Cost of Living Support
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Pursglove
My right hon. Friend is trying to tempt me to make commitments on behalf of the Treasury today that of course I am not able to do, but what I am able to do is ensure that the point he has made in this debate is relayed to Treasury colleagues. Again, there are ongoing conversations being had involving the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), who leads on housing within the Department for Work and Pensions, and colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, for example, around some of the challenges that people are facing with housing. She is working proactively on this, along with colleagues elsewhere.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I too thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, although in reality it is a nine-page press release rehash of previous Government announcements. The only new thing today is the £150 disability payment. Will the Minister reflect on the excellent report from Scope, “Disability Price Tag 2023: the extra cost of disability”, which shows that, on average, disabled households have expenditure that is £975 higher per month? We know that, for example, as a result of specialised diets, higher transport costs, higher energy costs and higher insurance premiums, there is a cost to disabled people.
Unfortunately, the Government do not have a good record when it comes to disabled people, particularly the 2.5 million legacy benefit claimants who were so cruelly overlooked during the pandemic and did not get the equivalent of the £20 uplift. I welcome the £150, but I ask the Minister to reflect on the wise words of Scope, which says that that will not touch the sides. To that end, as the Government are not quite getting this, may I invite the Minister to come to Glasgow to meet me and the Glasgow Disability Alliance, where he will hear the message, loud and clear, that this simply does not go far enough and that far too many people are going to struggle unless the Government up their game?
Tom Pursglove
I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for his question. This is a significant issue in his constituency and a challenge in constituencies across the country. Ministers across the Government are mindful of it. It draws focus back to the key, overarching mission of this Government and the economic plan that the Chancellor and Prime Minister are advancing. That is why it is so critical that we tackle the inflationary pressures. We must not add to those inflationary pressures. If we can deal with that root cause, that is the best way to help people in that situation.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The cost of living payments have made a vital contribution to millions of families in supporting people through the current crisis and I welcome the contribution they have made. However, the need for them does reflect, particularly following the removal of the £20 a week uplift from universal credit, the historically low headline level of benefits—at the moment, in real terms, the lowest for 40 years. What consideration are the Minister and his colleagues in the Department giving to consolidating those occasional one-off payments into the mainstream benefits— universal credit and the rest—so that people can budget with confidence, week by week?
State Pension Age: Review
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the second review of the state pension age, which I am publishing today.
The purpose of this review has been to determine whether the existing rules about pensionable age remain appropriate, as required by the Pensions Act 2014. Two reports commissioned by the Government have formed part of the evidence base: one from the Government Actuary and an independent report led by Baroness Neville-Rolfe, both of which I am publishing alongside this review.
l am grateful to both the Government Actuary and to Baroness Neville-Rolfe for their thoughtful and valuable reports. I would also like to thank those who responded to the call for evidence that informed the independent report.
As today’s review underlines, this Government are committed to providing dignity and security in retirement and to delivering the certainty that people need to plan for later life. It also highlights the importance of ensuring that we have the best available evidence before making decisions about the course of the state pension age that impacts millions of people.
It is thanks to the measures that this Conservative Government have taken that there are now 200,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty than there were in 2009-10. This year, we are projected to spend around £117 billion on state pension-related expenditure. Next month will see the state pension’s biggest ever increase, and, as a result, the new state pension will surpass £10,000 a year for the first time.
I want to make sure that the state pension in this country continues to be the foundation of income in retirement for future generations, while also being sustainable and fair. I welcome Baroness Neville-Rolfe’s independent report. It highlights an important challenge: a growing pensioner-age population and the affordability and fiscal sustainability of the state pension. It also looks at how we can balance that with our commitment to providing fairness between the generations.
As a society, we should celebrate improvements in life expectancy, which has risen rapidly over the past century and is projected to continue to increase. Since the first state pension age review was undertaken in 2017, however, the increase in life expectancy has slowed. In fact, the rapid rises in life expectancy seen over the last century have slowed over the past decade, a trend seen to a varying degree across much of the developed world. For most people and communities, people alive today are expected to live longer than their predecessors. Life expectancy is still projected to improve over time but, compared with the last review of state pension age, those improvements are expected to be achieved at a slower rate.
Having had regard to the relevant factors, I agree with the independent report’s conclusion that the planned rise in the state pension age from 66 to 67 should occur between 2026 and 2028 and that that rise is appropriate. It has been in legislation since 2014 and will continue to give certainty to those planning their retirement.
I have noted the independent report’s recommendations that the rise from 67 to 68 should take place between 2041 and 2043. That is four years later than the first independent reviewer, John Cridland, proposed in 2017—a proposal that the Government accepted, subject to a further review—but three years ahead of what is provided for in legislation. However, Baroness Neville-Rolfe was not able to take into account the long-term impact of recent significant external challenges, including the covid-19 pandemic and global inflation caused by Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine.
The Government Actuary also notes the challenges of assessing long-term mortality trends, particularly in the context of the covid-19 pandemic. He states that,
“relatively minor changes in the mortality assumptions can result in fairly large changes to the calculated State Pension age timetable”.
Given the level of uncertainty about the data on life expectancy, labour markets and the public finances, and the significance of these decisions on the lives of millions of people, I am mindful that a different decision might be more appropriate once those factors are clearer.
I therefore plan for a further review to be undertaken within two years of the next Parliament to consider the rise to age 68 again. That will ensure that the Government are able to consider the latest information, including life expectancy and population projections that reflect the findings of the 2021 census data, the latest demographic trends and the current economic situation. We will also be able to consider the impact on the labour market of the measures we have announced to increase workforce participation and of any other relevant factors.
The current rules for the rise from 67 to 68 therefore remain appropriate and the Government do not intend to change the existing legislation prior to the conclusion of the next review. All options that meet the 10-year notice period will be in scope at the next review. The Government remain committed to the principle of 10 years’ notice of changes to state pension age and will ensure that any legislation can be brought forward in a timely manner.
The approach I am setting out today is a responsible and reasonable one—one that continues to provide certainty for those planning for retirement, while ensuring that we take the time to get this right for the longer term so that the state pension can continue to provide security in retirement and is sustainable and fair across the generations.
Mel Stride
I hear what my right hon. Friend says. As I set out in my statement, there are a number of uncertainties, some of which are in the fiscal sphere. In fact, if he reads pages 13 and 14 of the Office for Budget Responsibility economic and fiscal outlook, he will see what the OBR has to say about the uncertainty of the public finances around labour supply, energy prices and, indeed, interest rates. For that reason, among others, I believe it appropriate to wait until we are more certain about what the future holds.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. The Work and Pensions Committee called on the Government to publish the reports by Baroness Neville-Rolfe and the Government Actuary, which have been used to inform the review of the state pension age, and it is regrettable that that did not happen in good time. I am sure that many of us are left wondering why the Government did not publish those reports earlier to allow proper parliamentary scrutiny and a more informed decision. Is it not the case that this is a political decision because this Government, who are at the end of their days, do not want another fight before the next general election?
