State Pension Triple Lock

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham); they are both my friends. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Gloucester refer to Steve Webb, who I thought was a fine Pensions Minister and deserves credit for his work in bringing in the triple lock in the first place. My party has always pressed—as well as we can from this small part of the Bench—for pensions to be linked more to earnings, which, on the whole, would ensure that pensioners were not continually in poverty, and the triple lock does that to an extent.

Around one in five people in Wales lives in relative poverty. Pensioners are among the groups hardest hit by the jump in energy and food prices, and there are severe long-term consequences to being unable to afford food and heating. Public policy, social policy and health policy in Wales are very much geared towards the concept of wellbeing rather than the separate headings of health, benefits or whatever. That is the thrust of policy in Wales, but the severe consequences of being unable to afford food and heating very much militate against it. The income squeeze is also preventing some people from engaging in social activities, which are crucial for wellbeing. The cost of those activities might be small, but they are often the first things to go when people have to economise.

As has been said, the UK spends below the OECD average on state pensions, which compare poorly relative to average earnings. The UK also compares poorly on the net replacement rate, which I do not think has been mentioned. That measures pensions as a percentage of previous earnings, and the difference is quite significant: for mandatory pensions at least, the UK stands at 58.1%, the OECD is at 69.1% and the EU is at 70.8%.

As a number of Members on both sides of the House have said, the triple lock ratchet has been very effective, and abandoning it will trap some older people in persistent poverty. That would make the case for a fundamental review of the state pension even more pressing than it is now, and such a review must be aimed at eradicating pensioner poverty.

Meanwhile, auto-enrolment to pension credit should be introduced, and mechanisms for doing that—using the Post Office or perhaps banks—have already been suggested. That would be a way of providing direct financial support and a gateway to further benefits and support. In Wales, it would mean immediate financial relief for more than 70,000 households who are eligible for pension credit but who do not claim it at present.

I want to refer briefly to two pension scandals—“scandals” is the correct term—both of which need immediate action. I will not go into any detail about the plight of WASPI women, as that has been referred to already, but the Government really should set out the steps they will take to compensate 1950s-born women.

The second scandal, which has not been mentioned and which has been pressing for many years, is the plight of former Allied Steel and Wire workers, who lost their livelihoods and their pensions when the firm went bankrupt in 2002 in very distressing and suspect circumstances, which I will not go into now. Under the financial assistance scheme and the Pension Protection Fund, any money paid in before April 1987 was not fully inflation-proofed, and many ASW pensioners have been severely impacted, with some receiving only half the value of what they are actually owed. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) asked what that meant in real terms, the response from the DWP was that it would be too costly to find out. Well, the ASW pensioners are actually paying that cost, and the response from the DWP was a disgrace, so I press the Government to look at that case yet again.

Social Security (Additional Payments) Bill

Hywel Williams Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

Yes, that is the case. I was planning to cover that later. For the record, I will still make that point.

Our household support fund administered through local authorities in England and the money given to devolved Administrations are further avenues for people to seek help with the cost of essentials. From October, the Government are adding an additional £500 million to the fund, extending support through the winter. That equates to an additional £421 million in England and £79 million for the devolved Administrations, and that will take total funding for this UK-wide household support to £1.5 billion.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

One group of people who receive universal credit and are in some difficulty are those who lose some of their universal credit because they received a universal credit advance for the first five weeks. Some 92,000 households in that situation in Wales are getting about £60 a month less, and that comes to a total of about £5 million being denied to them. I hope that the Secretary of State is prepared to reconsider her position on that. Obviously, that is not in the Bill, so she has taken a decision in the short term, but I press her to reconsider.

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman is incorrect in saying that money is denied to people. The whole point of receiving an advance is that there is phasing and, instead of receiving 12 payments in a typical calendar year, 13 payments are made. We extended that recently so that people can choose whether to have 25 payments over 24 months. It is not a case of people being denied.

The Social Security (Additional Payments) Bill before the House is a short Bill of 11 clauses that gives us the powers necessary to administer payments to families on means-tested and disability benefits. As one-off new benefit payments, they will be delivered by the UK Government to eligible households right across the United Kingdom in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The timing of such payments will vary, starting with the first payment of £326 for DWP means-tested benefit claimants from 14 July. The second payment will arrive in the autumn for those eligible. Those on tax credits who do not receive DWP means-tested benefits will get each instalment later to avoid duplicate payments.

People not eligible in time for the first £326 payment because they were not getting a qualifying benefit in the month before the announcement may get the second £324 payment if they have a qualifying entitlement to a benefit in the month before the next eligibility date. We have deliberately not included the next eligibility date in the Bill to try not to change claimant behaviour. Instead, there is the power to set a date through regulations.

Those on qualifying disability benefits will get their £150 as a single payment from September. Where eligibility for any of these cost of living payments is found retrospectively—for example, someone who had applied for personal independence payment but not yet been awarded it—people will still receive that disability cost of living payment; it will just be at a later date.

