against that.

I welcome the Government’s bringing forward these payments and the fact that we are debating them in March. That means that we have a plan for the year and people know what they are going to get, unlike last year when—perhaps for some good reasons—it was all a bit haphazard and we kept announcing new things all over the place. As some other hon. Members have said, I would have preferred this year to have an increase in UC; this £900 works out at just under £18 a week, and with the tapering effect we could have given a higher starting point to achieve the same costs, so those less well-off households got a bit more than the £900 and those who earn a bit more got a bit less. That would have been a better use of funds and a better way of doing it.

--- Later in debate ---

I now turn to amendments 2 and 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) and my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), respectively. Amendment 2 asks us to change our eligibility criteria to include those who have no benefit payment due to a sanction. I want to reiterate to the Committee and to anybody listening that people are only sanctioned if they fail, without good reason—and we have heard tonight some that sound like good reasons—to meet the conditions they have agreed to.

[David Linden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mims Davies]

I will just make a little progress, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to jump in again shortly.

Ultimately, this is about parity between taxpayers and those people who are seeking support. As I say, we have targeted communications in place to make it clear to customers that our work coaches are there to help, whatever their circumstances. Whether it is getting advice, boosting people’s skills, or identifying opportunities for progression, anybody looking for support should speak to their work coach to access all the help that the DWP can offer.

[David Linden]

On amendment 2, the fact of the matter is that people have already been punished once by being sanctioned. This is a cost of living payment in recognition of inflation and high energy bills. Why on earth does the Minister think it is appropriate for 6,600 households to have been sanctioned and punished twice last year, and why is she allowing legislation to go forward that allows people to be punished twice again? That is the simple question.

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making his points, and I simply do not agree with the point about punishment. Conditionality works on both sides, and I think it is important that people play their part. I will come on to further comments about that shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

In rising to conclude this Bill, I also want pay tribute to the Clerk of Legislation and to Linda Nagy and Nansi Morgan from my own team for their help with the amendments. My position on the Bill remains that it is welcome but could have gone further. I say to the Minister—whom I genuinely respect; we have robust debates in this place, but they are just that—that the reality is that last year 6,600 people who should have had a cost of living payment did not get one because they were sanctioned. All that the amendment was trying to do was to ensure that the law had a safety net, which is the very purpose of social security, and it is regrettable that the Government voted against that tonight. I hope that, when the Minister and I are jousting about this in a year’s time, we will not look back and see an even higher figure of households that have been sanctioned. As much as the Minister and I can have robust debates, we should never lose sight of the fact that the legislation that we pass in this place, imperfect though it is, impacts some of the most vulnerable people in our constituencies, and I fear that the Government will come to regret rather hastily rejecting amendment 2 tonight, because those people will be at the Minister’s surgeries on a Friday morning, as I am sure they will be at mine. On that basis we will let the Bill go off, and look forward to the progress that it will make for those that it does include.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 15 June 2022 (Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Programme)) as varied by the Order of 31 October 2022 (Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

Subsequent stages

(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mark Spencer.)

Question agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Linden Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Post pandemic, and under this uncaring Conservative Government, we have seen sanctions skyrocket, pushing many people into destitution. Can the Secretary of State come to the Dispatch Box and outline how plunging people into poverty helps deal with economic inactivity? Is it not the case that the only activity it stimulates is at local food banks?

[Mel Stride]

I am surprised, in a way, that the hon. Gentleman raises the issue of poverty, because what we have seen, certainly since 2010 and under this Government, has been absolute levels of poverty declining and fewer children growing up in workless homes, for example, in distinct contrast to Governments prior to my party coming into office.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Does the Secretary of State understand and agree that expediting the rise in the state pension age is less about life expectancy, which, according to the Office for National Statistics is very much arrested, and more about a cost-cutting measure for the Treasury? Can he tell the House what representations he has made to the Chancellor about that in advance of next week’s Budget? Or is it just the UK Government’s policy that people should work until they drop?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman is prejudging an awful lot of potential outcomes. He should wait until the Chancellor and I have taken those particular decisions. I am focused on a variety of metrics. Life expectancy is one of them, as is regional impact. The fiscal impact certainly cannot be ignored, and I would be surprised if he suggested otherwise. Fairness between generations and the period of life in which one is expected to be healthy in later years are also important considerations.

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

David Linden Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 21st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to outline my party’s position on this Bill and express our support for the broad thrust of what it seeks to achieve. To that end, as with His Majesty’s official Opposition, we will not oppose it on Second Reading, but I do believe that the Bill before the House today gives us an opportunity to consider some of the wider issues relating to our social security net and the desperately needed repairs which should be undertaken, but which, sadly, this Bill fails to address.

As I have said countless times before, Members on the Government Benches, and indeed all of us in this place, talk about the cost of living crisis as a recent phenomenon, or a new thing which happens to impede the lives of our constituents, but actually it is not. The cost of living crisis is the cumulative impact of 12 years of austerity policies, mixed with a cocktail of economic scarring from covid-19, and compounded yet further by Russia’s outrageous invasion of Ukraine. But that is precisely why I wish this Bill went further: to support better those who are the most vulnerable financially, the kind of folks I see at my Friday surgeries at Baillieston, Easterhouse, Parkhead and Cranhill.

The harsh yet inescapable reality is that many of the structural problems that the very poorest in our society face are the result of a policy framework put in place by this British Government: policies like the benefit cap, the two-child policy and cuts to universal credit, to name just a few. It is not good enough for Ministers to bring forward substandard legislation to the House which merely tinkers around the edges but will not deal with the source of the poverty that hinders so many of the poorest people who I represent.

We know how dire things are not because of anecdotes and the odd horrifying surgery testimony, but because of indisputable research from the likes of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Resolution Foundation. The Resolution Foundation has made it clear that the poorest 10th of households experienced an inflation rate of 11.7%, and Office for National Statistics data shows that food and drink inflation is running at some of the highest rates since the 1970s, with the price of bread, milk and basic essentials soaring up in price by almost 17% in a year. Data from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that more than 7 million households on these islands have been going without essentials such as meals, heating and showers this winter. This is the sixth richest economy in the world and on these islands people are going without meals, heating and showers—just let that sink in, and think about how that compares with our chat about global Britain. These eye-wateringly high levels of inflation are disproportionately hurting the poorest in our constituencies, which in turn puts yet more pressure on public and third sector agencies which are already at breaking point; I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a director of Cranhill Development Trust.

We can and must do more to protect the most vulnerable. That is why the one-off cost of living payments are only a temporary fix and it is clear that permanent solutions are desperately needed. That is why when this Bill goes into Committee next Monday, I will be seeking to bring forward amendments to improve it—for example to the punitive sanctions regime, which currently means cost of living payments cannot be paid to those who are sanctioned. I have to tell the Secretary of State that those who are sanctioned are not immune to the cost of living crisis, and yet currently under the Bill those who have been sanctioned will not get the cost of living payment.

It is deeply concerning to see the DWP announcing that more people are going to risk having their vital universal credit payments sanctioned. For example, the average earnings threshold for UC rose and will affect up to 120,000 more folks. A further 600,000 people who are already working for up to 35 hours each week will be targeted later this year. There is clear and indisputable evidence that sanctions do not work either in getting people into sustainable work or in getting them to increase their hours or earnings; we heard about that recently at the Work and Pensions Committee. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies recently reported, these types of policy produce

“fiscal savings indistinguishable from zero”,

yet conditionality subjects people to untold anxiety and harm. Rather than offering one-off payments to shore up the incomes of struggling families, the British Government should focus on reversing the damaging policies that are impacting on the most vulnerable.

My party stands by our calls to Ministers to reinstate the uplift to universal credit, and indeed to increase it by £25 a week and extend it to all means-tested legacy benefits, as well as ending the benefit cap and the two-child limit. We know, for example, that disabled people are far more likely to live in poverty than non-disabled people, and are particularly vulnerable to the rising cost of living—a point that Ministers have repeatedly ignored to the detriment of my disabled constituents. Likewise, 86% of households trapped by the benefit cap are families, often headed by single mothers. It is the job of Government to support families, not subject them to further hardship. I completely agree with John Dickie of Child Poverty Action Group Scotland who calls for this “cruel and irrational” benefit cap to be scrapped at source by the UK Government as a matter of utmost urgency

The continued refusal by Ministers to fix the extensive and well documented problems with universal credit is unacceptable and it is unequivocally subjecting vulnerable people to additional unnecessary hardship. A recent report from the Commissioner for Human Rights at the Council of Europe found that the level of support provided under universal credit was a key contributing factor to child poverty. The report stated that policies such as the two-child limit and benefit cap

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

That is the Council of Europe saying that the UK Government’s policies exacerbate child poverty, and that is the fundamental problem here. The Bill tinkers around the edges with temporary fixes, however welcome, but it fails to deal with the root causes of the poverty that the Government are inflicting on their own citizens.

Meanwhile, in Scotland my colleagues in the SNP Scottish Government continue to do everything within their limited powers and fixed budgets to ensure Scottish people and communities are supported through this crisis as far as possible. In line with the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s forecasts, Scotland’s Government are set to invest £5.2 billion in benefits expenditure in 2023-24, providing support to more than 1 million people. Indeed, in 2027-28, that is forecast to increase to £7.3 billion—money that will go directly to people who need it most and to support people to live independent lives. But the Scottish Government are doing all this with both hands tied behind their back, because every additional £1 that my colleagues in Holyrood spend on measures to help with rising costs and the mitigation of Tory cuts must be funded from reductions elsewhere, given their largely fixed budget and limited fiscal powers. We do not have the bedroom tax in Scotland because we spend huge amounts of money on discretionary housing payments to try to nullify the impact of that tax, but that comes at the expense of the education budget, the health budget, the transport budget, the justice budget and so on. Members in this House have failed to confront the fact that devolution was never meant to be a sticking plaster for detrimental decisions made here.

Despite repeated requests, the Chancellor has thus far failed to provide any extra assistance to help Scotland’s Government manage this year’s budget. With every passing day that the British Government fail to use their reserved powers to adequately tackle the cost of living and its long-term impact, they demonstrate that independence is the only way for Scotland to boost incomes and build the fairer society that so many people in my community strive to see. The simple truth is that Westminster is not working and it is time for Scottish independence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am not saying that employment of any description is the silver bullet. We have phased movement under universal credit, because it is a tapering benefit from unemployment through additional support from Government that diminishes as pay rates increase. Most hon. Members would accept that that is the right approach, but I also accept that the hon. Lady rightly drew attention earlier to the disability employment gap. Although I recognise the recent unwelcome upward tick in that, the direction of travel and the long-term trend is downward, which I wholeheartedly welcome.