We in the SNP oppose further increases to the state pension age. We are glad that life expectancy is now finally being factored into the wider consideration of what is an appropriate state pension. The reality is that Tory austerity, followed by covid, has caused an overall reduction in average life expectancy figures. The UK has one of the worst state pensions in western Europe; too many pensioners in Scotland live in poverty, which is a damning indictment in what is supposed to be the sixth largest economy on the planet. Is the Secretary of State not embarrassed that pensioners on these islands have to choose between heating and eating in 21st century Britain? He talks about a reduction in poverty rates, but that is because the Government are using lagged data to analyse poverty rates and ignoring the cost of living crisis that is on us now. With 7 million households in fuel poverty, the Government cannot talk about poverty rates decreasing.
There is evidence that increasing the state pension age from 65 to 66 caused absolute poverty rates to rise. Has the Secretary of State seen the Institute for Fiscal Studies report on that and, if so, has it been part of the decision-making process? What lessons has he learned from the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign about raising the state pension age for women born in the ’50s? When will they see some compensation?
Finally, we look forward to an independent Scotland being the best place to grow old in prosperity, not in poverty with a Westminster Government we did not vote for.
Mel Stride
That is a beautiful question because it is precise; it requires an answer that one cannot duck. I will write to my right hon. Friend with that information.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am grateful for early sight of the statement. I understand why the Secretary of State has chosen to defer the key decision. Like John Cridland’s independent review six years ago, Baroness Neville-Rolfe’s report should have been published soon after the Department received it six months ago, rather than kept needlessly under wraps until today. John Cridland proposed early access to pension credit. Will the Secretary of State consider leaving access to pension credit at age 66 when the state pension age rises to 67 in three years’ time?
Child Support (Enforcement) Bill
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster ExcerptsFriday 17th March 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023 View all Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called in this debate and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell). He always speaks incredibly well on a Friday, and today is no exception. It is also a pleasure to support my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), who has done such a lot of work in this sphere and done a wonderful job in highlighting this issue and piloting the Bill through Parliament. I give credit to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher), who has also done a wonderful job standing in for my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud. I would certainly not know the difference—particularly without my glasses on.
Child support is such an important issue. I was delighted to be in this place to support another Bill on the same topic towards the end of last year, the Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Bill, brilliantly championed in this place by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart). The fact that there are two Bills on child support before Parliament underlines what an important issue it is and shows that reform of the system is needed so that, in the very unfortunate event of a family breakdown, parents—we must be honest, it is usually fathers—are not allowed to financially abandon their children.
Having children, looking after them and supporting them financially is a huge responsibility, and no one should be able to decide that they simply do not want to pay for a child that they have had. I am therefore very pleased that the Bill means a parent will no longer be able to get out of paying the amount of child maintenance cited in a child maintenance order by playing games, and in particular playing games with our court and administrative system. The Bill will be hugely beneficial to mothers who are doing the incredibly difficult but vital job of providing the day-to-day care that these children need: they will not have the continual, nagging worry about whether a father will pay his dues.
Failure to pay child maintenance has a massive impact on the families who rely on it, as is amply demonstrated by the number of cases and queries that appear in all our postbags and inboxes. I want to raise a particular case with which I have been involved. Quite soon after I entered the House, a lady came to my constituency surgery. Her relationship with her partner broke down, very sadly, while she was pregnant. She discovered at that stage that her partner had been cheating on her, and she has described him as an abusive liar. I cannot imagine the trauma that a woman must experience when she finds out that her partner is cheating on her while she is still carrying his unborn child.
My constituent’s ex-partner has never made his child maintenance payments consistently, apart from a few sparse payments here and there. He works full time, but as soon as the Child Maintenance Service sees that he is working on a PAYE basis for longer than a few months, he either changes jobs or claims that he is not working, and works “cash in hand” to try to get out of paying. He has also been convicted of breaking two non-molestation orders. He has been taken to court before and made to pay some money, but unfortunately as soon as the court has seen him make a few payments, the case is transferred back to the Child Maintenance Service and he very soon stops paying. Obviously arrears then accrue, and he now owes more than £10,000 in unpaid maintenance. He is living the life of a rich man, yet he supposedly cannot afford to pay for his child.
No one should have to go through what my constituent has been experiencing, and I am delighted that the Bill will go some way towards ensuring that parents do not have to go through it any more. Sadly, as we all know, since the CMS was set up 11 years ago, nearly £500 million of maintenance has not been paid. I am pleased that the Government have taken steps towards resolving that, and I believe that the Bill will continue to improve the position.
We have already heard some explanations of the two child maintenance payment systems, direct pay and collect and pay. It is quite complicated, but I think that it bears repetition. For direct pay, the CMS provides a calculation and a payment schedule, but payments are arranged privately between the two parents. That is, of course, far the most favourable way to proceed. Where necessary, for collect and pay, the CMS calculates how much child maintenance should be paid, collects the money from the paying parent, and pays it to the receiving parent. Collect and pay tends to involve cases in which a more collaborative arrangement between parents has failed or not been possible to achieve, or there are high levels of conflict. Paying parents on collect and pay are therefore considered to be less likely to meet their payment responsibilities and, indeed, evidence shows that to be the case.
Clause 2 in particular will assist in the collection of payments from unwilling paying parents. It provides for the Secretary of State to make a liability order when the paying parent has failed to pay an amount of child maintenance, and a deduction from earnings order is inappropriate or has been ineffective. The clause provides an assurance that administrative enforcement measures will be appropriately considered before more stringent measures are taken. As I understand it, in practice, that will mean that enforcement measures will be able to be taken much more quickly against parents who have failed to meet their obligations. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that in his summing up.
Clause 3 expands the power to make administrative liability orders by setting out in regulations provision for the variation of a liability order, for example, where the amount of arrears upon which the liability order is based is subsequently amended as more information about the paying parent’s income is obtained. This is important to constituents such as mine where the father has consistently lied about his earnings. Clause 4 gives the Secretary of State the power to set out in regulations provisions that relate to a parent’s right of appeal against a liability order. Those provisions will include the paying parent’s right of appeal to a court, the period within which the right of appeal may be exercised, the powers of the court in respect of those appeals, and provision for a liability order not to come into force in specified circumstances. The provisions in clause 4 will prevent court time from being used to consider day-to-day CMS business that can be completed operationally, again speeding things up. Importantly, the provisions will, therefore, not place any additional or unreasonable constraints on a parent’s ability to seek an appeal.