Universal Basic Income

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

Thank you, Ms McVey. The actions of this Government are really hammering working people and the working class, and are driving more and more people into poverty. People’s incomes and living standards are under attack on many fronts, as we face the worst cost of living crisis in living memory.

The Government have imposed cut after cut to social security benefits, and increased benefits by only a paltry 3.1% in April, though inflation stands at 10%. We have seen freeze after freeze of public sector pay. We clapped for our key workers—be they care workers, Government workers or NHS workers—throughout lockdown, but they have not been rewarded. There is a debate in the main Chamber about the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, who have been forced to strike next week because their reasonable demands for better pay and terms and conditions have fallen on deaf ears. On pensions, the Tory Government have broken the triple lock.

All that has had a devastating impact on far too many people. Some 14.5 million people live in poverty. That includes the 4.3 million children who live in relative poverty—nine in every classroom of 30 children—and the 10 million people who use food banks. We should be angry that we, the fifth richest nation on the planet, have allowed this situation to arise and become normalised. That is a political choice.

There are alternatives, however, and universal basic income is one of them. We must do everything we can to achieve a fairer and more resilient society as we come out of the pandemic. A vital part of that is replacing our dysfunctional benefits system with one that provides financial security for everyone. UBI—an unconditional and regular cash payment to everybody, regardless of their income—is gaining significant traction as a solution to many of those issues. It is underpinned by the principle of universality, which I endorse. It would provide everyone with enough to cover the basic cost of living, and would ensure that financial security was a basic human right.

Universal basic income has lots of merits. It enables us to ensure that people’s human right to an appropriate amount of money to live on is met; it overcomes the negative features of means testing, particularly the stigma associated with claiming social security benefits; it is simple, unlike the current complex welfare system; and it would stimulate demand in the economy by putting money in people’s pockets.

I am particularly proud of the universal basic income campaign in my country of Wales. That grassroots, bottom-up campaign, led by a gentleman called Jonathan Williams of UBI Lab Wales, has been successful in getting constituency Labour parties, local authorities and Assembly Members to sign pledges in support of universal basic income, and it has also participated in various groups here in Parliament.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I apologise for my late arrival to the debate; I was detained elsewhere. Does the hon. Lady welcome, as I do, the small-scale pilot scheme that is being run by the Welsh Government? It will target money at 250 care leavers, who are a particularly vulnerable group. I look forward to the results of that pilot. However, it will take three years, and I am sure that she will agree that we need something larger scale, very quickly.

[Beth Winter]

I do agree, and thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I will come on to the universal basic income pilot scheme that the Welsh Government are introducing in the next few weeks. Mark Drakeford, the First Minister of Wales, is a strong proponent of universal basic income, and it is part of the radical and more progressive policies, particularly when compared to those of the UK Government, being pursued by the Welsh Government. It forms part of a co-operation agreement between the Labour party and Plaid Cymru that I fully support. The pilot is as ambitious as can be expected, given the financial constraints placed on the Welsh Government by the UK Government; the financial settlement is decided by the Barnett formula. From what I understand, attempts by the Welsh Government to discuss potential assistance from the UK Government fell on deaf ears.

I welcome the pilot, which gives care leavers £1,600 per month. That amount is significantly higher than the amount in any other basic income pilot globally. It is broadly equivalent to the real living wage. There is a comprehensive methodology associated with that, and there will be a very robust evaluation process. Michael Marmot is one of the advisers, as is Guy Standing, who is world-renowned on UBI. The pilot has a technical advisory panel. It is a very well thought-out process that goes as far as it can. Even I would admit that it has some limitations, but it is trying to look at progressive, radical and alternative ways of supporting people.

Any pilot or roll out of UBI must form part of a much broader transformative agenda. We need a benefits system that ensures that everyone has equal access to a safety net that will ensure that they can meet their needs, and we need a progressive tax system. I propose the reinstatement of the £20 universal credit uplift, and that benefits and wages be inflation-proofed. I am a proponent of the wealth tax. UBI must form part of a more transformative agenda. I will continue to work alongside colleagues in Parliament, but crucially, I will work outside the bubble of Parliament with organisations such as Anti-Poverty Alliance in Wales, Child Poverty Action Group and trade unions—in particular, Unite Wales community—to promote radial, alternative and socialist policies. I want to celebrate and congratulate the Welsh Government on the ambitious pilot. Diolch yn fawr.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Davies]

It is beyond the bounds of my intellect to debate what “universal” means. I take it to mean, “being received by everyone.” It could be up to people to give it back, but as we have seen in recent policies, that does not always happen.

[Hywel Williams]

I do not want to be argumentative, but the Chancellor has agreed to give us all, including everyone here, the princely sum of £400, so the principle is accepted by Conservative Members, although I agree that there might be rather larger sums involved in the universal basic income. We have talked about the gross cost, but we might be able to net off a considerable amount of money in view of the wellbeing, better health and happiness, and everything else that comes with having a proper income.