In my constituency of Broadland, the universal credit claimant rate is only 2%. Bearing in mind that a percentage of those will be in employment, in my part of the country at least we benefit from full functional employment. It is a feather in the Government’s cap that the national average universal credit claimant rate is just 3.6%; we see that in particular when we look at youth unemployment. In Broadland, the rate among the 18 to 24-year-old cohort—who are often hard to employ and most quickly affected by economic downturn—is just 3.6%, whereas nationally it is 4.6%. It is worth taking a moment to make some international comparisons. In France, the rate of unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds is more than 20%, and the equivalent figure for Spain is about 35%. Something is happening in the United Kingdom that is not happening on the European mainland. My submission is that it is because Conservative policies are leading to fuller employment, particularly in those cohorts that have traditionally found it harder to gain and retain employment. That is down to the brave decisions of this and former Conservative Administrations in creating a dynamic labour market that has allowed and encouraged employment and, yes, the ability to reduce the employment count for employers. That has led to fuller employment in this country than there has been in areas that are perhaps more unionised, where once someone is in the club their job is protected but that comes at the cost of the young and the poorest.

The Government have been right to focus on a dynamic labour market, in addition to direct Government support in schemes such as the £2 billion kickstart scheme, which worked so well in the aftermath of the pandemic, and the restart scheme. It cost an eye-watering £2.9 billion, but UC claimants of nine months or more got additional focus from their Jobcentre Plus work coaches to help them step back into employment, countering the terrible drain on the country and the individual cost to people’s lives of long-term unemployment.

On work coaches, this Government have doubled their number in 2021, increasing it by 13,500. I have seen these work coaches at work in my constituency, at the Jobcentre Plus in Fakenham. I pay particular tribute to all the staff members there, who have a huge amount of enthusiasm and expertise, and are going the extra mile day in, day out to get the long-term unemployed in my area into jobs. The total number of UC claimants in Broadland is 1,130. They are not all long-term unemployed, but, in a period of full employment, we just need an extra bit of help to get that hardcore group into the jobs, which are available. The additional work coaches are exactly the right way to go, which is bearing fruit.

The apprenticeship schemes are also being supported and encouraged by the Government. Members from around the House will recall that two weeks ago it was National Apprenticeship Week. To celebrate that and encourage its further uptake, I visited a business in my constituency, Ben Burgess, which many in the east will recognise as agricultural machinery suppliers of great repute. At any one time, the company has about 30 apprenticeships, which, typically, start at the age of 16. The apprentices get taken through training both on the job and at a national training facility in the midlands, where they have university-style education as well as on-the-job training in their place of employment. They come out of that scheme with a machinery technician qualification, a job and a career, leading to a really fulfilling lifestyle. That is exactly the kind of thing that the Government should be and are supporting.

I cannot move on from this area of my speech without a little plug for my jobs fair, which is taking place at Taverham High School on 10 March. It is one of a series that I have been holding and will continue to hold. My first one was in Fakenham, in the aftermath of the covid pandemic, when my assumption was that we would have a tidal wave of unemployment. The estimate at the time was that we would have 12% unemployment. I set in place a jobs fair to try to solve that problem, but because of the incredible intervention of the then Chancellor, now Prime Minister, we did not have 12% unemployment. The Government put their arms around the economy, supported people in their jobs and the potential crisis did not materialise.

On the detail of the proposed legislation, I fully support the uplift in the national living wage by 9.7%, taking it to £10.42 an hour, and not just for those whose employment is at the national living wage. As a former employer, I know very well that the national living wage is the base upon which many, many layers of employment judge their own job offers. We have created the conditions where there is full functional employment in the vast majority of the country, so employers are having to compete for staff. One way—it is not the only way—to compete is on pay. As the national living wage base rises, the gradated competition in pay rises as well, and that has a really beneficial effect.

[David Linden]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has seen the Budget submissions from both the CBI and the TUC. It is not often that they both sing from the same hymn sheet, but one key theme they complain and raise concerns about is staffing shortages. I accept that the national living wage is one factor, but does he also accept the concerns of both the CBI and the TUC that the Government have a problem with staffing issues, which cannot necessarily be helped by something like Brexit?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am really grateful to the hon. Member for making that intervention, because we had a similar discussion in an earlier debate and he gives me the opportunity to say what I kicked myself for not saying last time. As a former employer, if one has access to—let us call it this—unlimited cheap labour then there is no incentive to increase productivity or invest in further plant and machinery. As a result, we have what he was also complaining about, which is the low productivity conundrum. On access to labour, I recall him saying in an earlier intervention a couple of weeks ago that in Scotland the problem is not having too many people, but an exodus of people from Scotland. I just wonder what is the difference between Conservative-run England, where people in their hundreds of thousands are seeking to come into this country, and SNP-run Scotland, where they are leaving in their tens of thousands?

[David Linden]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am hopefully allowing him to sit down and think about that just a little bit more. That might help him.

The reality is that immigration policy is controlled by the United Kingdom Government. The Scottish Government and huge swathes of civic society have said that our problem has never been emigration, but immigration. We are looking to get more people to come to live and work in Scotland. It is the UK Government and the Home Office who make that more difficult. On Friday, I had an asylum seeker at my surgery, somebody who is incredibly well qualified and who has something he wants to offer this country, but because of a decision taken in 2002 by the Labour Government he is restricted from working here. He wants to work in Scotland, but he cannot do so because of an intransigent UK immigration policy. That is the reality of our immigration problems. It is not some mini-tartan issue that he might want to dress it up as.

[Jerome Mayhew]

This probably strays a little far from the topic of the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, which is not about immigration policy, but I note in passing that if the hon. Gentleman wants to encourage people to work in his country, having a supertax on employment is probably not the best way to go about it.

Cost of living inflation hits working families too, so I welcome the £900 cost of living payments that will benefit fully 8 million families, as well as the disability payment of £150 to help with the higher cost of equipment needs. That will also benefit some 6 million people. If a job is the best form of welfare, then reducing inflation is the best way to tackle the cost of living crisis. My commendation to the Minister is that we should stick to our guns that reducing inflation during the course of this year, halving it as the Prime Minister has promised to do, is absolutely the right way to do it. The Bank of England currently predicts that inflation will dip below 4% by the end of this year, so that, overwhelmingly, is the best way to deal with these longer-term problems—not one-off payments which seek to address a symptom rather than dealing with the cause. While it is necessary to address the symptoms in the way the Bill does, I am grateful to the Government for also dealing with the cause of the cost of living crisis—inflation resulting from Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine—because that is the long-term solution to these problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is standing up as ever for his constituents. There is a cost of living website, there will be details on gov.uk and of course there is the benefits calculator on gov.uk. Those who are entitled will not need to do anything, because payment will be made to them. I hope that reiterates the point. There will be a rounded communications campaign on that. In fact, I made a video just this morning. I hope that is helpful—I promise the video was on this issue.

The key principle that has guided our approach to the Bill this time is to make those further payments to millions of vulnerable people over the coming year. Keeping the rules simple means that people on a qualifying benefit will receive the cost of living payment. That is why we are introducing the Bill. I reassure hon. Members across the House, including on the Opposition Benches, that we did take our time to look at addressing some of the hard edges. Ultimately, we concluded that introducing any significant policy changes would risk delaying payments to millions of people and introducing unacceptable levels of fraud and error. I will go into detail on that shortly, if I may.

We will be delivering the means-tested cost of living payments in three separate payments in 2023-24, as discussed, reducing the chances of someone’s missing out altogether. For those who miss out on a cost of living payment, and for others who may need further support with the costs of essentials on top of our statutory provision, we are extending the household support fund throughout the next financial year. The details have been confirmed today.

The extension allows local authorities in England to continue to provide discretionary support with the cost of essentials, particularly energy and food. The devolved Administrations will receive consequential funding, as usual, to spend at their discretion and with their expert local knowledge—[Interruption.] Sorry, I thought someone was interrupting there. The household support fund guidance and outlines have been released today. It is our expectation that local authorities will prioritise those in particular need and consider supporting those who may, through no fault of their own, have missed out on those cost of living payments but nevertheless are in need.

There have been a number of contributions to the debate and I will to try to respond to some of the points made in turn. The right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) talked about the energy price cap. He welcomed our uprating, which is significant. I remind him that childcare on universal credit is more generous than on legacy benefits and the way we have drawn the household support fund will cover many of the points he raised; I hope he will have a chance to look at those interventions. The personalised support with the Help to Claim service, working with the supporting families programme from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, will help the families with complex needs that the right hon. Gentleman spoke about.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) called this “substandard legislation”, which I take severe issue with, but he took the opportunity to make wider points about social security and talked about the “punitive sanctions regime”. I think we will always beg to differ on that. I make the point very strongly that this is a reserved matter. We are delighted to be making the payments for Scotland and today providing the Barnett consequentials in relation to the household support fund and further assistance—[Interruption.] I am sure he cannot resist intervening, so I will let him.

[David Linden]

Indeed not. I very much enjoyed being told to eat my cereal today. On the question of sanctions, how many people in Mid Sussex tell the Minister how wonderful the sanctions regime is? It is clearly increasing.

[Mims Davies]

I will come onto the point about sanctions shortly. I know there is confusion among those on the Opposition Benches about whether they support sanctions, but this is about a safety net; it is about progressing and supporting people and helping them to go forward. In reality, when people are sanctioned, it does not just happen. There are processes to go through where work coaches try to engage and support people. If people are disconnected and they fail to attend, that is why they are sanctioned, which is often the reason they then re-engage, talk to their work coach and get involved with what is going on. That helps us to get under the skin of what is holding them back, and I think that is important. I assume from his question that there is a fundamental disagreement, but I will not hold it against him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) very kindly turned the focus on to employment. Having been Employment Minister for three years, how can I resist responding to that? A dynamic labour market is important, including the work around furlough, the plan for jobs, and the kickstart and restart schemes—I designed many of those programmes, so it is always nice to have a compliment. In reality, our talented new work coaches—those who we found, recruited and brought into the DWP because of the impact of the pandemic—have been transformational. The other side of this debate is important—it is jobs, it is livelihoods, it is careers, it is opportunities, and it is making sure that people, when at their most vulnerable, know that they have that safety net. I wish my hon. Friend good luck with his jobs fair on 10 March. I have my second in Burgess Hill—this is a great opportunity to mention it.