The Bill is important in ensuring that the CMS can make the necessary improvements to enforcement processes and get money to children more quickly. We must ensure that, when someone asks for help through the CMS, they get help quickly and in a way that makes them feel supported. We must also ensure that parents who are messing about with court procedures know that there will be sanctions and action against them.
This is an incredibly important Bill. It will allow parents in situations like those of my constituent to receive the money they are owed much more quickly and efficiently, and it will help to protect vulnerable children; I am delighted to see that it has support today from across the House. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, who is not here today, for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue and for her sterling efforts to ensure that children receive the money that they deserve.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
I start by apologising for being slightly late for the debate and I appreciate your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, in allowing me to take part. I also extend my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) on an excellent maiden speech. I am sure she will make a major contribution to the House in her time here.
In the short time available, I will focus on energy. In January 2022, the Labour party urged the Government to introduce a windfall tax on oil and gas producers. The Government copied the policy to some extent, although they changed the name to the energy profits levy, and effectively implemented it from May 2020. The tax on what were becoming record profits was limited to 25%, but the tax rate introduced for companies producing renewable energy was set at 45% because of their much larger percentage profits. Although I agree that those profits should be taxed, the large difference between the levy on oil and gas revenues and on renewable energy source revenues makes it seem like the Government are applying higher taxation on companies for their good behaviour.
In the Budget, the Government have provided for a three-month extension of the energy price guarantee, which limits typical bills to £2,500 at a cost of £3 billion. Although that is good for the consumer, it effectively subsidises energy production with taxpayers’ money and it still allows energy companies to retain huge profits. In 2022, Shell reported profits of £32.2 billion—the highest in its 115-year history—and BP made profits of £23 billion in the same year, up from £10.6 billion. Those are grotesque figures that make millionaires and billionaires even richer while my constituents, and those of many other hon. Members, struggle to put food on the table and pay their mortgages, and nurses have to go to food banks to feed their families.
I welcome the commitments in the Budget to renewable energy and to carbon capture and storage. I am glad to hear that Great British Nuclear will be formed immediately with a mandate to run a so-called down-selection process for small modular reactors. The Government will match fund a proportion of private investment, but they have not specified whether the winners will be guaranteed orders or sites. Details of the selection process are expected at the end of March, but no firm date has been given. It has not been specified how many technologies will be chosen, and whether this will be open just to light water designs or to advanced nuclear designs, such as Newcleo’s lead-cooled fast nuclear reactors. Advanced modular reactor technology represents the next step in nuclear technologies beyond recent small modular reactors. These reactors will burn plutonium, which is a waste product, and Newcleo is offering to invest in them from private funding without recourse to public funding. It is a win-win situation for the UK, and I believe Great British Nuclear must take these new advanced reactors seriously.
I would also like to speak about artificial intelligence. On a positive note, as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on artificial intelligence, I welcome the Government’s announcement of £900 million for a new supercomputer facility to help the UK’s AI industry. AI technology will revolutionise the way we live, work and play. It is vital for the UK’s future that we develop it as much as possible for the benefit of ordinary people, not just to make money for rich corporations at the expense of poor people in this country.
As a final point, I am a little bit bemused that the Government’s Budget did not include help for social enterprises and co-operatives. I know the Government have co-operated on my private Member’s Bill—it is now in the House of Lords—which I welcome, but I had hoped there would be some support for co-operatives and mutuals in this year’s Budget.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that, earlier today, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster came to the House to make a statement on the security of Government devices. Apparently, in the future, Ministers and officials will not be allowed to have TikTok on their Government-provided device. I am sure that much of the support in the Chamber for that came as a result of the presumption that many of us made: that it would mean that we would no longer have to endure the sight of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero on this young person’s app. It is now reported, however, that the right hon. Gentleman—who, I understand, wishes to be known as “the wolf of Whitehall” in future—has posted a meme on the app saying, “I’m not leaving.” Madam Deputy Speaker, how do we get some clarity on the Government’s messaging here? Surely a risk is a risk, whether it is on a Minister’s private phone or one provided by the Government?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point of order. As he says, there was a statement about this issue earlier. I am afraid that it is, in fact, not a matter for the Chair to rule on this particular aspect of TikTok and anybody’s name on it, but the right hon. Gentleman has obviously put his point on the record. I am sure that if Members sitting on the Treasury Bench feel that there is anything they need to feed back to any particular Department, they will do so. I think that we had probably better leave it at that, frankly.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At Prime Minister’s questions last week, I raised the case of Jean, after her grieving grandson asked me to raise it in Parliament in order to highlight the tragic impact of long ambulance delays. After speaking with Jean’s grandson last night, I now understand that some of the details provided to me, which I relayed to this House, were not accurate. While the substantive point remains—Jean did call for an ambulance and was told that she would have to wait for at least eight hours—Jean did not pay for her parking, and she did not die within the first hour of arriving at the hospital. I wish to correct the record by withdrawing those particular remarks.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point of order about what is obviously a very sad case that he raised at PMQs. I am grateful to him for coming to the House—I presume that this is as soon as he knew that the information had been incorrect. I am sure that the whole House appreciates the fact that he has corrected the record. Thank you.
Social Security (Additional Payments) (No. 2) Bill
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster ExcerptsMonday 6th March 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2023 View all Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 6 March 2023 - (6 Mar 2023)
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 4, page 2, line 10, leave out “30 April” and insert “1 April”.
The intention of this amendment is that all payments under this Bill should be made no later than 1 April 2023.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Amendment 5, page 2, line 14, leave out “31 October” and insert “1 April”.
The intention of this amendment is that all payments under this Bill should be made no later than 1 April 2023.
Amendment 6, page 2, line 16, leave out “29 February 2024” and insert “1 April 2023”.
The intention of this amendment is that all payments under this Bill should be made no later than 1 April 2023.
Clause 1 stand part.
Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 27, leave out “one month” and insert “two months”.
This amendment would extend the assessment period for recipients of universal credit, allowing them to receive the additional payments under this Bill if they had been entitled to a universal credit payment of at least 1p in the two months prior to the qualifying day for each additional payment.
Amendment 2, page 2, line 27, at end insert
“or—
(ii) the person would have been entitled to a payment of at least 1p in respect of that period if the person had not been subject to a benefit sanction.”
This amendment is intended to ensure that, in respect of universal credit, payments under this Bill are not denied to a person who is subject to a benefit sanction.
Clauses 2 to 12 stand part
New clause 1—Assessment of bringing forward the second qualifying day—
“The Treasury must publish, no later than six weeks after the day in which this Act is passed, an illustrative analysis of the impact of this Act on household incomes if —
(a) the second qualifying date was no later than 15 August 2023, and
(b) the third qualifying date was no later than 3 January 2024.”