[Gareth Davies]

The hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley), who introduced the debate, made the point that the Conservatives recently implemented a universal policy. She will be aware, as will the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), that in exceptional circumstances—be it the first pandemic in over 100 years, or a national crisis in energy prices—we would expect the Government to protect as many people as possible, and to act at pace. I accept that point, but that is not what we are talking about today, which is, as I understand it, a complete and permanent root-and-branch reform of our welfare system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey.

We are living in unprecedented times—although I am loth to say that, because every time that I have said it in the past two years, things have got worse. However, we are living in unprecedented times, and the problems we face now demand very different and potentially more far-reaching solutions than anything this country has attempted since the end of the second world war—or, perhaps there is no evidence from anywhere else in the world, and we might need to be first.

Now more than ever, we see clearly how easily any of us could find ourselves needing support. There is a generation out there who had no thought that they might ever need benefits, because they had good, well-paid jobs, but they are seeing that that now is no security. In my constituency of Edinburgh West, foodbanks are telling me that the people who used to bring donations are now themselves coming for help. So it can happen to any of us: that we would need support and perhaps find none.

Sadly, we are learning that the welfare state, which has served us so well for seven decades, is not fully equipped for the new reality that is the consequence of the series of crises that we have faced in the past two years. During covid, I spoke to too many people for whom the many Government schemes offering furlough, business grants or support for the self-employed simply did not provide support. Coronavirus made no exception in who it attacked, yet the Government were unable to say the same about who they supported. Yes, we have heard examples today of payments that are now being made to everybody, but the Government repeatedly tell us that they cannot help everyone all the time.

I do not think that is good enough, but I recognise that what we face now is a mammoth task. But we have to find a way. We cannot lose sight of the question that so many people will face this coming winter: how will they feed their family, keep a roof above their heads and stay warm? When even the welfare state, which generations in this country have worked hard to maintain, is not able to do that, we have to accept that the time has perhaps come to do things differently. What has become abundantly clear is that what has been missing throughout all these crises is a crucial element of universal protection—something that perhaps none of us realised we would need.

The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies) said that universal basic income does not exist anywhere in the world and asked how could we provide it. In 1942, Beveridge’s vision did not exist, but it is undoubtably one of those iconic British systems of which we are rightly proud. Because that generation took the risk, we benefited. Now we need to take the risk so that future generations can benefit and to realise that we need a new vision to equip us for the 21st century and the very different challenges it brings.

The concept of a universal basic income, a guaranteed basic income or a universal right to a standard of living that looks at the country and says that everybody should be able to be sure that they will have food on the table, a roof over their heads and some warmth in the winter. That is what we are talking about: the principle. We are not talking necessarily about sending everybody cheques every month, and millionaires getting cheques. We are talking about looking at people and seeing if their standard of living, income and quality of life reaches a basic level. That is what we are talking about today.

As a constituency MP, with every passing day and every desperate phone call from someone in trouble who is frantically searching for a financial lifeboat that does not exist, I become more convinced that some form of universal basic income has to be the solution in this country. Nobody should be left behind. Moving forward after the pandemic and this cost of living crisis, unemployment and financial insecurity will be major challenges for any Government. A basic income, a basic standard of living or a guaranteed income will be the best, fairest and simplest way to safeguard the most vulnerable in society and care for those who need it.

[Hywel Williams]

Given that we are talking in high terms and with a breadth of vision here, and apropos what the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies) said about the dignity of work, we must crack this paradox whereby it is said that to get the poor to work harder, we must provide them with less support, and to get the rich to work harder, we must provide them with other support, such as cutting their taxes. We need a much more universal view of income support and dignity for everyone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I will come to that point, because I will set out shortly, if I may, what I think is the important way in which we should take our country forward.

[Hywel Williams]

I remind the hon. Lady that there are three particular principles of social security and the support that we give to each other. One is income replacement, the second is addressing particular needs, such as childcare or whatever it is, and the third one, which is important for those of us in this part of the Chamber, is the need to promote solidarity and cohesion, using the system to ensure that we all realise that we are all in this together, as it were. In that sense, the system should be generous—indeed, much more generous than it is at the moment.

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the universality of the system, which we all pay into and we all take out of when we need to. That is the contributory principle—the principle that we are all part of the same system.

This is where I think there is an important point that is at risk of being missed, because the contributory principle—the idea that we are all a part of this system—is failed when people are left behind. Beveridge and Eleanor Rathbone—whose history you know well, Chair—created a system of social security that was not in isolation from the other work that they did in analysing the problems that had happened in the 1930s and assessing which institutions were needed for a good economy that would leave no one behind and in which people could pay into the social security system when they were able to, through working, and take out of it when they needed to. Their point was to ensure that work would help to support families and that the social security system would be there to provide a minimum level of income, as needed, to support a family.

The Beveridge report required two other things to be in existence to support the system of social security. The first was the creation of the NHS and the second was the assumption of full employment—a labour market where everybody could take part and where work would provide enough to help to support a family.