The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) spoke up for his constituents and their fuel requirements. Of course, the energy price guarantee will be key to protecting customers and our constituents, and the household support fund will be a key driver as well. It is absolutely right to focus on our constituents. I have worked very strongly on the household support fund to complement this piece of legislation, working with the Local Government Association, to ensure that we support everyone who comes to us in any situation. I was pleased to hear him talk about the rewards of work and why they matter too. We know that it is more than just a pay packet that we are looking for.

My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) spoke about households being squeezed, the cost of living website, and, of course, the fact that the help-to-claim service is there and that all constituencies—no matter how leafy and lovely they may seem—have pockets of challenge. It is absolutely right that we act when we see the impact of a global squeeze. That is absolutely the mark of what we stand for at the DWP. There is the £10 million going to Surrey, and the almost £10 million going to West Sussex just next door to my constituency. What has come out of this and the work that we have done during covid? It is our work with local authorities, which I must commend for stepping up and doing a magnificent job in helping people. They know where those pockets of support are needed. I thank those local offices.

I will quickly whip through some of the challenges made about the legislation. On the adequacy point, inflation is forecast to remain high over the next few months, meaning that many people will need this additional support, but it is important to remember that these payments are just one element announced by the Chancellor back in November. The broader uprating will make a difference.

On the points about housing support, I am working with colleagues at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on quality and provision. My party strongly continues to focus on opening up the benefits and freedom of home ownership and all that it gives. The 2020 local housing allowance rates were raised to the 30th percentile—a significant investment of £30 billion—and we have since maintained that increase. Of course, we know that housing costs are incredibly challenging, particularly for renters. That is something that we are working on and taking forward in through the housing taskforce.

Saving for Later Life

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Nigel Mills]

There are various ideas out there, and people could use that sort of scheme. They could take a loan out of their pension scheme to get their deposit, and pay it back. We could allow people to be auto-enrolled and have their employer contributions go into their help to buy ISA. There are various ways to try to achieve the aim, but we need to pick one and bring it forward. We have not made the progress that perhaps we should. To be honest, I can see no way of getting more money into young people’s savings to achieve a deposit other than allowing the use of some kind of employer support that is currently going into their pension, because in reality, young people will not have the scope to save much more for themselves. We have already tried to give them the taxpayer top-up through the help to buy ISA. Where else is new money coming from to improve this situation if not from money that is going into their retirement saving?

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way and to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies), who intervened before me and talked about the KiwiSaver scheme. I think that that is very interesting, but it strikes me, when considering this topic, that this is a discussion that we have within our little bubble on work and pensions but it is perhaps not something that has been explored in Government—for example, in the Treasury and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Does the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) agree that there has to be a slightly wider, cross-Government approach if we are seriously to explore the issue?

[Nigel Mills]

I agree. This is a complicated area and it clearly does cross into being a Treasury responsibility; it has to, as it involves quite a lot of pensions issues. But this is a question of coming up with a consensus around a plan for how we achieve the aim. There needs to be a long-term, stable solution. The Treasury did—it must be seven or eight years ago—move to the help to buy ISA and add the taxpayer top-up to it, and that is, in effect, an equivalent to what people get in a pension scheme. There does not have to be a completely closed door, but this is a matter of bringing these things to fruition.

I welcome the announcements made by my hon. Friend the Minister last week at the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association about the value for money of pension schemes. I have banged on about this for a few years. It is regrettable that the auto-enrolment market is generally still about saying, “We’re going to be really cheap for employers and really easy for you to comply with,” rather than, “Here’s a great pension that you can put your staff in. It will be a really powerful motivation and retention tool, and they will get a really good pension at the end of it.” Now that the market is mature, we need to try to move it away from being cheap and easy to being high quality, with decent returns and a decent service to members. If the Minister is going to make some progress on that, I will greatly welcome it, because having people in the best possible schemes with the best returns, rather than in the cheapest and easiest ones, will actually boost their retirement income.

It is also extremely welcome that the Minister is looking at how we can roll out CDC—collective defined contribution—schemes to many more people. Not having them necessarily being employer-led, and allowing them to be decumulation only, is a really powerful thing for retirement, especially now that we are in a different world. If interest rates stay where they are and people can get a much better annuity—I think the rates are now more like 6% a year rather than 4%—that dramatically changes the assumptions that we have seen for the last 15 or 20 years. Those schemes could become much more attractive and much better for people even than we thought they would be when we introduced the Royal Mail one. The landscape has changed, and the more we can make some progress on these key things, the more chance there is to make a real difference. I hope the Government will make some progress on these matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure, as ever, to see you in the Chair, Mr Hosie. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) on that last point, which I will come to in my remarks. I also congratulate the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), on securing this important debate. We have had very good contributions from the hon. Members for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and for North Norfolk, some of which I will touch on.

I am always struck that people can talk to me comfortably about the tragedy of poverty and its numerous consequences, but when pensioner poverty comes up they start to feel uneasy, perhaps justifiably. The truth is that many of us do not want to admit that the idea of older people struggling with simple things such as paying their bills and affording their weekly food shop is a bit too far from them. For many, it is an accepted fact that what awaits them in the golden years of retirement is a life of comfort, leisure and looking after grandchildren. But for far too many pensioners in these islands, the inadequacy of the state pension, which is one of the lowest in Europe, means that they have to turn to food banks and avoid turning on their radiators in the winter. It is an uncomfortable thought—the idea of one’s 80 or 90-year-old grandmother counting the pennies and sitting, anxiously, worrying about how to pay her bills. Sadly, for far too many, including in my own constituency—and, I am sure, in Dundee East, Mr Hosie—that is the stark reality of Tory Britain.

Saving for later life can be a complex and unfamiliar task, and it is further complicated by an arduous system and often impenetrable jargon, as Members have touched on. From speaking anecdotally to Members of this House, I know that as soon as pensions are mentioned, eyes glaze over and people turn off. It can seem easier to focus on today’s finances, particularly with the rising cost of living and heightened inflation, but that is simply to kick the can down the road. Today’s debate is therefore a welcome opportunity to take stock of the current pensions landscape and to assess how we are helping—if indeed we are helping—people to save for later life.

Let me start, as many others have, with automatic enrolment. Although it has undoubtedly been a success so far, it can and should go further. Saving the minimum through automatic enrolment will simply not provide many with an adequate living standard. That comes as a shock to many when retirement is just around the corner, at which point it is often too late to do much about it. My position, and indeed that of the SNP, is that the eligibility criteria for auto-enrolment should be widened and the age of eligibility moved from 22 to 16. Let me explain why it should be 16 and not 18, which appears to be the wider consensus in this House.

This issue is personal for me. This is National Apprenticeship Week, and I left school at 16 and started working as an apprentice, as tens of thousands of young people do, perhaps setting off on a lifelong career in local government. For that reason, and indeed many others, I believe it would be right and proper for auto-enrolment to be rolled out to those who enter the labour market at 16. That would bring it in line with taxation policy and give people the best opportunity to save for their future. I also want auto-enrolment to be rolled out from the first pound rather than an arbitrary threshold of £10,000. I will explain later why that ties in with the gender pensions gap, which is a real problem.

I concur with the Committee’s report regarding the recommendations of the 2017 auto-enrolment review, and I hope that we soon see more progress on those. The recommendations would hugely improve the saving ability of those who are typically short-changed by the pensions system—I am thinking specifically of part-time workers, women, self-employed people and workers in the gig economy. In this morning’s debate there has been a good focus on self-employment. As the Committee’s report clarifies, a much smaller proportion of self-employed people, as opposed to employees, now contribute to a pension. That proportion has increasingly declined since the mid-1990s and now sits at just 16%, compared with 88% of workers eligible for auto-enrolment. I therefore support the report’s recommendations on that issue, including trialling ways to default self-employed people into pension saving and considering how to promote it to them. I note from the Minister’s letter, which a number of us received, that the Government are making an effort to do that, but I press the Minister ever so slightly to give us a timescale.

Let me turn to the gig economy and the future of work. As we inevitably become more reliant on the gig economy, it is vital that auto-enrolment applies to everyone and that employers do not shirk their responsibilities to staff. It is worth noting that that recommendation has been made in not one but two previous reports by the Committee. I repeat that the British Government must do more to bring forward an employment Bill as soon as possible. We have been waiting for this elusive employment Bill for what feels like an eternity. If the Government can find time for the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill, they should be able to bring forward an employment Bill that improves workers’ rights—something we were promised would be part of the post-Brexit sunlit uplands. Although an employment Bill would offer many possibilities for enshrining better terms, conditions and employment protections, it would also increase the legal protection available to people in low-paid work and the gig economy, ensuring that they have a fair opportunity to save for their pension. Surely we can all agree on a cross-party basis about that.

I turn now to the injustice of the gender pensions gap and to the need for a clear and official measure of what that gap actually is. Again, I welcome what the Minister said in her letter about trying to get to that definition. We rightly talk a lot in this place about the gender pensions gap, but we cannot work constructively towards ending the inherent gender-based discrimination that is baked so deeply into our economic structures if we do not have a definition of it.

Although eligibility to auto-enrolment doubtless contributes to the gap, so too does the motherhood penalty. To put the gender divide in context, we know that the average pension pot for a woman aged 65 is one fifth of that for a 65-year-old man, and that, on average over a 20-year period, women receive £29,000 less by way of a state pension than men. What is even more depressing is that, without urgent intervention, that deficit is predicted to continue, closing only by a meagre 3% by 2060. Therefore, extending the coverage of automatic enrolment further by reducing the earnings threshold to a lower level—ideally, as I say, to the first pound—would bring hundreds of thousands of people, and most importantly women, into pension saving. We should be proud that, in recent years, we have made enormous strides in bringing about equality, but we need to be honest that that progress is not reflected in pensions policy.

I turn now to the question of advice, which is where the hon. Member for North Norfolk finished his speech. Obviously, it is hugely important that people save enough for retirement, but it also matters greatly that people receive impartial and fair advice about their pension in good time. The Money and Pensions Service estimates that 22 million people do not know enough to plan for their retirement, which is an incredibly alarming figure. That leads me to reflect on a conversation that I had with my mother over Christmas, when she was talking about her pension. She had no idea about things such as Pension Wise, so clearly she is one of those 22 million people. That dim assessment was also reflected in new research from the Department of Work and Pensions, which was released only last week. It found:

“Attitudes to pensions were characterised by detachment, fear and complacency, which acted as barriers to engagement.”