The intention of this new clause is to explore the impact of bringing qualifying dates forward to the beginning of the school year in Scotland and the beginning of the New Year.
New clause 2—Assessment of cost of living support package—
“(1) The Treasury must publish, no later than the next fiscal event after the day on which this Act is passed, a full and detailed analysis of the impact of this Act on households.
(2) The Treasury may include in the analysis the effect of support for households announced in October 2022 in response to energy price rises.
(3) The analysis must include an estimate, based on the latest available reliable data, of the impact on household incomes of —
(a) payments made under this Act to households on mean-tested benefits,
(b) payments made under this Act to recipients of disability benefits.
(4) The analysis must show impacts across all deciles of household income distribution—
(a) in cash terms, and
(b) as proportion of net household income.
(5) The analysis must take into account where relevant differing policy contexts in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
(6) The analysis must include an assessment of the impact of this Act on households of different types, including single parent families, larger families, and pensioner households.”
New clause 3—Review of distributional effects—
“The Secretary of State and the Treasury must make a joint assessment of the distributional effects of this Act on—
(a) rural communities;
(b) families eligible for free school meals;
(c) unpaid carers; and
(d) households in each income decile
no later than six weeks after this Act is passed and must lay a copy of the assessment before both Houses of Parliament.”
New clause 7—Review of public health and poverty effects of the Act—
(1) The Secretary of State must review the public health and poverty effects of the provisions of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) The review must consider —
(a) the effects of the provisions of this Act on the levels of relative and absolute poverty across the UK including devolved nations and regions,
(b) the effects of the provisions of this Act on socio-economic inequalities and on population groups with protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010 across the UK, including by devolved nations and regions,
(c) the effects of the provisions of this Act on life expectancy and healthy life expectancy across the UK, including by devolved nations and regions, and
(d) the implications for the public finances of the public health effects of the provisions of this Act.”
This new clause would require the Government to report on the public health and poverty effects of the provisions of the Act.
New clause 8—Review of distributional effects—
“The Secretary of State and the Treasury must make a joint assessment of the distributional effects of this Act on—
(a) rural communities;
(b) families eligible for free school meals;
(c) unpaid carers;
(d) households including at least one disabled person; and
(e) households in each income decile,
no later than six weeks after this Act is passed and must lay a copy of the assessment before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Government to report on the effects of the Bill on different socioeconomic groups.
New clause 13—Payment date—
“The Secretary of State and HMRC must seek to make all payments due under this Act no later than 1 April 2023.”
This new clause is intended to require the Government to make all payments listed in this Bill by 1 April 2023.
New clause 14—Review of coverage of self-employed workers—
“The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament within three months of the date on which this Act is passed an assessment of how many recipients of payments under this Act live in households where at least one earner is a self-employed worker.”
This new clause is intended to highlight that the variable income of self-employed workers may leave them excluded from receiving the Government’s cost of living payments.
Wendy Chamberlain
It is a pleasure to move amendment 4 on behalf of my party.
Additional support for struggling families is much welcomed, and I am pretty sure that no one in the Committee would oppose the provision of more help through the Bill. What my amendment seeks to do is ensure that those struggling families receive that support now, rather than having to wait. It has been a long cold winter, and we are expecting another cold snap this week, so it certainly is not over yet.
While the energy price guarantee has protected families from the worst increases, some households have seen their bills increase two, three or possibly even four times in the past year. We know from the scandal of the forced instalment of prepayment meters that many people have been unable to keep up with those bills, and that for many of them the debts continue to mount up. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of others are walking a tightrope—just managing payments, sometimes late, by making other cutbacks: being cold, eating less, or reducing travel. If we are not just to get those families back on an even keel but to help them to stay there, it is vital for the full cost of living payment that the Government wish to make to be made immediately—especially, I would argue, in the face of the impending increase in the energy price guarantee. We have all seen reports in the media over the last few days that the Government may well choose to extend that guarantee. I am sure you might have some thoughts, Dame Rosie, on whether that announcement ought to be made here before being briefed to the press. We cannot fully assess the impact of this Bill, given that we do not know for definite what is happening with the energy price guarantee, so we are left to make assumptions accordingly.
In any case, whether the guarantee lasts for another month or as, my party wants, for more months than that along with a reduction in the energy price guarantee to the Ofgem cap of £1,971 last April, cost of living support payments must be made now to have any impact. We are seeing a reduction in wholesale gas costs, which is why we argue that the Government can do more than they are outlining because they have the headroom to do so. What is the point in people paying some or even all of their bills, only to start struggling all over again? For people to get all the other benefits of affording the basics—being warm enough and fed enough to work, go to school and stay healthy—support needs to be geared to preventing them from falling below that line in the first place.
Moving on from my amendment 4 to the remainder of the Bill, I am left wondering if this really is it. You do not need to be a politician to know that this country is in crisis, although if you are a politician and have a modicum of responsibility or power, it is critical that you realise the severity of the situation. Just turning on the TV, opening a newspaper, speaking to parents at the school gate or spending any time out and about in our communities makes it very clear what is happening.
The difficulties felt by different communities vary, and that is what the Liberal Democrats’ new clause 8, and to some extent new clause 3, seek to address. For a lot of my constituents living in relatively rural North East Fife, the crisis is exacerbated by their countryside location, without easy access to local services and battling against unrelenting fuel costs. What I hear from them time and again is that they feel they are being let down. Farmers, for example, work long days seven days a week, without let-up and never taking a holiday, to provide the rest of us with the food that goes on our plates, but they are being left with next to no support for their fuel costs, no protection against foreign imports and no ability to plan for the future under the Government’s funding streams.
As has been mentioned many times in this House, many rural households rely on heating oil. I have discussed the price guarantee already, but heating oil is not even covered by that. Costs have almost doubled, yet those households have received just one £200 payment—that is if they have managed to receive it at all. We know that the system has been beset by practical difficulties. We have also seen the continued delays in the roll-out of the alternative fuel payment scheme. Applications are now open, but despite reassurances there has been no support for many until now. And when the shop—or too often now, the food bank—is not just around the corner for those in rural communities, they need to travel just for the basics. They cannot avoid getting into the car and paying for petrol, and although petrol and diesel prices have gone up everywhere this year, we always see much faster increases in rural areas.
Those in rural households are not the only group to suffer because of rising energy costs and fuel poverty. As has been discussed in this place before, disabled people have much higher living costs. I recently met representatives of Disability Rights UK, one of the organisations leading the Disability Poverty Campaign Group, as well as representatives from the Liberal Democrat Disability Association, and their message was clear: the additional £150 payment for people on disability benefits is so lacklustre as to be grotesquely offensive. It shows that the Government are taking no interest in, and making no effort to understand, the reality of the lives and expenses of disabled people.