As various Members have already said, that is what is going wrong right now. The Prime Minister crows about jobs, but he does so in the middle of a crisis of huge price rises while wages are falling. For me, that is the definition of a broken jobs market.

Working Tax Credit and Universal Credit: Two-Child Limit

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Thursday 21st April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I am very glad to follow my friend, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), and the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss).

Ahead of the debate, I asked people what they thought of the two-child limit, and the responses were interesting, revealing and quite varied. People thought that it had been a short-term measure; that it had been withdrawn; that it had had little effect; and, most revealingly, some said, “I had just forgotten about it.” The point is that it had become supposedly normal; it had disappeared from public debates.

The two-child rule has indeed disappeared as a matter of public concern. It has become the unquestioned common sense of the system, but it remains an excruciating burden on families, particularly innocent children, who are subject to its evil effects and sometimes suffer as a consequence of the voluntary or involuntary actions of parents driven by religious or social beliefs on polygamy, contraception or abortion, for example; as a consequence of contraceptive failure or accidents; more sinisterly, as a consequence of patriarchal attitudes and oppression; or, even worse, as a consequence of the rules around rape, as we have heard.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow Central on securing the debate and for shining a light on a cruel and oppressive measure, bringing it into the light, if not the comfort, of truth’s flame—as the poet R. S. Thomas said in another case. I join her, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley and others in calling for the two-child rule to be withdrawn forthwith.

I hope hon. Members will forgive me, but this matter has a particular resonance for me as one of seven children, one of whom died in infancy. We were brought up in a council house—a very good council house built to high post-war standards—and we were fortunate in many ways, three of which I will refer to. First, my parents were extremely hardworking at a time of full employment, so we lacked for nothing. Secondly, we lived at a time of consensus on wide-ranging social provisions, so we had the health service, vitamins, glasses, free school milk and all the rest of it. We all went on to further and higher education, initial and higher degrees, professional qualifications, and professional careers, all of which was grant aided.

The third point about my family is that we were not subject to the two-child limit. Otherwise, I would scarcely be standing here today. There is always a danger of idealising the past in comparison with the wretched present. In Welsh, we say, “Teg edrych tuag adra”—it is a fine thing to look back at one’s home—meaning to look at the past with rose-tinted glasses.

The evidence shows a change in the provision, and it is very much a change for the worse. The two-child limit is a particularly bad case. The real point of my speech is that there has been a change in attitudes since 1979, I suppose—I referred to school milk a moment ago, and I do not have to emphasise the significance of that debate. There has been a change in the accepted common sense that we all owe a duty to each other—that a provision for one is a provision for all. That is, with very few exceptions, a common provision. The exceptions in earlier times would have been made on the basis of the violation of legal requirements, social and religious norms or on the judgment of moral turpitude. That was the accepted common sense, and there has been a change.

I will digress for a moment to mention part of my earlier career. Years ago I was a mental health social worker and would visit the psychiatric hospital at Denbigh, which served all of north Wales. In the back ward of that mental hospital there lived a dozen or so older women, mainly in their late 70s. They had been there since the 1930s; they were totally institutionalised and unable to leave. They were initially detained on the basis of “moral imbecility”; that is why they were locked up. They had had illegitimate children. Supposedly we do not make those sorts of moral judgments these days. However, I have to say that some of the arguments for the two-child rule—which will be familiar to many of us and I will not rehearse—have that flavour of moral condemnation. Those arguments are based supposedly on the common sense that they—that is, the generalised other—should take responsibility for the exceptions that prove the rule here. Well, those exceptions are surely irrelevant, and hence, so are the children who suffer—they are irrelevant as well.

I could make many further points about this general argument and I could talk about the practicalities. As we have already heard, Wales has the highest rates of child poverty of any part of the UK, at 31%. In 2021 14,800 households were affected by the two-child limit; 570 of those households were in Gwynedd, the county where my constituency is located. The Welsh Affairs Committee has published its report on the benefits system in Wales, which raised concerns about the two-child limit. It said that devolving powers to Wales—equivalent to those in Scotland—would mean that we could take real measures to tackle child poverty, such as the additional child payments for low-income families introduced in Scotland. I concede that that affects only a small part of the social security system, but it is much better than the situation that we face in Wales.

I could refer to the rationale behind the policy of ensuring that families receiving means-tested benefits should face the same financial choices about having children as those supporting themselves through work. However, we know that the majority of claimants—that is 56%—are actually employed. The arguments around people working or not, and having lots of children, are entirely bogus to my mind. My request to the Minister today is fairly simple. I ask him to signal a desire to move away from the supposed common sense of this policy and from the rationale that underpins it—the cruel rationale of less eligibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe; we have seen a fair bit of each other this week. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) on securing this debate, on a subject on which I know she has campaigned at length. In fact, we have sparred on a few different issues, because this is not the only subject she has concerns about.