We would all want people to feel more confident and secure about their pension savings. I certainly want to ensure that I am doing everything I can to make sure that people fully understand the decisions they make and, more importantly, that they can make them with conviction. There are good organisations out there, such as the Just Group, which are clear that the best option for achieving those aims is Pension Wise, the Government-backed and impartial guidance service delivered by MaPS.

I have spoken to the Minister over the course of the last month about the importance of Pension Wise and how disappointing it is that take-up remains relatively low, despite satisfaction with the service being so high. The hon. Member for North Norfolk spoke about how high satisfaction is with that service; it is up there at 90%, which is quite remarkable.

In Scotland, separate analysis from MaPS shows that the number of appointments that people made with it fell by 13% in a year, while the total number of pensions accessed across the UK rose by 18%. That concerns me enormously, because people are drawing down their pensions and making decisions about their pensions in a way that is not particularly well informed and that could even be financially disadvantageous to them.

The Work and Pensions Committee has recommended that there should be an auto-appointment trial for Pension Wise and I again join others in urging the Minister to consider that suggestion. In addition, I also ask what her Department is doing to increase the take-up of Pension Wise, because I am not necessarily sure that things such as the “stronger nudge” are working. If she is in a position to agree to meet me and the Just Group to discuss the issue, I would be grateful if she could confirm that during her speech.

Although Members from different parties may disagree about the adequacy of the pensions system, we must be clear that a situation in which any pensioner is experiencing poverty is unacceptable. According to the latest figures from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, roughly 1.7 million pensioners in these islands are currently living in poverty. Age UK has said that the priority for many pensioners is dealing with the rising cost of living and surviving day to day. They are focused now on the challenges of health, money and their responsibilities, as well as how to cope with limited resources.

It cannot be right that after working for their entire lives, raising families and contributing to the society that my generation benefits from, so many pensioners are now worried and anxious about money. It is not right that the UK devotes a smaller percentage of its GDP to state pensions and pensioner benefits than most other advanced economies. It is also not right that the UK, despite being one of the wealthiest countries in the world, has one of the lowest state pensions in Europe.

From Barrowfield to Baillieston, pensioners in my constituency are clear to me on the doorstep that they feel that the British Government do not value them and that pensioners are, at best, an afterthought and a group that the Tories merely pay lip service to.

On just about every measure, this London Government have a disastrous record on supporting pensioners, whether that is the injustice shown to the 1950s women, the frozen pensions for UK citizens living abroad, the breaking of the pensions triple lock, the underpayment of state pensions, the gender pensions gap or the low uptake of pension credit. The list goes on and on.

Westminster has proven time and again that it will not deliver fairness or prosperity for pensioners in Scotland and that without radical change our senior citizens face a retirement of poverty, not prosperity. So long as Scotland is still tied to this Westminster system that we do not consent to, we will continue to get pensions policies that make our people poorer. That is why I fervently believe that the only way to ensure dignity and fairness in retirement for my constituents is with Scottish independence. For many of my elderly constituents sitting in their freezing homes this morning, perversely in an energy-rich country, that conclusion—that we need Scottish independence—is one that they are rapidly also reaching.

Social Security and Pensions

David Linden Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), who is always incredibly thoughtful on these issues, and it is certainly a pleasure to serve alongside him on the Work and Pensions Committee.

As we debate today’s annual uprating orders, we do so against a grim economic backdrop and at a time when some of the most vulnerable people in our communities are battling literally to survive this cost of living crisis and make it through the winter. However, I think it is important to recognise that the cost of living crisis is not a new thing. Yes, the war in Ukraine has had a profound impact on the global economy, and I do not think anybody in this House would deny that; and nor is anyone denying that the coronavirus pandemic has left serious scarring on the economy. But the inescapable fact is that poverty in all its forms was in a dire situation pre-pandemic. Let us take child poverty as just one example. Figures from the Child Poverty Action Group show that, pre-covid, there were 700,000 more children in poverty than at the start of 2010. Rising child poverty coupled with a cost of living crisis demands radical action from a British Government who must do more—so much more—to end the scourge of child poverty.

Today’s uprating orders are certainly a step in the right direction. The orders for the financial year 2023-24 are welcome, and we certainly will not oppose them. However, Ministers should be under no illusion that these will make up for four very long years of benefit freeze prior to the pandemic. Data from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s cost of living tracker in October paints a horrendous picture that should shame every single one of us. About six in 10 low-income households are not able to afford an unexpected expense, over half are in arrears and about a quarter use credit to pay essential bills, resulting in over seven in 10 families going without essentials. That, I am afraid, is the stark reality of Tory Britain in 2023, and no alternative facts in the Minister’s red folder can seek to deny that.

I thought it might be a good idea to have a look a bit closer to home—indeed, in the Minister’s own constituency —and see what Tory Britain really looks like in Hexham, so I had a look at the latest available annual report for the West Northumberland food bank, based in the Minister’s own constituency. Page 3 of its latest published annual report—again, I am quoting from the Minister’s own local food bank—states:

“Listening to people’s concerns on the helpline we became increasingly aware of rising child poverty, the two-child policy has plunged hundreds of thousands of children into poverty across the UK, since 6 April 2017. Parents having a third or subsequent child are no longer eligible for support for that child through benefits worth up to £2,830 per child per year”.

It goes on, remarkably, to cite statistics from the Minister’s own Department—this is his own food bank—saying that

“DWP…statistics show that in 2019-20 24% of children in the Hexham constituency were growing up in poverty, that’s almost 3,000 children and it’s increased by 6% since 2015, that’s 738 more children born into poverty in just 4 years.”

They are not my words, but the words of the Minister’s own local food bank’s annual report.

The red folder that the Minister walks about with may contain all sorts of distorted statistics and soundbites, but the problem is that statistics and soundbites do not put food on the tables of people in Hexham, or indeed anywhere on these islands. For example, instead of increasing the benefit cap, which has been frozen since 2016, the British Government should, in my view, just abolish it entirely, because it is pushing more and more people into poverty, and those of us who have surgeries on a Friday morning can see that clear as day.

If history teaches us anything, it is that trying to govern simply to appease headline writers in comics such as the Daily Mail and the Express does nothing other than further cement inequality and poverty, which is rife in Britain today. The reality is that too many households have now been left behind and will not benefit adequately from uprating because the Tories keep refusing to fix known policy failures. For example, the continued refusal of Ministers to fix the extensive known problems with universal credit is unacceptable and is subjecting vulnerable people to additional unnecessary hardship.

Instead of keeping additional pressures on low-income families, Ministers need to urgently address the fundamental issues with universal credit. A recent report by the Commissioner for Human Rights at the Council of Europe found that the level of support provided under UC was

“a key contributing factor to child poverty.”

The report stated that policies like

“the two-child limit and the benefit cap restrict the amount of benefits that households can receive, regardless of their specific needs, and thereby continue to exacerbate child poverty.”

Therefore, my party stands by its calls to the British Government to reinstate the uplift to UC, and indeed to increase it by £25 a week, and to extend it to means-tested legacy benefits, as well as to extend the benefit cap.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Has the hon. Gentleman or his party calculated how much that would actually cost the taxpayer?

[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.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

rose—

[David Linden]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is about to tell us what the Government could do better.

[Justin Tomlinson]

In the same spirit of trying to help those most in need, why do the Scottish Government not mirror our proposed changes to the terminal illness rules within disability benefits?

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman is missing what is happening, given the limited social security powers that the Scottish Government have. Bearing in mind that 85% of welfare spending is reserved to this place, he will see that we are doing an awful lot to try to help people with social security, but if the Minister wants to back up my calls to devolve all social security to the Scottish Government, that will certainly be welcome.

Research from the Child Poverty Action Group shows that the majority, some 59%, of those affected by the two-child limit are working families. Perversely, some of those families work for the Minister’s own Department, which administers said benefits; that would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic. The fact that a few weeks ago the Lords Minister, Viscount Younger, could not justify to the Work and Pensions Committee how the two-child limit is compatible with the Government’s own family test is a damning indictment of a Minister who is not over his brief and whose policies do not even comply with the family test for which he is responsible.

I turn now to universal credit, which should be topical, given Labour’s significant change in stance. That change provides an opportunity to seek cross-party agreement on reform of universal credit, because all three main parties in this Chamber now agree with the broad principles and the aims of universal credit. The challenge for us now is to make it work and to iron out the creases, which are by no means insurmountable. We know, for example, that the five-week wait for a first payment is needlessly pushing people into hardship. That could be relatively easily fixed by implementing proposals to turn advance payment loans into non-repayable grants after a claimant has been deemed eligible.

On sanctions and conditionality, far too many households face destitution, largely because DWP rules are pushing them into debt through sanctions and deductions. Recent changes to the universal credit administrative earnings threshold mean that even more people will risk having their vital universal credit payments sanctioned. These 600,000 people are already working, and there is clear evidence that sanctions do not work in getting people into work or to increase their hours or earnings. To that end, I have tabled early-day motion 715 to annul the relevant regulations, which I hope the Government will grant us time to debate and vote on, and I certainly hope we can count on Labour support in that.

However, there are other problems with sanctions and conditionality. For example, individuals who have had a sanction applied have also been denied the vital cost of living payments the Minister was rightly trumpeting earlier. That demonstrates a fundamental issue with the DWP’s attitude to those on low incomes, because preventing vulnerable families from receiving the social security they are entitled to when they need it most strikes me as somewhat back to front.

I will turn now to the UC childcare offer. If the Tories actually cared about working people, they would want to improve childcare support for UC claimants by supporting them with childcare costs up front and in full. The SNP continues to call on the Government to increase payments for those aged under 25 in line with increases for older claimants. We also continue to call for local housing allowance to cover the average cost of rents and for the shared accommodation rate for those under 35 to be suspended—that age range has always struck me as somewhat arbitrary.

The SNP has called for the British Government to fix these fundamental flaws in social security and to deliver a system that actively tackles poverty and empowers people. However, it is an inescapable and undeniable fact that the Scottish Government cannot change these policies while 85% of welfare expenditure and income-related benefits remain reserved to this institution here in London, and that includes universal credit, which is of course a reserved benefit. The only way to ensure that Scotland has a decent social security system is for us to take all legislative and fiscal responsibility for these issues by way of independence and to no longer hope that the full-fat Tories, or the diet Tories on the Labour Benches, will one day reform the social security system, which is clearly broken beyond repair.