Disabled people are not all the same: they have a wide variety of unique needs, which I cannot cover here, but I shall give just a few examples. Imagine someone needing a hoist to safely manoeuvre between their bed and their wheelchair, but being unable to charge that hoist and having to watch their family risk their own health by lifting them unsafely. Or perhaps think about someone being unable to charge their electric wheelchair and becoming unable to mobilise even around their home to get to the toilet or to fetch a cup of tea.
Perhaps someone’s partner has a spinal injury and is incontinent, but they cannot afford to run their washing machine every day or to properly heat their water, so they find themselves washing dirty clothes by hand in lukewarm water. Perhaps someone’s child has cystic fibrosis and needs a nutritious high-calorie diet, but with 10% inflation—we know it is worse for food inflation —and shortages, they themselves are having to skip meals to let their child eat instead. It should not take a donation from an international celebrity to reassure families of the disabled that they can keep their homes warm and essential equipment functioning. There are many ways in which disabled people incur additional costs, all of which are incredibly important and all of which demand support additional to what the Government are offering in this Bill.
Unpaid carers, on the other hand, are not even explicitly considered in this package of support. I will not labour the point, as I have said all this before, but not all unpaid carers receive means-tested benefits, and given that the vast majority of them live on or close to the poverty line, they are also badly in need of cost of living support. I would like to say that they are unsung heroes, but I have been singing their praises and calling for more support since the start of the crisis and I am starting to think that the Government do not want to hear it.
Dame Eleanor, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, and I am sure that everybody in the Chamber will welcome you back.
Overall, my concern about the Bill, as we consider it clause by clause, is that it is just a sticking plaster that will not truly keep our communities afloat during this crisis. Fuel poverty is widening and deepening; meanwhile, energy companies continue to rake in record profits. The Government must make suppliers act responsibly towards consumers. I acknowledge that it is not just the political response that is causing trouble for my constituents, as an astounding number of them have come to me with problems including being charged incorrectly, often more than they should be, and sometimes by companies that they are not even with. Electricity is a vital service, so surely this type of predatory behaviour cannot be allowed.
Food poverty continues to soar. As early as last April to September, before the worst of this crisis and before winter took hold, the Trussell Trust reported its busiest ever spring and summer, with a 45% increase in the number of families needing its support. The figures will only have gone up since then, and I am not convinced that this package will help, especially with the payments spread out so far. We know that when the £20 universal credit uplift was in place during covid, food bank use went down. How we stop families going hungry or relying on food packages is a vital conversation, and one that needs more time for discussion, so I encourage all Members present to come to the report launch of the all-party parliamentary group on ending the need for food banks on 22 March to hear more on the outcome of our “Cash or Food?” inquiry.
In the long term, to end the need for additional cost of living payments we need economic growth, we need more people able to work and we need a healthier society. Poverty is the enemy of all those things. Poverty breeds worse health outcomes, it makes people cold and hungry and it drives away hope and drive. That is nobody’s fault except those who choose to look away and do nothing, and that is why we need the Government to review reinstating the uplift to universal credit and extending it to legacy benefits. It is why carer’s allowance needs reforming, and it is why we need all the cost of living payments at once, now, as a circuit breaker.
I want to end by reflecting on the words of one of my constituents who got in touch with me over the winter. He is a 79-year-old gentleman who struggles to heat his home and who has a mixture of health difficulties. He said:
“Maybe it would be better if I wasn’t alive, for everyone else’s benefit.”
He cannot wait for April to October and then again for months for additional support, so with him in mind, I urge Members to support amendment 4.
Labour Market Activity
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Before I call the SNP spokesperson, colleagues will see we have a limited amount of time. I intend to start with a five-minute time limit. I hope if we keep to five minutes everybody will be able to get in. If I need to take it down further I will, but I hope I will not need to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Due to the fact that there has been a withdrawal from the debate, the good news is that we will start with a six-minute limit on speeches.
Jerome Mayhew
Right hon. Member: he is quite correct. It seems that we agree on the concept behind universal credit. When did he experience that damascene conversion?
The Government are providing extra help, not for the unions but for the young, the disabled and those who are termed “the old”—meaning those over the age of 50, which, in my view, is hardly old. For the young, we have halved youth unemployment. We have the kickstart scheme, which the right hon. Gentleman criticised earlier, saying that it did not help 250,000 people into employment. However, it did help 160,000 into employment, including many of my constituents. As for the disabled, 1.3 million more have been employed since 2017. For the old, we have the age-friendly employer pledge and the 50PLUS champions. This is a work in progress, but it shows the direction of travel of this dynamic Government.
More widely, we are boosting support for 600,000 people on universal credit by securing greater access to job coaches. It is this Government who have doubled the number of job coaches, increasing it by 13,500 to give more help to unemployed people wishing to get back into work. I have seen this lately in my constituency. The Jobcentre Plus in Fakenham does amazing work, and the staff say the job coaches are wonderful and do a fantastic job.
There is a great deal to do. There is, for instance, post-covid recovery. We are experiencing a reduction in economic activity, and that position needs to be improved, but I trust that this Government—
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, of which I am a member, took evidence on supporting people into work only last week. A few issues stand out, which I want to raise. We need to address people’s opportunity to work, their ability to work, and their prospects for work. For all the hand-wringing about the challenges of getting over-50s into employment, the barriers are widely known. Caring responsibilities dominate the lives of many people who simply do not have the option to take up a full-time job or longer hours. Indeed, many people in their 50s are caregivers in both directions: to their children or grandchildren, and to older relatives.
Only the Government can address this issue by finally tackling the two areas they have so long claimed to have answers for: childcare and social care. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have forcefully made the case for tackling those areas today, but the Government have not yet acted, despite 13 years in office. With one in four adults experiencing mental illness, long-term mental health conditions and chronic pain conditions keep far too many people from reaching their potential. They are burnt out and, in many cases, unable to contribute.
There is so much more we can do to support people and give them the tools to overcome their health challenges, such as the exciting international research into the potential benefits that psilocybin can bring to people suffering mental ill health, including treatment-resistant depression. We are stuck behind the curve, and I call once again for the Government and the Minister to make representations to the Home Office to that effect—to reschedule psilocybin, so that our universities and scientists can bring the UK to the forefront of this research that can offer hope of ending people’s enduring misery. Similarly, much chronic physical pain may be addressed through cannabinoids, and it is in the power of Ministers to make those more available in order to improve the conditions of people’s lives and enable them back into work.