The Department for Work and Pensions is committed to supporting families and helping parents into work. Since this has come up in the debate, it is worth reminding colleagues of the 1.3 million vacancies available for people to find work. We want there to be strong work incentives to help people to fill the opportunities that are available, while providing support for those who need it. We also need to ensure that there is a sense of fairness for the taxpayer; many working families who do not receive benefits do not see their incomes rise when they have more children. That is why we judge that the policy to support a maximum of two children, whether that is with universal credit or child tax credit, is a proportionate way to achieve those aims. Our overall approach is working, as evidenced by the fact that between 2016 and 2021, the number of couples who are in employment and have children increased by 460,000; that is a 2.3 percentage point increase in the employment rate for that group.

The two-child policy was introduced five years ago. Since April 2017, families have been able to claim support for up to two children. There may be further entitlement for other children if they were born before 6 April 2017 or if an exception applies—I will come back to that in a minute. The child element of universal credit is worth £290 for the first child born before 6 April 2017. It is worth a standard rate of £244.58 per child for the second and any other eligible children. Child benefit continues to be paid for all children, plus the additional element in child tax credit or universal credit for any disabled children. The 2021-22 rates for the disabled child addition in universal credit are £128.89 per month for the lower rate and £402.41 per month for the higher rate. Additional help for eligible childcare costs through working tax credit and universal credit are also available, regardless of the total number of children in the household. We discussed that at length in the Work and Pensions Committee yesterday—although that feels like quite a long time ago.

We recognise that some claimants are not able to make the same choices about the number of children in their family. That is why exceptions have been put in place to protect certain groups. Exceptions apply to third and subsequent children who are additional children in a multiple birth; an extra amount is payable for all children in a multiple birth other than the first child. Exceptions also apply where the child is likely to have been born as a result of non-consensual conception, which for this purpose includes rape or where the claimant was in a controlling or coercive relationship with the child’s other biological parent at the time of conception. A further exception applies to any children in a household who are adopted when they would otherwise be in local authority care, or who are living long term with friends or family and would otherwise be at risk of entering the care system. Another exemption is where a child under the age of 16 who is living with their parents or carers has a child of their own—until they make a separate claim upon turning 16.

Statistics from the Office for National Statistics show that in 2020, 85% of all families with dependent children had a maximum of two in their family. For lone parent families, the figure was 83%. Based on the latest figures, 62% of households with a third or subsequent child who are in receipt of universal credit or child tax credit are not affected by the two-child policy.

[Hywel Williams]

The Minister has given a long list of the benefits available to people and some of the ameliorative procedures that have been put in place, but what is the actual effect of the two-child limit? Is he saying that it has no effect at all or that its effects have been ameliorated? What is the effect on the kids in those families?

[David Rutley]

The point that I am trying to make is that the benefits system is important—it provides support—but it is not the only thing that we are trying to do for people and for claimants.

As the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) has highlighted, many of those people are working while on benefits. We want them to get into work and, when they are in employment, to progress. As has been debated long and hard in this Chamber, we have recently introduced work coaches who focus on in-work progression; we have 37 champions across the country who are helping to push that agenda forward. That is vital so that people can progress. People do not depend just on the benefits system; we want them to see more in their wage packet, and we have provided work incentives to do that, be it through the UC taper rate changes that have been put in place or through the increased work allowances. Those are vital incentives.

Draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 Draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd February 2022 General Committees

[Chris Stephens]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq—it is good to see a good friend of the worker chairing the Committee on these particular regulations.

I have become an annual attender of the proceedings on the regulations, and I will start today, as I always do, by remembering my good Unison comrade and friend Tom Begley, who died as a result of asbestos-related cancer. This is an opportunity to remember him and others who have succumbed to these pernicious industrial diseases. I also pay tribute to the campaigners, trade unions and charities, such as Clydeside Action on Asbestos, that continue to highlight the devastating impact that these industrial diseases have on victims and on families. This is not just about workers who have worked in factories and buildings; it is also about individuals who have contracted these diseases as a result of washing clothes with asbestos on them. We have to remember that as well.

I want to take this opportunity to remind the Committee that it was SNP and Plaid Cymru MPs in the 1970s who were the first Members of Parliament to highlight the dangers of asbestos and industrial diseases. Those Members were dismissed at the time and accused of scaremongering, but thankfully we have come a long way in recognising the dangers of asbestos and the impact that it has on people’s health.

I want to make three main points, but I first want to stress the issue of the disparity. The Government made a commitment in 2010 that they would look at the disparity between payments for dependants and sufferers. That was 12 years ago. I think we have waited far too long for that disparity to be addressed. There really should be an equality impact assessment along with these regulations, so that we can have a look at that.

Some of the figures for the differences in payments were given by my colleague on the Labour Front Bench, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. The one that I have been given is that someone who was a qualifying individual and aged 60 at the time of diagnosis would receive in the region of £44,000, whereas the dependant would receive £19,000. That is quite a big gap, I would argue, between the amounts of compensation for those individuals. I hope that the Government really do look at the issue very seriously. They are on borrowed time now; 12 years is far too long to wait. The Government gave us a commitment that they would look at the disparity.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Just to emphasise that point, the sum of the compensation declines as the claimant gets older. That is because it is based on potential earnings should the person not have acquired the industrial disease. There is a fundamental injustice here. Someone who is 61 gets less than someone who is 60, when the condition is entirely the same and probably as dangerous.