I turn now to the order on pensions, and I start by genuinely welcoming the Pensions Minister to her place. I respect her enormously, and although we will doubtless disagree on aspects of policy, I have no doubt as to her motivations. Where we have common cause and we can agree—for example, on pension credit—she can be assured of SNP support. However, I am afraid that that is probably where the warm words and cross-party consensus will come to a halt for this evening, because the British Government have a serious job of work to do if they are to rebuild credibility among pensioners. Time and again, we have seen the Tory Government short-change pensioners, who are getting a raw deal from a pension system that they have paid into their entire lives.

Pensioners on low incomes are among those hardest hit by the cost of living crisis, and the British Government must do much more to ensure that they are properly supported, so let us start with the state pension. Westminster already provides a lower state pension relative to average earnings than most other advanced economies. Last year’s breaking of the triple lock will cost each pensioner £520 on average during the course of living crisis. The Government’s own Red Book shows that that will take £30 billion in total from pensioners by the 2026-27 financial year. Retaining the triple lock is the bare minimum I would expect, but I rather fear that that policy pledge will not survive the rigours of manifesto writing when it comes to both main parties in this House. However, I would like to be assured on that issue in the winding-up speeches.

A recent report from the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association found that the annual income required to maintain a basic standard of living in retirement has massively outstripped the rise in the state pension. For a single person, the minimum income now sits at £12,800, while the state pension will rise to only £10,600 in April for those on the full flat rate. Indisputably, the state pension remains an important source of income for pensioners living in, or at risk of moving into, poverty because of the very low take-up of pension credit, which I accept is the Minister’s biggest priority and one I am certainly willing her on to succeed with. However, Independent Age highlights that 5% of pensioner couples and 19% of single pensioners have no source of income other than the state pension and benefits.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s “UK Poverty 2023” report revealed that 1.7 million pensioners were living in poverty in the UK in 2020-21, the poverty rate for single pensioners is almost double that of couple pensioners, and almost one in seven pensioners overall are living in poverty—something I can see in its rawest form in communities such as Sandyhills, Carmyle and Baillieston in my constituency. We know that pension credit is a vital support for many older people, but only around seven in 10 of those who are entitled to it actually claim it, and up to £1.7 billion of available pension credit is, I am afraid, going unclaimed. In crude terms, that amounts to £1,900 a year for each family in the east end of Glasgow entitled to receive pension credit.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman is obviously on overtime tonight.

[Dr Evans]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is that not a point that all of us in this House can take away? Pension credit is going unclaimed and all 650 of us could go back to our constituents and encourage them to make sure they check the website and use the phone to get, potentially, that gateway option to £3,000.

[David Linden]

Yes, I think we are going to have a political “Lady and the Tramp” moment where we actually agree on this. There will be spaghetti across the House. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need to be in a situation where we encourage all our constituents to take up pension credit. Having met the Minister fairly recently—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[David Linden]

I will give way to my very honourable Friend.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. In my constituency, my staff and I encourage all the pensioners we meet every week to look at pension credit. Some will qualify and some will not. Today, Citizens Advice came to me to say it is going to start a project in Newtownards in my constituency and I look forward to that unfolding. Does he feel that the Government should focus attention specifically on pension credit, because there are many people out there who would apply if they knew more about it?

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think I am unique in that I am one of the few people who serve as a Member of this House who has been in his constituency office and spoken to his constituency staff—some of us go on holiday to places like Newtownards. He is absolutely right. I ask the Government to put just as much effort into advertising things like pension credit take-up as they do into propaganda-like billboards in our constituencies about levelling up. If that amount of resource were put into advertising pension credit, perhaps we would see it go further.

The British Government’s assault on pensioners does not just extend to the pitiful state pension. Let us not forget that the Tories also scrapped free TV licences for over-75s, including in Broadland. People who watch on and see the Westminster incompetence of this place will know that pensioners across these islands have already been short-changed by £6,500 on average due to state pension underpayments. Peter Schofield, the permanent secretary at the DWP, recently told our Select Committee that—

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Linden]

I am happy to give way.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Gentleman mentions Broadland and says that pensioners are being short-changed by the Government. How can he reconcile that statement with the triple lock on pensions, which raises pensions year on year by 2.5%, the rate of inflation or average earnings—a ratchet effect increasing the value of pensions when compared with the economy at large?

[David Linden]

The triple lock the hon. Gentleman refers to is the one that he and his party broke a manifesto commitment on recently, resulting in many pensioners being diddled.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the huge problem of pensioner poverty, particularly for those who are unable, or do not understand how to access the minimum income guarantee. Does he accept there is also a huge problem for women of a certain age, the WASPI women, who are living in great poverty and great stress through no fault of their own, due to a change they were unaware of?

[David Linden]

The right hon. Gentleman is spot on. Several of us are looking with great interest at the ombudsman process, which has just finished stage two and will now move to stage three. I hope that the Government will change their tune on their approach to the issue of 1950s born women, because thus far many of those women in my constituency and, I am sure, in Islington North would suggest that the Government are not doing enough on that issue. He is right to put that on the record.

Before the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) intervened, I was making the point that the DWP has identified a further 100,000 potential underpayments during its ongoing correction exercise, which will now take an extra year to complete. I would argue that that demonstrates that the British Government are unable to effectively run a state pension system, and makes the case for pensions being administered in an independent Scotland, and not by Tory Ministers who are increasingly using pensioners to penny-pinch.

It would be remiss of me not to touch on retirement age, which has been the subject of huge media speculation recently. It appears to be the worst kept secret in Whitehall that Ministers are expected to announce that the retirement age will be increased to 68 at some point in the 2030s, not in 2046 as previously expected. To be crystal clear, my party opposes any further increase in the state pension retirement age. Indeed, the Scottish Government, when they responded to the British Government’s review of the state pension age restated their opposition to any changes to the current timelines for increasing the state pension age. This might seem like an abstract debate, but these things have real-life effects. Recent analysis by Age UK shows that 1.5 million pre-state pension age households have no savings at all. We must therefore avoid the situation faced by the WASPI women, mentioned by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who faced having to work longer with little time to replan for retirement. On the subject of WASPI women, I again make clear my support for their cause.

It is incumbent on the British Government to look at other areas of pension injustice, such as frozen pensions for those living overseas, many of whom are veterans. It is my party’s belief that that is not a sustainable situation and, though complex, it cannot be allowed to just go unchecked while pensioners languish in poverty overseas. That is certainly a unique take for global Britain.

The British Government’s decision to decline a request from the Government of Canada for a reciprocal social security agreement was a peculiar one and I would appreciate the Minister saying more about that during his wind-up speech.

The reality is that tonight’s orders will pass without a vote but this annual debate shines a spotlight on the major holes in our social security system. The UK is blessed with the sixth largest economy in the world, yet —remarkably—soup kitchens up and down these islands will throw open their doors tonight, in record number, to feed people who cannot afford to get by on state support. That poses a much bigger question which this Government have thus far been unable to answer. It is a question which many people in Scotland are concluding can only be answered with independence, because Westminster is not working and Scotland can do better—so much better—than this crumbling Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

Will the right hon. Gentleman go one step further and join those of us who want the benefit cap not merely raised, but scrapped in its entirety because it is having such a detrimental impact on families across these islands?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

There is a strong case for that. At the time when the benefit cap was introduced, we were told that it was to prevent people from receiving more in benefits than they would if they were working, but any relationship with wage levels has long since disappeared.

In its briefing for this debate, the Child Poverty Action Group makes the point that the increase does not undo the damage of the cap having been frozen since 2016, but

“pushes families who would be in poverty anyway into even deeper poverty.”

It points out that 123,000 households are currently affected by the cap, including 107,000 households with children. That is one reason why, before the pandemic, when the data was most recently updated, 700,000 more children were in poverty than in 2010. The case for the cap needs to be reconsidered.

I want to pick up a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) made about the absence of an uprating to the local housing allowance, which is a very big problem. The LHA will be frozen for the coming year at the level at which it was set in 2020, even though rents are rising fast. When I raised the matter with the Prime Minister at the Liaison Committee in December, he replied that the uprating in 2020 represented

“a very significant cash uplift at the time, which it is appropriate to have maintained”,

echoing the wording of the ministerial statement from which my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North quoted.

--- 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 ---

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). He refused to give way to me during his speech when he made reference to France being a particularly good example of a country that had reacted well to energy inflation. He forgot to mention that 80% of all French energy is generated by nuclear power and is therefore not affected by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I look forward to his support for the roll-out of nuclear power stations across the United Kingdom.

Turning to the main body of the debate, I welcome the Government’s draft benefits uprating order, but I stand here to represent an argument that I do not think has yet been made in this debate but that has been raised many times by my constituents and those of other Members, certainly on the Conservative side of the House: is it fair, during a period of full employment, that we should increase benefits at the rate of inflation when those in employment are seeing their wages rise by about half as much? This has been raised multiple times, and forcefully, by constituents of mine. They say that it is simply not fair that people who are just about managing, who are working to support their own families and who are paying tax but also being self-reliant, should have wage rises of about 5% when benefits are being raised by double that.

[David Linden]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will give way in a moment, because what I am about to say might answer the hon. Gentleman’s question.

I think the answer is: yes, it is fair. That is because it is morally right to protect the purchasing power of those very poorest families at an absolute level, even when other people in employment are suffering as well. I think it is right, because personal inflation is at its highest in the poorest families and food inflation is responsible for a higher percentage of their spending. It was mentioned earlier that food inflation might be running at about 19%, but I think it is about 17.1%. It is morally right for the Government to represent and look after the very poorest in society while at the same time, crucially, always making sure that work pays.

In my constituency we have 2% unemployment. We have a huge demand for staff. I have a very odd situation in a town that I represent called Fakenham. I visited a food bank there that is run by the Samaritans, and it is only a few yards away from a jobcentre where they told me that anyone who had two arms and two legs could get a job. There are lots of jobs available, and I have had meetings with frustrated employers in Fakenham who cannot get enough staff, at every level of the employment sector, including those with no specialist skills other than their natural talent. That jobcentre is 200 yards away from a food bank.

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman and I could probably have a long drawn-out debate about why there are so many vacancies in the jobs market and how the UK Government’s immigration policy impacts on that. I would ask him to reflect on the misconception that food banks are used solely by people who are out of work. We are increasingly seeing people who are in work and suffering from in-work poverty using them. Has his local food bank told him how many of the people using it are experiencing in-work poverty?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

I am certainly very much in favour of people in Scotland having control of their own immigration system, because our problem has never been immigration; frankly, our problem has been emigration. The hon. Member talks about how successful the UK Government’s immigration policy has been. Can he explain why there are fields all across these islands where fruit is rotting because we do not have workers coming here to pick it?