But what jobs are available for people to begin, move into, or return to work in? One in six new jobs are in the hospitality sector, which offers flexible opportunities and is welcoming for marginalised groups, including former prisoners and people with learning disabilities. However, that sector has struggled to return to pre-pandemic levels, and soaring energy bills remain a terrifying prospect, not least for our pubs. Without a sector deal for hospitality to maintain those businesses and the millions of jobs within them—without people having the ability to take those jobs up—all these debates about increasing the workforce will be hollow. I call on the Government to address those three challenges, and to look at what they can do to restore the union learning grant, so that we can actually have lifelong learning in this country again.
Social Security (Additional Payments) (No. 2) Bill
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster ExcerptsTuesday 21st February 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2023 View all Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend makes a characteristically excellent point. Anybody will be able to go on to the gov.uk website for further information, and we will have additional resources in place to ensure that people are manning telephones to answer the type of queries that he and the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), have raised.
The Government are on the side of the most needy. We demonstrated that first in the pandemic, through the furlough scheme and the support that we provided for businesses; and secondly, as I have outlined, with the £36 billion of direct payments last year to support those most in need. As I have set out, this Bill will bring forward yet further support in the coming year to help millions.
The Government will always stand alongside those most in need; the Bill is yet another example of just that. Let the record show that this Government, more than any other, understand that the hallmark of a civilised society is that it looks after those most in need.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I think I agree with nearly everything in the two Front-Bench speeches. There is not a lot to add, except really to welcome the Bill and welcome the additional support that the Government have provided. I think it was absolutely the right thing to do, and it is essential for people with the least that they get these extra supports while energy bills and other inflationary costs remain as high as they are. I have a few observations to make on the Bill, but that should not really take away from the fact that the Government have actually come to the right conclusion. Making this support available is by far the most important decision, and everything else is probably nit-picking around the detail.
However, I would agree with some of the observations of the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth). Perhaps it would be helpful if the Minister, when she sums up, explained whether the Government did look at temporarily increasing universal credit, rather than rerunning the new benefit three times again this year. That would have allowed for a higher basic payment, which would then taper off for households on a higher income, so those with the very least would have got more than £900 and those with the most would have got a bit less than £900. That would probably have given more help to those households that are going to struggle most with the fact that they are going to get £300 less support this year—if we take into account the energy bills support and the reverse running of council tax we had last year—and be faced with, on average, £500 higher energy bills. It would be useful to know if that was considered, if it was not technically possible and the system could not cope with it, or if there were other good reasons why we preferred the three roughly £300 payments rather than having smoothed that over the year and used the tapering system.
Those of us who did—and do—support universal credit, did so on the basis that having a tapering benefit linked to income is the best way of doing it, because it avoids cliff edges. It stops people having unfortunate behavioural ideas, such as, “If I take the extra hours this month, I’ll lose my £300, so I’d best not do that; I might wait till next month,” or, “Ought I to drop out of a job, or try to somehow reduce my income to get that payment.” I accept that having three payments of £300 is better than a one-off payment of £900, but if we really believe in all the advances of universal credit being linked to income with tapering to avoid cliff edges, we should use it in a time of crisis as well as in a normal situation.
We know from the pandemic that we can very quickly flex the amount of UC, because we did it in about five weeks, so I cannot see a problem with that. That might not be so easy for tax credits and other benefits and we might have wanted one system that works for everything here. If the Minister says that is the reason, perhaps we can understand it, but now that we have had some time—we have had a year of this crisis—we might have produced a slightly more effective solution.
We also know that for the households with the least, getting lump-sum payments is not always best, because if they struggle with budgeting, they might not understand that they have £300 more this month that they will not have next month or for winter. Smoothing those payments through every month might help them ensure they have the money in place for when energy bills will be highest, which I suspect will not be when they get their April payment this year. I accept, however, that there is no perfect solution and that this solution is better than doing nothing.
I also want to reiterate a point made by the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), and the shadow spokesman, the right hon. Member for Leicester South. They said—in the debate last year, I think—that needing to have received a UC sum in the assessment month before the payment prevented a large amount of people from getting a payment, not through any fault of their own or because they have got more money, but just because the way they receive their payments from their employer accidentally dropped them out.
A relatively simple solution would be to tweak two words in the Bill and say that if someone has received 1p in either of the two assessment periods before each staging point then they get the £300. That would add one word and one letter to the Bill and would fix the problem for the vast majority of cases. If someone happens to be paid four-weekly and they have two payments in one period, that would fix it; if they happened to have had a bonus once and it hit in one period, that would fix it because presumably they would not have had it for two successive months—and if they did have it for two successive months it is probably fair enough to assume they are now earning more than we thought they would be. That would be a simple change to consider in Committee, which I think will be on the Floor of the House so perhaps we can all get to vote on it—I suspect relatively shortly. I urge the Government to seriously think about making a simple change such as that, which would smooth out one of the rough edges quite easily.
The Secretary of State said that there will be a helpline, but this is primary legislation, and if someone has not received a penny in that month, there is no discretion for the Department to give them the £300, or the £301 or £299; it cannot do so because the Bill says it cannot—they have not received a penny, so they cannot have it. So there is no way of fixing that retrospectively; it needs to be fixed at this stage.
With those observations, I sincerely welcome the Bill, which will provide significant support for people in Amber Valley, who are struggling with high inflation and high energy bills. I repeat my request from the uprating debate, however: I urge the Government to keep the situation under review so that if it worsens and we need to help people more during the year we can come back and do that. It would not be too hard to add a fourth payment if we needed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.
Social Security and Pensions
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Employment (Guy Opperman)
I beg to move,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2023, which was laid before this House on 16 January, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this we shall discuss the following motions:
That the draft Benefit Cap (Annual Limit) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 16 January, be approved.
That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2023, which was laid before this House on 16 January, be approved.
Guy Opperman
This set of orders will increase state pensions and benefits and statutory payments by 10.1%, and the draft benefit cap regulations will increase each of the four benefit cap levels by the same 10.1% in April 2023. Lastly, the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order sets out the yearly amount by which the GMP, part of an individual’s contracted-out occupational private pension earned by 1988 and 1997, must be increased.
We continue to protect the poorest pensioners through the pension credit standard minimum guarantee. There is also the basic state pension in place, which will increase to £156.20 for a single person, and the full rate of the new state pension will increase to £203.85. The pension credit standard minimum guarantee will increase by 10.1%. The Government understand the pressures people are facing with the cost of living, which is why, in addition to the £37 billion of support last year, we have provided support given the cost of living pressures in 2023 and are now acting to ensure that support continues between 2023 and 2024.
Guy Opperman
My hon. Friend asks a legitimate question: how can we improve the situation for carers who wish to work more hours, long term? It would be wrong to give full disclosure of all discussions, but I will work out what I can say about that in my closing remarks, and I am happy to engage with him privately on the subject as well.