[Chris Stephens]

I agree with my hon. Friend. He makes a valid point, and I hope that it has registered with the Government. It is important. I do not want to oppose the regulations today, but I hope the Minister has listened very carefully to the points that have been made about the disparity.

The Minister appeared before us at the Work and Pensions Committee to talk about the work of the Health and Safety Executive. Perhaps the Minister could provide an update on what work the Government are doing with HSE to make sure that all workplaces in the UK are asbestos-free. She knows that we have heard from campaigners and international experts.

I praise hon. Members across the House who have raised the issues of industrial diseases. I thank the Minister. Tonight I have to go and visit the Boundary Commission because of legislation that she put forward, I think last year. In all seriousness, we do not want to oppose these measures, but there is still a lot that the Government have to get right here and there are still injustices to be tackled.

[Hywel Williams]

It is a pleasure to appear before you for the first time, Dr Huq. The history of this matter as outlined by colleagues is largely correct as far as it goes, although I should say that there was a very long campaign in Wales, lasting many decades, around the slate industry to have what was then called silicosis recognised as an industrial disease. That was hampered by the fact that doctors, in certifying death, would often certify heart disease or some other cause other than silicosis, and subject the family and the widow to having her husband subject to a post-mortem. Right at the start of my career, many years ago, I had the very gruesome experience of attending a coroner’s court on another case. The previous case was a death caused by silicosis. I saw the widow there, in tears, listening to the detail of her husband’s PM.

Fortunately, we have the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, which brought in the compensation scheme—too late for some people, of course. Within the slate industry in Wales it was well known that dust was a killer, and very little was done about it. I am glad to say that now the slate industry in Wales is very much safer.

On the 1979 Act, I pay tribute to my predecessor as the Member for Caernarfon, now Lord Wigley. Dafydd was the MP up until 2001. As a new MP in 1974-79, he pushed very hard to get the 1979 Act in, working alongside trade union colleagues, including the much missed Tom Jones of the Transport and General Workers Union. Together, they worked very hard to get that Act through. We had had warm words for many years from successive Governments that there would be a compensation scheme, but it was work by people in my party, the T and G and colleagues from the Labour party that got us over the line in the end. Dafydd saw the devastating impact that slate dust was having on workers and their families. He played a leading part, and it is partly due to him that we are sitting here this afternoon.

I fully support the statutory instrument, but I should be grateful if the Minister would answer a couple of questions. Does she have any information about the geographical distribution of payments? People from the slate industry who are suffering from pneumoconiosis are getting older—they are fewer and fewer every year. I would like to know the distribution and the value of payments, particularly in respect of north Wales. Perhaps the Minister could write to me if she does not have that information.

Secondly, in the context of the rising cost of living—this point has already been made—if we are to have annual debates, we should be looking at the rate of inflation closer to the date of uprating, so that payments match the costs that people are facing.

Lastly, I would also emphasise the point about payments to dependants being increased in order to match those paid to sufferers. It is an injustice.

In bringing my remarks to a close, I note that Wales has a long and inglorious legacy of industrial disease and other industrial ills, not least the coal tips that disfigure our landscape and remain a risk to people. There are over 600 tips, and over 300 of them are classified as being a high risk. At some point, I would be very glad to see the UK Government funding the removal of those tips completely, as part-payment for the suffering that people in the coal industry have endured over the years.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I will say just a few brief words in relation to my local mesothelioma group in Berkshire, and I know that the hon. Member for Windsor would share some of my sentiments about our local community in the county. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and I echo his support for a wider look at the scale of the payments. I ask the Minister again to consider that. I also pay tribute to the hon. Members for Glasgow South West and for Arfon for their very thoughtful and powerful accounts.

I pay tribute to the members of the Berkshire mesothelioma group, because until I met them, I had not fully understood the scale of the problem. Although colleagues have rightly addressed the issues with very specific industries, the problem of asbestos is everywhere. It is in this building and in houses, schools and small businesses across the country, and it was quite shocking to come across families who had lost a loved one to these dreadful illnesses. Some of the accounts that I heard from the local group were very moving and troubling, and it is perhaps worth briefly reflecting on the way in which some of these illnesses can occur. It is also worth remembering that the number of people suffering from these appalling illnesses may well increase in the years to come because of the very long incubation period, which is part of the problem with some of these industrial illnesses.

[Hywel Williams]

Equally shocking is the fact that the dangers of asbestos have been known within the industry since the 1920s. In my constituency, however, a factory was built in the early ’60s to make brick linings. I remember one of the workers suffering from mesothelioma telling me that they would make snowballs out of loose asbestos during lunch breaks, so the dangers were known but not acted on for many years.