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Member should know that the seasonal agricultural workers scheme allowed, from memory, 40,000 seasonal workers to enter the country last year, and that its application was not fully taken up by the agricultural sector, so that is not the reason why fruit was left rotting in the fields.

Returning to my main point, the Government are right to protect the buying power of the poorest. At the same time, they are also right to ensure that work always pays. The reduction in the taper rate from 63% to 55% is crucial in raising the income of those in work so that they do not need to rely on food banks, as is increasing the work allowance by £500. Perhaps the difference between Government and Opposition Members on this is that we on the Government Benches think that the best solution to poverty is always work—allowing people to get back into work; encouraging them to grow their skills and employability, and the value of their employability, as they progress through their career. I think the Government have got the balance right, supporting the poorest families while ensuring that work continues to pay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

Notwithstanding Putin’s invasion and the war in Ukraine, the impact of the covid pandemic and the great efforts made by the Government to support this country through it, and any fiscal difficulties caused by those efforts, this Government are supporting the most vulnerable and uprating benefits by in excess of 10%. That is on top of the cost of living support to the tune of £37 billion provided last May, and what will be provided in this coming year. I am proud to make the case for universal credit, unlike the Labour party. We support people who are out of work, and as they progress in work, through reforms brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), which I believe were the right way forward.

On pensioners, it is rich of the Labour party to criticise. I continue to defend Labour’s actions during its 13 years in government in respect of the women’s state pension, but I was reminded of the 75p increase, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) highlighted in his outstanding speech. Bear in mind that in 2009-10, the state pension was worth less than £100, and that as of April this year, it will be worth in excess of £200. That is a massive increase under the coalition and Conservative Governments.

On pension credit, I put on record my thanks for the work of my the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), and my thanks to Mr Len Goodman, who is not often cited in this House as a supporter of all matters to do with this Government, for his outstanding work in making the case for pension credit, which has, of course, seen a 177% increase in take-up—that is a fantastic success—[Interruption.] There are several sevens in there, as I am being reminded from behind.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) made an outstanding speech—it was a pleasure to listen to. I will write to him on a couple of issues. He is right to continue making the case for pension credit. The message is of course, “Don’t be shy: please apply”, and the freephone number is 0800 99 1234. We want people to continue applying.

It is right to make the case for the cost of living support—there is £37 billion of support in this financial year—including support for energy bills for all households and cost of living payments. We are now seeking to ensure support going forward. That will include up to £900 in cost of living payments, £300 in cost of living payments for pensioner households, an extra winter fuel payment on around 25 November of this year, and the £150 disability cost of living payment. We can also take funding and support from the household support fund, and there is also the flexible support fund and many other additional ways in which support can be provided.

We continue to provide support to all households with a domestic electricity connection through the energy price guarantee, which caps the price paid for each unit of energy. From April, the typical household will pay on average £3,000 a year, saving the average UK household £500 in 2023-24. From April 2023, the national living wage will increase by 9.7% to £10.42 an hour for workers aged 23 and over. Again, that is the largest ever cash increase for the living wage.

The Government believe that the best route out of poverty is through work. We are committed to a sustainable long-term approach to tackling child poverty and supporting people on lower incomes to progress in work. My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon rightly made the case for the disability confident campaign, which has resulted in more than 1 million more people being in work in this country over the last few years, and he rightly made the case for additional medical and other support by private sector organisations for their staff.

I will briefly touch on the contributions from the Opposition parties. The Labour party had no answer for my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on whether it still supports universal credit. It is quite clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys highlighted, that Labour now opposes any conditionality whatsoever in benefits. That is a startling admission. I believe that Labour Members will live to strongly regret that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) made a number of points. I would merely say that all fiscal decisions are made by the Chancellor—to whom I obviously bow on all matters—and I cannot change his policies in any way at the Dispatch Box. If my hon. Friend can wait, he will know more on 15 March.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) accused this Government of policy failures. Given the failings of the Scottish First Minister, and her recent about-turns, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is any position to lecture us on any policy failings.

[David Linden]

rose—

[Guy Opperman]

No. We listened with great humility to the hon. Gentleman’s 24-minute diatribe about this country. He had no answer to the argument from my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) about funding; his inability to make any case or policy on pensions is well known; and his inability to answer any of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon also spoke volumes.

The reality of the situation is that the Government are doing a huge amount for the vulnerable, and are increasing support through the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2023, the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2023, the energy price guarantee and the draft Benefit Cap (Annual Limit) (Amendment) Regulations 2023. I commend the instruments to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2023, which was laid before this House on 16 January, be approved.

Draft Benefit Cap (Annual Limit) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Resolved,

That the draft Benefit Cap (Annual Limit) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 16 January, be approved.—(Guy Opperman.)

draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2023

Resolved,

That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2023, which was laid before this House on 16 January, be approved.—(Guy Opperman.)

Oral Answers to Questions

David Linden Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the wonderful work of Citizens Advice, which does so much in Kettering and across the country, and indeed delivers our Help to Claim service. The benefits calculator on gov.uk and Help for Households can also support people; many do not know those resources are there. We are absolutely here for people and there is more out there. I will ensure that the household support fund is clearly branded and reaches people who may be just managing.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The Minister seemed to be appalled by the reference of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) to the rape clause, so let us use its Sunday name: the non-consensual sex exemption, as the Government like to call it. Is she genuinely comfortable with a Government who ask survivors of rape to prove that their child has been born as a result of sexual assault? The reality is that, with the limited devolution powers we have for social security, we have the game-changing Scottish child payment, while this Government ask women to prove that their children have been born as a result of rape just to get state support. Given that the Labour party has departed from many of its policies and is a pale imitation of the Tories, is it not the case that the only way to ensure that we have a decent social security system is with independence?

[Mims Davies]

We should be very careful with our language in this regard. It is absolutely right that people in every single circumstance can come forward positively, but labelling the provision in that way in the Chamber is not helpful—[Interruption.] It is not about whether it is our policy; that terminology is unhelpful. Universal credit is always tailored to individual circumstances. If anybody would like to come forward with anything that has happened to them, jobcentres are a safe place in which to declare domestic abuse or ask for support. I say to those people: please do step forward, as we have the J9 initiative and other ways to support people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the Huddersfield jobcentre and the extraordinary work of the staff there. They organise several job fairs every month, and I commend my hon. Friend for the support he provides to them in that endeavour.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Today, we have probably had an insight into one of the battlelines for the next general election. It was on the front page of the Daily Mail—not something I would normally read—which talks about a “something for nothing” Britain. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to distance himself from that ridiculous remark? I suggest it would be a brave move by the Conservative party to tell pensioners that their state pension is something for nothing.

[Mel Stride]

I have a clear view on all these matters, which is that a hallmark of a civilised society is that it looks after the most vulnerable; the Government have a proud record in that respect. I could go through chapter and verse on the various measures, not least the cost of living support for 8 million low-income households up and down the country. If people—fraudsters and others—are prepared to abuse the system that is there to support the most vulnerable, we should not hesitate to come down hard on them and they should face the full force of the law.

Benefit Sanctions

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on securing the debate, and I pay tribute to him for all the work he does in fighting poverty and in his role as a trustee of Feeding Britain. I am very much looking forward to joining the Work and Pensions Committee in the new year, and I sincerely thank him for the work that he has done on the Committee. I wish him well as he takes on his new Front-Bench responsibilities.

This has been a good, albeit one sided, debate. I often find myself questioning the point of having such debates, because while Opposition Members have showed up to talk about what happens in our constituency surgeries, the only reason the two Conservative Members are present is that they are compelled to be here. The Conservative party has some new red wall MPs. Surely people visit their surgeries to discuss the punitive sanctions regime. It ill behoves any of those Members intending to stand for re-election that they do not bother their backside to turn up and talk about the very thing that we know has an impact on many of our constituents.

This debate is certainly timely, not least because recent data produced by the Scottish Parliament Information Centre shows that benefit sanctions for young Scots have nearly doubled since 2019, which is the last comparable year for such statistics. The British Government certainly like to talk ad nauseum about their rather underwhelming kickstart programme. However, those statistics show that the DWP is only seeking to kick young people when they are down. I shall return to that slightly later when I discuss the wider context of the debate.

My hon. Friend has already referred to the figures that he has uncovered via parliamentary questions. In my constituency of Glasgow East, £55,000 was deducted from universal credit payments in August alone, simply as a result of benefit sanctions. At a time when businesses are struggling and we have all just celebrated small business Saturday over the last week or two, I remind the House that that cash could have been spent at small businesses in the likes of Parkhead, Barrowfield and Lilybank. If the Conservative party does not get that from a compassionate point of view, it should consider it purely from the point of view of economics. Instead, the DWP has pressed ahead with a regime of conditionality that pushes people into destitution. To be frank, that is something for which the state ultimately bears the cost anyway, so it is also short sighted in that respect.

The Scotland-wide figure for deductions from UC deductions by way of sanctions is even more eye-watering, at £2.3 million in August this year. Destitution is not cost-free for the state, and there is already a rich body of evidence out there from the likes of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that shows the true cost of, for example, homelessness as people are pushed into destitution by a failing social security system. While 85% of welfare spending in Scotland is reserved to this institution, the Scottish Government are doing their level best to mitigate the very worst effects of Westminster’s assault on benefits.

Whether hon. Members are Unionists or nationalists, surely we can all agree that devolution, be it in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland, cannot simply be a sticking plaster for inadequate social security policies designed in Whitehall. For example, the Government in Edinburgh spend £80 million a year of their devolved budget on discretionary housing payments, purely to nullify Westminster’s bedroom tax. To be blunt, that is £80 million that could be spent on health and education, but the Scottish Government are having to spend it trying to clean up the mess that has been caused by Westminster. Indeed, using our limited social security powers, next year the Scottish Government will spend an extra £311 million on the game-changing Scottish child payment of £25 a week. That is in stark contrast to the British Government’s outrageous two-child policy and associated rape clause.

We can begin to see a pattern emerging. In essence, DWP policy means that devolved Peter is being robbed to pay the price of reserved Paul. The same is true with the sanctions regime that my hon. Friend has highlighted today. Sanctions combined with deductions from universal credit mean that almost £2 billion per annum is snatched away from the very poorest people on these islands. As they face going hungry, that is when the third sector, which is already close to breaking point, needs to step in and pick up the pieces. To illustrate that, I will provide an example from my constituency.