Under the benefit cap regulations, there will be an increase to the benefit cap of 10.1%. That will ensure that all households see an increase in their benefit following uprating. The national benefit cap will be £22,020 a year for couples and lone parents, and £14,753 for single people. For households living in Greater London, it will be £25,323 a year for couples and lone parents, and £16,967 for single people.
Under the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2023, there will be an increase of 3% paid by occupational pension schemes, which means that that part of the GMP will increase by 3% from April 2023. The 3% cap strikes a balance, I suggest, between providing members with some protection against inflation and not increasing scheme costs beyond what can be afforded. I commend the regulations to the House.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and it is a bit of a pleasure that we are in a better position than we were a year ago, when we were looking at a welfare increase of 3% as we saw inflation forecast to hit 7% by April. We have—perhaps more by chance than judgment—a rise of 10% while inflation is actually 10%, so we at least have an uprating that looks to be the right number. However, the fact is that that is still a bit by chance, because we are still having to use information that will be six months out of date by the time we get there. It shows how strange the system we have is. When the Minister winds up, can they say whether any progress at all has been made in trying to get the systems in a position where we can use a more recent number, so that we do not end up with a repeat of last year, using an out-of-date number that is way below the level of inflation by the time we get into the year?
A 10% rise in benefits and the state pension is extremely welcome, and we should pay tribute to the Secretary of State and the ministerial team for getting that amount of money out of the Treasury, but I suspect that when the Chancellor sat down to do his emergency Budget, or several Budgets back in the autumn, he probably was not overly excited by having to find this amount of money. It was, however, clearly the right thing to do. The idea of putting up the incomes of people on fixed incomes or earning the lowest levels in the country by less than inflation would have been completely ridiculous. I think we have got to the right answer, and I welcome it. The timing of the changes has an unfortunate impact; by the time we get to April we will have had increases of just over 13% for the last two years, while inflation will have risen by about 17%, so people will still be 4% down on where they were before the crisis.
And it is worse than that. The basket of goods and services bought by most people on these benefits tends not to relate well to the consumer prices index. For example, food price inflation is much higher—more like 19%. There is no doubt that the Government have been extraordinarily generous with energy support, but if we factor in the changes to energy price support, what do we see for the coming year? The inflation figure that has been used is from September—before the move to the energy price cap, which started in October—and the price cap that drove that figure was an annual bill of £1,971. We are currently at £2,500, and the Government’s cap will mean that that number will rise to £3,000 from April, so the average household may well be £1,000 worse off on their energy bills. The rise in the state pension of about 10% is a little under that, so will only cover the rise in energy bills from the current financial year to the next.
The support will drop off quite considerably. If we add up the cost of living support, the £400 from the energy company and the £150 via council tax, the average household on the lowest incomes has had £1,200 of support this year. That will go down to £900, and the pensioner support will go down from £850 to £300. Although there will be a rise in the main benefits and pensions income, a cut to the other support and a rise in energy bills will mean that that is all gone, and most households will actually be worse off as we go into the next financial year. I am not sure that is what the Government intend.
The idea that we have to taper off the extra support for households that are earning money is right in principle, but the Government may need to keep a watching brief throughout the year on whether people living on a fixed income in retirement, on out-of-work benefits or on the very lowest incomes, can really absorb a change that could mean—by the time all the extra bills and the reduction in support have been factored in—that they are £1,000 worse off next year than they are this year. Is that what we really intend? Are we in danger of unravelling the incredibly generous support we have given in this financial year by taking it away next year, perhaps a bit too soon?
We all hope that inflation will fall considerably, and we see encouraging signs from the energy markets that prices are coming down. Perhaps by the time we get to April, the energy price forecasts for households for the next year will be a long way below the £3,000 or even below the current £2,500 cap, and this problem will go away. Perhaps the Government will be proven right in taking a more cautious approach to support for next year. Having gone to the effort to create a brand-new benefit for cost of living support, which I think is unprecedented, I hope the Minister can confirm that the Government will keep reviewing that rate to see whether we are giving households enough to get through the next financial year.
I wholeheartedly welcome today’s increases, which are clearly the right thing to do, but there are two things that the Government need to do on top of monitoring the situation. The first is to try to get this decision made on more recent, more relevant data. I accept that the systems are so old and steam-driven that we have to start doing the work in October based on the September number, and that if we do not start that early we cannot get the rises through, but it is a bit bizarre to bring to the House in February an order that we had to start programming the computer to do in November or October, and that we cannot change. If the House voted for something different tonight, it would be too late; this is plumbed into the system. We should either have this debate in November, when we can actually change it, or we should try to move the rise to a more relevant date. Given that we managed to get the £20 universal credit uplift through in a matter of weeks, I really cannot see why we could not be using more modern data. Now that we know that more of the legacy benefits will be continued on late into this decade, surely it is time to try to get a system that means we can do an uprating that reflects the real cost of living at the time that income comes in.
There is a second thing the Government should do, which the Select Committee recommended previously. We have had a slightly haphazard journey of welfare increases in the last 13 years, so it would be quite unlikely to have ended up in the right position, whereby the amount we are giving people in various household scenarios is equivalent to what they need in order to buy the goods and services that we think they ought to be able to buy. It is time to have a rebasing exercise: to go away and do the work, and work out whether we are giving the households of a single person, a couple, a couple with one child or two children, and so on, the amount of money we expect they need to live on—to be able to pay for all the essentials they ought to have. In some cases, perhaps we are. In some cases, we are probably not. But if we are, it is by fluke rather than any sort of planning, and if we are not, we are putting people in a really difficult position.
I hope Ministers can accept that there really needs to be a rebasing at the end of this crisis. If we have been through 17% or more inflation in the space of two years, that must suggest that the cost of living is in a very different position from where it was. Let us do the work. I will be very happy to find out that the benefits are in the right place and there is no need for any further increases. If they are too high—well, that is very generous, although I think it is very unlikely that they are too high. If they are too low, we need a plan to fix that. That would be the right thing to do. Let us do the work and find the evidence, and I hope we will then all be able to take an informed view when it comes to the uprating next year.
Paul Maynard
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He used the phrase “local welfare assistance scheme” which, sadly, could provoke me to speak for even longer than the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), because it is my specialist topic, but I ought not to go there—[Hon. Members: “More!”] Perhaps Members should wait for me and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) to finalise our report into emergency food aid, where they will be able to see exactly what I think.