[Matt Rodda]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. These are dangers that were known but which, sadly, were not acted on. The stories about workers and others playing with asbestos mistakenly, without having full knowledge of this material, are widespread. I have been told similar stories about workers in a power station in London where they had snowball fights with this material, and it is absolutely awful to hear such accounts.

I will mention a couple of examples of the sorts of tragedies that have occurred in our community in Berkshire, involving residents from both Reading and nearby areas. Workers worked on the railway and in other transport roles where, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston rightly said, asbestos was used to insulate materials in ships and trains, and for brakes in cars. I have heard stories of mechanics in small garages blowing the brake dust from disintegrating brake pads, without realising the horror of what was near to them. One tragic case is of a gentleman who sadly did not live to be one of my constituents, but who was a resident in the Reading East constituency and a young apprentice in the 1980s. He was apparently told by somebody at work, “Go away and saw up these pieces of cladding.” He sawed up the asbestos and had no indication of the scale of risk that he faced. When we hear such accounts, it is deeply moving and harrowing. It tells a very powerful story and urges action from all of us in a position of responsibility.

I will not take too much of the Committee’s time. Although I welcome the increasing payments, I urge the Minister and her colleagues across Government to look at what can be done to improve the health and safety regime in the UK so that we have better prevention and better understanding of emerging risks from new technologies, as well as from existing technologies which are perhaps better understood now, so that we never, ever go through this nightmare again. As we have heard, it has wrecked so many lives, and it has also imposed huge costs on businesses and the public sector. I am very aware, given my previous life as a civil servant in the Department for Education, of the cost to local authorities and central Government of retrofitting schools and taking asbestos out of schools. There could be huge costs in removing it from this building. Unfortunately, many employers and other organisations now face huge costs in making buildings safe after mistakes made decades ago.

I hope that, as a society, we can understand dangerous materials better in future, avoid unnecessary mistakes and the misery they cause, and move on, learn and be much better at managing those sorts of risks.

Disability Benefits Assessments

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)]

It is a pleasure to work under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for creating this opportunity for debate on a very important subject. We all believe in a compassionate welfare system. We have heard welcome contributions from all parts of the United Kingdom, and there are many parties represented.

More than one in five people in the United Kingdom are disabled. That is more than 14 million people. As the Minister for Disabled People, it is my priority to ensure that disabled people and people with health conditions are supported to achieve their potential and participate fully in everyday life. We know that disabled people and people with health conditions face many challenges to living independently and realising their goals.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chloe Smith]

I will give way a few times, Sir Gary, but I will not have a great deal of time to cover everything in the debate if I do it too many times.

[Hywel Williams]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Very briefly, she will have heard about the inhumanity of the assessments system this afternoon, and she will know that Wales suffers acutely, in that we have the highest level of disability and poverty in the UK. She will also have heard about the new system being introduced in Scotland, which will bring in a humane system of assessments. Will she commit in the White Paper to considering the devolution of the administration of welfare benefits to the Welsh Government?

[Chloe Smith]

I do not think that is likely to be in the White Paper. The hon. Gentleman might have heard that it is not our intention to further devolve welfare to the Welsh Government. None the less, I look forward to more conversations on that with him and with colleagues in the Welsh Government. I take a great interest in devolution affairs in the Department and will be able to have those conversations, just as I do with colleagues in the Scottish Government. I note what SNP Members have said today, which I will come to shortly.

Last year we published the health and disability Green Paper—the main subject of today’s debate—and the national disability strategy, which set out a wide-ranging set of practical actions to improve the lives of disabled people and affirmed our commitment to put disabled people at the heart of policy making. Support for the British Sign Language Bill, which was debated last Friday, is the latest example of such action. The health and disability Green Paper explored what changes we can make to the system, for three reasons—so that we better enable independent living, improve employment outcomes and improve the experience of people using the DWP’s services.

Both the national strategy and the Green Paper were informed by the views of disabled people, who told us in enormous numbers about their experiences and their priorities for change. Although it is not the main subject of today’s debate, I can confirm that we are disappointed at the judgment on the UK disability survey and intend to appeal. Of course, the Chamber will be aware that the court dismissed the claimants’ claims that the Secretary of State had been subject to a duty to consult.

We remain focused on delivering the contents of the strategy, which is broad and important. Ensuring that everyone has the same opportunity for a fulfilling working life is a key part of levelling up the country, on which I am sure I agree with the Chair of the Select Committee.

Universal Credit and Working Tax Credits

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

We have communicated once already with recipients of the universal credit temporary uplift. That has already gone through. The second message is under way, and the third message will be done. I think that we have taken responsible action to make sure that people realise that this change is coming, but of course the hon. Gentleman’s constituent will still be engaging with their work coach about how we can perhaps help them into better-paid work than they had before.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

The Secretary of State started by listing the support that this Government have given to businesses, and specifically small businesses, which are very important in my constituency. How can she justify taking £5 million out of the local economy in Arfon?