The Halliday Foundation helps people in poverty with free meals and furniture as they seek to rebuild their lives. It is funded by local government, which, in turn, is funded by central Government. So all that happens is that central Government sanction a constituent and then the Halliday Foundation has to step in to support them with the financial resources that have been provided by local government. Put simply, that is a total mess and a complete waste of taxpayers’ money, and it shows that moving people into destitution is something that the Government bears the cost of anyway.

There is also an additional negative dimension to sanctions, which is very relevant just now and which I want to highlight to the Minister, backing up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West. Data shows that almost 700 Scottish households were denied the first £326 cost of living payment in September, simply as a result of sanctions. Let me make clear to the Minister that the freezing temperatures we are experiencing do not bypass houses and say, “Oh well, we’ll not go to minus 7° because that house has been sanctioned.” The decision to exempt sanctioned individuals from the cost of living payment is wrong and should be put right without delay.

In my five years as a Member of this House, it has become clear that Whitehall does not know best when it comes to designing a strong, robust and compassionate social security net. Indeed, Ministers and senior officials who preside over this disastrous sanctions regime clearly do not understand what it is like to sit in a cold library in Glasgow’s east end on a Friday morning speaking to constituents who literally have nothing to live on. On Friday, I met a constituent from Greenfield who is a kinship carer for his grandson. We have had debates in this Chamber about the importance of kinship carers and the vast amounts of money they save the Government. However, our failing social security means that state support is so low that my constituent told me that he has rationed his primary school-age grandson to just two baths a week because he cannot afford the energy bills.

The very fact that my constituent told me it costs 70p to run a hot bath shows just how close to the breadline that man is living and how much our social security system is failing the people who need it most. Indeed, he told me that he cannot afford to turn on the Christmas tree lights for fear of running up an energy bill that he simply cannot afford, not least because he is on a prepayment meter. These are the sorts of people who are impacted by the actions of a Department for Work and Pensions that day after day plunges the most vulnerable people in our constituencies into abject poverty—something that should shame the fifth richest economy in the world. This Government have the absolute temerity to prance around the world in their Brit-branded ministerial plane preaching about global Britain, when all the while my constituent cannot afford to run a hot bath the night before sending his grandson to school. It is utterly shameful.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West outlined a better way of doing things, perhaps via the yellow card warning system, and Ministers would do well to engage with us on ameliorating a system that is currently doing so much harm. Indeed, it is no wonder that the Glasgow Centre for Population Health has attributed over 330,000 excess deaths in the UK to austerity since 2010. It has long been the case that Governments of both colours in this House have talked a tough game on welfare—I certainly prefer to call it social security—but the cat is now well and truly out of the bag. For too many people who had no understanding or experience of benefits, the pandemic lifted a veil on a social security system that has been found to be utterly inadequate. We know from polling that the public will no longer buy into the lazy picture painted by politicians in London of this being a fight of strivers versus skivers; this is now firmly the fight of abject poverty versus fairness and decency.

The only way to ensure that fairness and decency win is to end the punitive benefit sanctions regime and build a proper, robust social security system, underpinned by dignity, human rights and respect. In Scotland, we have already started that journey, but in truth most Scots know that it can only be completed with the full powers of independence. Nothing I have heard in this debate or, indeed, in my time in this House has convinced me that, with Westminster, the sanctions regime would end. That is why Scotland can, should and must make its own decisions on all social security, as with other policies, because Westminster is not working for us, and we all know that that is why Labour and the Conservatives are petrified of Scottish democracy prevailing.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Employment (Guy Opperman)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. In the limited time that I have, I will endeavour to answer the various points raised. I start by briefly addressing the point made by the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck)—that there is a reduction in the value of benefits. She will be acutely aware that UK Government welfare spending has increased from £151 billion in 2010 to £245 billion in 2022-23, and that there have been significant increases in Scotland, which I will come to. I wholeheartedly reject the suggestion that there has been a reduction in the value of benefits, not least given the fact that this Government increased welfare support for the most vulnerable by 10.1% at the autumn statement.

Let me address the original points raised by my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). I hesitate to call him an hon. Friend, because I realise that he will receive an SNP pile-on as a result. I was not aware that he is standing down from the Work and Pensions Committee after many years of distinguished service, and I congratulate him on that. As always with promotions, one never knows whether to congratulate or commiserate. I also welcome back the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) to his Front-Bench position. I believe I have held my position for 47 days, after my personal sacking over the summer and the sabbatical that I enjoyed on the Back Benches courtesy of the previous Prime Minister.

[David Linden]

Plus one.

[Guy Opperman]

Plus one. The long and short of it is that, in that time, I have engaged at length with multiple employers, Jobcentre Plus and individual work coaches at the Department for Work and Pensions.

I will endeavour particularly to address the points raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, given that this is very much his debate. He has engaged with the Department on a number of individual cases, and I will endeavour to write to him on the specifics of the particular case that he raised most recently. I am advised that we have responded to the case that he raised today, but I undertake to write to him with more detail before Christmas. Given the circumstances that we face, the letter will obviously have to be communicated by email as well as post.

I turn to the second point. With no disrespect to the hon. Member and other colleagues who have raised this issue, I do not recognise the comments against individual DWP members of staff. Where there are particular examples of named individuals who people genuinely feel have transgressed and behaved in an inappropriate way, clearly there is a process that must be entered into.

It is certainly not the case, in any way whatsoever, that there has been a change of policy by individual Ministers—either by myself in the 47 days that I have held this post, or by previous Ministers. I cannot speak for colleagues who have held these positions.

State Pension

David Linden Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Sir Robert. I do not intend this to be an unnecessarily long point of order, but I am aware that the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) has just arrived in Chamber and will probably take a moment or two to find her notes. I think she has done that now, so I will stop this pointless point of order.

[Sir Robert Syms (in the Chair)]

Thank you. There are still gentlemen in the House of Commons.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert, and to reply to a debate on behalf of the Scottish National party. I congratulate the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) on opening the debate, and I commend the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) on her speech.

Before I get into the substance of my speech, I want to note that my remarks today are my first since returning to the SNP Front Bench. I pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who as my party’s spokesperson on work and pensions repeatedly held the British Government to account, fought for the poorest in society and highlighted the sheer inadequacy of the UK’s social security system. She will be a tough act to follow, and I wish her well in her new position as Cabinet Office spokesperson—a role I am sure she will thrive in.

The petition that triggered this debate calls for an increase to the state pension and for us to reduce the state pension age to 60. I will come to the appalling financial inadequacies of the state pension in a moment, but I will first address the age at which people become eligible. We are by no means outliers among developed nations in having an ageing population, which presents the state with many problems to solve in terms of service provision and many fiscal challenges.

As we debate this issue, every one of us in this room should be mindful of the fact that not all jobs are the same. As we sit here in the luxurious comfort of a palace, people out there are carrying out manual labour jobs—indeed, some today in sub-zero conditions. Sir Robert, you and I may not think that we will be ready to retire at 60, but many others will, so I believe that a balance must be struck. Although, for practical reasons, the Scottish National party cannot support reducing the retirement age to 60, the notion that the pension age needs to go up and up, as a simple solution to the British Government’s problems, is both cruel and unrealistic.

It feels like little has changed at the Department for Work and Pensions since I last shadowed this brief. The British Government continue their heartless policies, the cost of living crisis ravages on, and it is the poorest and most vulnerable who bear the brunt of the hardship. As I was preparing for today’s debate, I found myself despairing, because for me, as a Scottish nationalist, Westminster often feels like groundhog day, and no more so than when we are looking at the policies of the Department for Work and Pensions.

I find myself today critiquing the same Tory policies that I criticised last year. It seems that the DWP’s strategy for addressing the cost of living crisis is largely to shove its fingers in its ears and just hope that inflation comes down. Despite that, the cost of living crisis continues to spiral out of control and inflation has risen to 11.1%—a 41-year high. The cost of essential family goods has risen sharply over the past year, and the Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that average household disposable incomes will fall by 7% this year and next.

Food banks, such as Glasgow NE Foodbank in my constituency, are struggling to keep up with the rising demand. Across the constituency, I have heard food bank volunteers say that many people are, sadly, using food banks for the very first time—I was surprised to hear from one volunteer that a family who had previously donated to the food bank were now forced to use it themselves.

One thing I reflected on when I previously held this brief was that we as politicians are used to talking regularly about child poverty, but some of us find it a lot less natural and a lot more embarrassing—we wince a lot more—to talk about pensioner poverty, which is something that we do not give enough focus. However, as Independent Age has emphasised, with

“more than 2 million pensioners already living in poverty and the cost-of-living crisis hitting hard, we know people are being forced to make impossible choices on how to cut back to be able to afford heating, electricity and food.”

As Christmas approaches, research by Age UK has shown how frightened older people are about surviving the next few months, with a significant number this year anticipating a more solitary and lonely Christmas period than usual. Age UK’s polling also found that more than one in five older people are already reducing or stopping their spending on medication or specialist foods, or expect to do so in the coming months, and that one in seven is skipping meals or expects to do so in the same period.

I have genuine respect for the Minister, and I know that she will say that the cost of living crisis has come about as a result of Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, but it is not solely because of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine or, indeed, the economic hangover from the coronavirus pandemic. I would certainly argue, and I am sure others would as well, that the touchpaper was lit on the cost of living crisis 12 years ago, when a Government that Scotland did not vote for embarked on a brutal assault via Tory austerity. I am afraid that that has been exacerbated by Brexit—something else that people in Scotland did not consent to.

The UK has one of the lowest state pensions in north-western Europe, and after a decade of Tory austerity cuts, pensioner poverty is now on the rise. Some 85% of social security and the state pension itself is reserved to this institution and the British Government, so Scotland has little say in this hugely important policy area. SNP MPs have campaigned vehemently for the Tories to maintain the triple lock. Only after multiple U-turns and breaking their manifesto pledge last year—and after a very unhealthy dose of uncertainty for pensioners across these islands—did the British Government finally retain the triple lock.

However, the suspension of the triple lock in 2021 shows that Scotland does not have the powers to prevent Tory cuts for pensioners. The suspension ended up costing each pensioner £520 on average during the cost of living crisis. Additionally, the Scottish Government under the current devolved settlement have no power to raise the state pension, as Ministers know fine well, although some often like to pretend otherwise.