To finish on perhaps a more fundamental point, one strength of our benefits system is that sufficient incentives are built into the structures of in-work benefits, along with conditionality—I am sorry to say that to the shadow Minister—to ensure that, as far as possible, work is seen to pay. However, that has been distorted through the more complex pattern of financial support that has emerged during covid and the wider cost of living crisis. Those living just below a particular threshold that qualifies them for extra state support get large payouts, but those just above the threshold feel greatly aggrieved. They regard it as unfair because they are being punished for being seen to do the right thing. The bedrock of our benefits system is a belief in its fairness, not just to those who need support at any one time, but to those who have to fund the system and may one day, of course, require it. Although I strongly welcome the Government’s decision to uprate benefits, we must bear in mind the needs of, and treat fairly and responsibly, not just those who are in receipt of benefits, but those who fund the system and are in work, day in, day out. They are two sides of the same coin.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.
Child Support (Enforcement) Bill
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster ExcerptsFriday 9th December 2022
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023 View all Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Evans
That is a very good question—and I am so grateful to my hon. Friend for his sword-like intervention, cutting me off with one word to go before the end of my speech!
It is important to engage with couples and ensure that they know where the resources are to enable them to have the necessary discussions, and I think that that is starting to happen as a result of signposting to, for instance, health visitors, GPs and schools, so that parents have an opportunity to speak to someone establish what their options are. Enabling them to have that dialogue is part of the work that the DWP and the Government as a whole should be doing. People need to understand fully what is available to them, and going through the court system may not be the right way for that to happen.
I am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, and I welcome the Government’s support for the Bill. I hope that it makes much haste.
Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Bill
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster ExcerptsTuesday 11th October 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Act 2022 View all Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 11 October 2022 - (11 Oct 2022)
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 2—Assessment of revenue effects on health and social care of increases in the rates of taxes on dividend and capital gains income—
‘The Treasury must lay before the House of Commons within 30 days of the date on which this Act is passed an assessment of the merits of raising at least the same amount of revenue for health and social care as would have been raised by the health and social care levy by instead bringing the rates of taxation on dividends and capital gains income in line with existing rates of taxation of earnings.’
This new clause would require the Treasury to report on an alternative to using the health and social care levy to fund health and social care, by raising more tax revenue from dividends and capital gains.
Schedule stand part.
James Murray
We know that the Bill is straightforward in what it seeks to achieve: as clause 1 sets out, it simply repeals the Health and Social Care Levy Act 2021. Ministers are asking us today to overturn a piece of legislation that they and their colleagues strained to defend and voted in favour of a little over a year ago.
As I set out on Second Reading, we welcome Ministers scrapping the tax rise on working people introduced by last year’s Act, but while the levy was not due to come in until April 2023, and the Bill means that the levy will never be charged, the Act also raised national insurance contributions for the current financial year 2022-23 as a transitional measure. As clause 2 confirms, the Bill keeps national insurance contributions at that higher level for the first seven months of this year, before letting them return to their previous levels from November. The decision by Ministers to scrap the national insurance rise is, of course, better to have come late than never, but this in-year change means that yet another cost will be paid for through working people’s taxes, as public money pays to undo the mess created by the Tories having made the wrong call last year. The explanatory notes to the Bill confirm that there will be a cost of an in-year change. Under “Financial implications of the Bill”, they state:
“HMRC anticipates increased call volumes and customer contact as a result of the in-year reduction of NICs rates. There will be delivery costs in implementing this policy. IT changes will be required to be delivered at additional cost to HMRC, to support safe delivery of this policy.”
All this could have been avoided if Ministers had simply listened to people across the country, to the Opposition, to Members on their own side, to the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce, the CBI, the TUC and so many others. If Ministers had listened, they would have realised that it was wrong to go ahead with this tax rise on working people in the first place. While we know that the U-turn before us will cost more than if Ministers had made the right call last year, we do not have a figure from the explanatory notes for exactly how much this will cost. On that point, the Bill’s notes simply say that
“Costings will be set out in due course.”
In other times, I might have read that statement and concluded that Ministers genuinely do not know the costings, but if their behaviour over the OBR report is anything to go by, it could be that they are simply refusing to publish those costings for political reasons.
It is because of this Government’s lack of willingness to subject themselves to transparent scrutiny that we have tabled new clause 1. New clause 1 would require the Chancellor to publish a report on the financial implications of the Act on the day that it comes into force. That report must make an assessment of the Treasury’s plans to raise an amount of revenue equivalent to the proceeds of the levy in the context of its approach to general taxation and borrowing.
As I mentioned on Second Reading, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury confirmed in a letter sent to the shadow Chancellor and the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on 22 September that:
“The additional funding used to replace the expected revenue from the Levy will come from general taxation and may require further borrowing in the short-term.”
We already know that borrowing is set to soar thanks to the Government’s disastrous and discredited approach to the economy. We know that their approach has inflicted huge harm on our economy, damaged our international standing and pushed up mortgage payments for households across the country. We know in particular that the Government’s failure to publish the OBR report showing the detail behind their approach has aggravated the spooking effect on markets. Through our new clause, we would require the Government to explain how they will maintain the funding equivalent to the levy, given their wider reckless decisions on borrowing and the economy.
New clause 1 refers to general taxation. As Members may recall, when they announced the health and social care levy last year, the former Prime Minister and Chancellor explained that, alongside the national insurance increase, the Government would also increase taxes on income from dividends at the same time. On 7 September last year, the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), said:
“because we are also increasing dividends tax rates, we will be asking better-off business owners and investors to make a fair contribution too.”—[Official Report, 7 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 154.]
The question arises of why the current Prime Minister and Chancellor have decided to cut this tax rate from April 2023. They do not need to scrap the dividends tax rise as part of the repeal of the Health and Social Care Levy Act—the dividend rate does not appear in that Act—but they have none the less committed to doing so. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out whether he agrees with the former Prime Minister’s argument that having a higher tax rate on dividends means asking better-off people to make a fair contribution. If so, can he confirm why the Government have decided that it is the right time to cut taxes for those who are better off, even if that means greater borrowing funded by all taxpayers?
As I have made clear throughout, we are glad that the Government are using the Bill to finally scrap this tax rise on working people, but it is clear that taxpayers will pay yet again to fix the mess the Tories have created, that Ministers are planning to again cut taxes for those they have described as the better-off and that this Government are desperate to avoid scrutiny of their plans. It is with that final point in mind that we ask Conservative Members who are uncomfortable with their Government’s approach to join us in supporting new clause 1.
Our new clause would simply require the Treasury to be transparent about how it will replace the money for health and social care that will no longer accrue from the health and social care levy, in the context of its wider approach to taxation, borrowing and the economy. As we have heard throughout the day in Parliament, there is widespread concern that the Government’s plans do not add up and that their lack of transparency is making matters worse. Our new clause makes clear to Ministers that this must change.