[Dr Coffey]

I would expect the hon. Gentleman to be welcoming the investment that we will be making in getting people not only into work but into better-paid work. I am sure that will have a direct impact on supporting the economy in his area.

Income Tax (Charge)

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Thursday 4th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]]

The extension of the £20 uplift to universal credit is welcome, but why is it to be snatched away in September? What will have changed by then for the nearly 5,000 universal credit claimants in Arfon—a number that has doubled in a year; for the 47,000 households in Wales that depend on universal credit; or for the 53,000 children in Wales who have benefited from this modest increase? Their needs will be the same and they will have become accustomed to being better able to meet those needs—although providing a decent standard of living for children, even on the enhanced level of universal credit, is a huge challenge.

It is not the poverty that blights the lives of so many children that will have changed; rather, it is the Chancellor and this Government’s chosen policy—their response, which denies people’s real lived experience and deliberately increases poverty. That is the charge against them: generating, not alleviating, poverty. I have listened to the Chancellor and his friends trying to justify this cut to the incomes of the very poorest and trying to avoid the question, and I have not heard a single half-plausible answer, other than that the modest improvement to universal credit was always meant to be temporary and so is temporary.

The justification is: “The poor will always be with us”. Well, I reject that contention, as do so many other people—those who depend on universal credit; those who have had to claim it for the first time and are appalled by the meanness of the system; and those who have seen their friends and relatives lose their jobs through no fault of their own and whose families are now experiencing poverty as the deliberate policy of this Government. The ancient ploy of deliberately imposing poverty on the workless has never been justified, and that is even more true now, when circumstances throw people on the mercy of an inadequate system. We are all victims of covid-19, but some are more victimised than others.

Over the past year we have seen this Government rectifying their many failures, one after another, with one policy reversal after another, with catastrophic consequences not only for their credibility but, more importantly, for those who suffer from the initial policy decisions. The decision to cut universal credit is just one such failure. I have no care for this Government’s credibility—they are already busted in my eyes; what concerns me is not their credibility but the welfare of families and children throughout the UK. My one call today, then, is for the Chancellor not to punish poor people, and certainly not to punish their poor children.

Universal Credit and Working Tax Credit

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Monday 18th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]]

We in Plaid Cymru have called consistently for the addition to universal credit to be made permanent and for it to be extended to legacy benefits. That is the bare minimum social security response required, with so many people experiencing such hardship. Millions of people in Wales and across the UK are facing many more months of want, with no guarantee that the pandemic will be over by March when this artificial deadline is to be imposed.

The Minister said he cannot predict the circumstances in April. Neither can I. That is exactly why the certainty of the uplift should be continued. It is no surprise that the Government want to dodge yet another U-turn, having been forced to extend free school meals after the swindle of food hampers for hungry kids and all the rest of it. But for the Government to cut the vital support that universal credit provides just to save face would be morally reprehensible. The Secretary of State should have the courage to say, “The facts have changed, I have changed my mind.”

If this cut goes through, over a third of Welsh households will be more than £1,000 a year worse off. This month the figure for universal credit in Arfon is up again at just shy of about 5,000; so less money for children in Arfon, and less for the basics of food, heating and clothing, piling further deprivation on to children already disadvantaged, possibly for life, by the disruption to their education. In Wales, even before covid-19, nearly a quarter of all people living in the country were in poverty, rising shamefully to three in 10 children.

The Government intend social security spending in Wales to be cut by around £250 million; less for Welsh parents to spend, but also £250 million taken out of the Welsh economy, so less for local businesses already reeling from covid.

It would be indefensible for a Westminster Government to harm the children of Wales in this way at the best of times. Doing so during the worst pandemic in memory, and after a decade of vicious austerity, is unforgivable. To lift Wales out of poverty, we urgently need the power to repair the deep cracks in our welfare system caused by years of both blue and red austerity. This deliberate cut and all the other welfare failures over decades are further proof that Westminster is not up to the job. We in Wales urgently need full powers over welfare to be devolved to our Senedd.

Kickstart Scheme

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend is right to talk about existing workers. We have been clear in our guidance, and will continue to be so in our assessment of applications, that this is not simply displacing existing roles. I am confident that, in particular on small businesses, with the involvement of the intermediaries, that extra quality assurance will be there. I am sure that when he is out and about in his lovely constituency, he will be able to champion the scheme and show how people can get that link.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]]

As our economy reopens following many challenging months, now is the time to build a recovery that will work for young people and the planet they will inherit by investing in green jobs. How will the kickstart scheme contribute specifically to our green recovery from covid-19?

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman is right that part of building back better is about building back greener. In several of the sectors where we have been encouraging ways to get involved in kickstart as well as apprenticeships, it will be about that green recovery. As I said earlier, it is not that we can create in every individual job. That is why we are working with organisations and businesses to try to do that. I believe that this boost of paying wages for 25 hours a week for a young person who is bursting with potential and wanting to get into the world of work will be a boost to those companies in and around his constituency who want to have that green recovery.