The SNP has continually implored Ministers to devote a larger percentage of GDP to state pensions and indeed to pensioner benefits. The British Government are allowing £1.7 billion of pension credit to go unclaimed during the cost of living crisis. We know that pension credit is a vital lifeline for many older people, but only seven in 10 of those eligible claim the money that they are fully entitled to. The British Government must introduce a full take-up strategy for reserved benefits, including pension credit, as the Scottish Government have done in respect of devolved benefits. I genuinely welcome the conversation I had with the Minister before the debate, when we said that we would discuss this issue offline.

The Conservative Government have a rather long track record in picking the pockets of our pensioners: from the WASPI women and the triple lock to the low take-up of pension credit, the frozen pensions of overseas pensioners, many of whom are veterans, and the scrapping of free TV licences for the over-75s, the list goes on and on. This Government have very much been found wanting in terms of their record on pensioners.

Only with full powers over pensions can the Scottish Government at least remedy these injustices. In an independent Scotland pensioners could be protected from Westminster austerity. We in the SNP want Scotland to be the best place to grow old—a place where retirement means dignity and fairness for all. I know that adhering to manifestos or, in some cases, leadership election pledges is a bit of a quaint novelty for the two biggest parties in this House. However, my party’s 2019 manifesto committed me and my colleagues to continue advocating for a fairer pensions system and to oppose plans to increase the state pension age beyond 66.

Alongside that, we will continue to call on the British Government to establish an independent saving and pension commission to ensure that pension policies are fit for purpose and genuinely reflect the demographic needs of the different parts of these islands. I am struck by the fact that the life expectancy in Kensington and Chelsea is very different from that in my own constituency.

Of course, all of this is predicated on Ministers in Whitehall listening to the voices of those that Scottish voters send to this House—something the Government have a poor track record on. Therefore, the only way to ensure that our pensioners grow old with dignity is for Scotland to become an independent country, with powers to protect pensioners and ensure that they live their final days in prosperity, not poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I thank all hon. Members for their valuable contributions, and the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for opening the debate.

The Government disagree with the petition’s proposed approach. It makes two suggestions: to increase the state pension and to lower the retirement age. I will first address the proposal to increase the state pension to £380 a week. That would equate pensioner income with the national living wage in 2022-23. However, the national living wage and the state pension are two very different provisions, with distinct purposes. A direct comparison cannot be drawn between the levels of the two. The national living wage aims to protect low-income workers and to provide an incentive to work, by ensuring that workers benefit from being employed. However, most pensioners have already left the labour market. Comparisons made in the e-petition between headline state pension amounts and the national living wage do not consider the full package of state measures available to support people in retirement or the fact that pensioners do not pay national insurance or into a pension scheme through automatic enrolment.

We need to be clear with the public that a state pension of £380 per week for every UK pensioner would be unaffordable. It would mean an annual cost of up to £251 billion if it was applied for 2022-23. That compares to the £110 billion we are currently forecast to spend on the state pension. In the UK we have a system of state and private pensions, which jointly provide an income for people in retirement. Most people will have a private or occupational pension on top of the state pension. In the 2021 financial year, the average net income of all pensioners was £361 per week, after housing costs. Crucially, the Government also provide around £67 billion each year in tax relief to boost private retirement savings. It is important to consider all aspects of Government support for retirement, rather than solely the state pension amount.

The Government are committed to ensuring that the state pension continues to provide the foundations for people’s retirement income, and we are proud of the assistance we have given pensioners since 2010. Since 2010, the full yearly amount of the basic state pension has risen by over £2,300 in cash terms. That is £720 more than if it had been uprated by prices, and £570 more than if it had been uprated by earnings.

As all hon. Members here today recognise, the Government have announced plans to apply the triple lock this year. It was announced, according to the normal parliamentary timetable, that from April the state pension will be over £3,000 per year higher in cash terms, which is double what it was in 2010, £790 more than if it had been uprated by prices, and £945 more than if it had been uprated by earnings.

Pension credit has come up a lot today, as it should. Pension credit provides vital additional financial support by topping up the state pension and other retirement incomes. The hon. Member for Battersea referred to the minimum income guarantee, which is what we put in place to ensure that pensioners do not fall below a certain base. It also acts as a gateway to other help, including assistance with rent, council tax, NHS prescriptions and heating bills. Of immediate importance, it is a gateway to the additional cost of living payments we are paying to those on qualifying means-tested benefits. There is more that we need to do to link that up with other information that the Government have. I will be pleased to work with Opposition Members, as well as the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), in order to try to make that happen.

We have taken direct action when pensioners have needed it, both through the pandemic and now with the rising cost of living. That includes the £650 cost of living payment, paid in two instalments, to help those on pension credit with the rising cost of living. As we all know—and I would like to emphasise this again—it is not too late for pensioners who are not already getting pension credit to qualify for the second instalment. That is because a claim for pension credit can be backdated for up to three months, provided the entitlement conditions are met throughout that time. To ensure that a successful backdated claim falls within the qualifying period for the second cost of living payment, we are urging people to claim pension credit as soon as possible, and by no later than 18 December.

[David Linden]

I appreciate that the Minister will not necessarily have the figures to hand, but would she be willing to write to me with information on how much the Government are spending on, for example, billboard campaigns and radio advertising to encourage pensioners to take part—in the same way they do with the levelling-up campaign?

[Laura Trott]

I would be more than happy to do so. I know that we spent £1.2 million over the summer. I have signed off a campaign for this winter, with more coming after Christmas, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the exact amounts.

That leads me nicely on to the hon. Member for Battersea, who referred to the take-up campaign. We have had a huge take-up campaign over the summer, and we have done one recently as well. We have further communication planned. It is something I am very focused on, and I would like to work with all hon. Members who are interested to ensure that it happens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Trott]

I am very happy to do so. If there are any specific approaches the hon. Gentleman thinks the Government should be taking, I am very open to any ideas he may have and would happily take them forward.

The £650 cost of living payment is one of a number of measures in the Government’s £37 billion cost of living support package, which will ensure that the most vulnerable households will receive at least £1,200 this year. The package also includes a £400 reduction on energy bills for all domestic electricity customers over the coming months, plus a £150 council tax rebate for 85% of all UK households.

In addition to the steps we have taken to address the cost of living for pensioners, we have also made long-term reforms to the state pension and introduced automatic enrolment to boost private saving. In 2016, the Government introduced the new state pension, which forms a clear foundation for individuals’ private savings to provide the retirement they want. At the heart of its design, we sought to correct some historic unfairness in the previous system, in particular for women, self-employed people and lower-paid workers. More than 3 million women are set to receive an average of £550 more a year by 2030. State pension outcomes are also expected to equalise for men and women by the early 2040s—more than a decade earlier than they would have aligned under the old system.

I want to pause here to mention pensioner poverty, which was brought up by a number of hon. Members. I know it is something we all care deeply about. The Government are committed to action that helps to alleviate the levels of pensioner poverty. We are forecast to spend more than £134 billion on benefits for pensioners in 2022-23, which amounts to 5.4% of GDP and includes spending on the state pension that is forecast to be over £110 billion in 2022-23. Thankfully, there are 400,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty, both before and after housing costs, than in 2009-10, but there is, of course, always more to do.

Automatic enrolment, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), is transforming private saving. More than 10.7 million people have been automatically enrolled into a workplace pension and more than 2 million employers have complied with their duties to date. This has helped to supply around an additional £33 billion into pensions savings in real terms in 2021 compared to 2012. I want to bring up the findings of the 2017 review of measures for automatic enrolment, as the hon. Member for Battersea mentioned her support for the lower earnings limit. The 2017 review of automatic enrolment set out the ambition to enable people to save more and to start saving earlier by abolishing the lower earnings limit and reducing the qualifying age for automatic enrolment to 18 by the mid-2020s. We have always been clear that changes would be made in a way and at a time that are affordable, balancing the needs of savers, employers and taxpayers, and the Government are absolutely still committed to that.

Together, the new state pension, automatic enrolment to workplace pensions and the safety net of pension credit will provide a robust system for pensioners for decades to come. A number of Members talked about international comparisons; OECD rankings show that, thanks to this Government’s reforms, the UK pensions systems will provide future workers with income replacement rates comparable to the OECD average and higher than countries such as Switzerland, Norway and Germany.

Let me turn to the second suggestion: decreasing the state pension age to 60. The Government have no plans to reverse changes to the state pension age. Previous reforms have focused on maintaining the right balance between affordability, the sustainability of the state pension and fairness between generations. Changes to state pension age were made through a series of Acts, and by successive Governments, from 1995 onwards. Those reforms followed public consultations and extensive debates in both Houses of Parliament. The state pension is funded through the national insurance and tax contributions of the current working-age population. Like increasing the state pension, reducing the state pension age to 60 would massively increase the tax burden on the current working-age population and carry significant cost.

[David Linden]

I wonder whether the Minister might put on record the point that she just confirmed. In the debate on Scottish independence, Unionist campaigners often talk about how the UK somehow furnishes pensions. However, as the Minister just pointed out, the state pension is funded by ongoing national insurance contributions each and every day, which rather bursts the myth that is made by the Better Together campaign in Scotland.

[Laura Trott]

State pension entitlement is obviously built up through contributions over a period of time, but equally there is a huge burden on the state, and that has to be met at a given point. As we have discussed, pension pots are funded widely by both the working-age population and people later in life.

The Government previously estimated that, had we not increased the state pension age for both men and women, the total additional cost to taxpayers—in 2018-19 prices—would have been around £215 billion for the period from 2010-11 to 2025-26. Lowering the state pension age is clearly unaffordable, and would place an ever-increasing and unfair burden on taxpayers. That would not be right, particularly as life expectancy continues to rise.

A number of hon. Members mentioned the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. The PHSO is undertaking a multi-stage process, and it has not given its final findings on the overall investigation. If the PHSO finds injustice, it will move on to stage 3 and consider any recommendations. The DWP will wait before taking any further steps.

The UK has an ageing population and workforce. The proportion of people aged 50 years and over compared to those aged 16 and over is projected to increase from 42% in 2010 to nearly 50% by 2035. That is nearly 29 million more people. Older workers will bring a wealth of skills and experience to the workplace, and they are vital to the economy. By working for longer, older people have the opportunity to improve their retirement income and benefit from the social engagement that employment brings. The hon. Member for Battersea was absolutely right that we need to support workers in later life, and BEIS is working on exactly that.

In conclusion, I welcome today’s debate and acknowledge the proposals set out in the e-petition. As I have mentioned, the Government provide wide-ranging measures to support people in retirement. Our recent announcement of plans to apply the triple lock this year demonstrates our commitment to providing a strong foundation of support for pensioners.