Pensions
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Paul Maynard)
I beg to move,
That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.
I feel almost like a Netflix series, in that people can now binge-watch two episodes of me in a row. I hope none the less that this matter is worth equal consideration.
The Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order sets out the yearly amount by which a guaranteed minimum pension pot of an individual’s contracted-out occupational pension earned between April 1988 and April 1997 must be increased. Occupational pension schemes are required to increase GMPs that were earned during that period and are in payment by 3% for the 2024-25 financial year.
As this is quite a technical matter, I will provide a little background information on GMPs, and what they are and are not. GMPs were created to help make occupational pension provision more affordable and more secure. As many Members present will be aware, the state pension used to be made up of two parts: the flat-rate basic state pension and the earnings-related additional state pension. The flat-rate state pension was funded through the national insurance scheme, and paid the full rate to those with sufficient qualifying years of NI contributions, or pro rata to those with a partial record. The second part of the state pension, the earnings-related additional state pension, was linked to a person’s earnings. The national insurance contributions paid by both the employee and their employer gave the employee the right to an additional earnings-related state pension. That was designed to ensure that as many workers as possible were able to save for their retirement through a work-based pension.
However, many employers already offered their workers a company pension through their own scheme, so many people were already building up an occupational pension, and an earnings-related additional state pension in effect replicated that provision. That was considered onerous and potentially unaffordable for both employers and employees. It was seen as double provision and over-complicated. In order to simplify the situation, the Government of the day introduced in 1978 the system of contracting out, and the provision of guaranteed minimum pensions, which are the subject of this order.
Between April 1978 and April 1997, employers sponsoring a salary-related occupational pensions scheme could “contract out” their occupational pension schemes from the earnings-related additional state pension. People who were members of a contracted-out scheme were taken out of the additional state pension, so as a result both the employer and the pension scheme member paid lower-rate national insurance contributions. In return, salary-related contracted-out occupational pension schemes were required to take on the responsibility for paying their members a guaranteed minimum pension as a part of their occupational pension from the scheme.
The guaranteed minimum pension that the member built up in the scheme would be broadly equivalent in value to the additional state pension that they would have received had they stayed in the state system. The majority of employees would also have built up an occupational pension over and above the guaranteed minimum pension amount, but the scheme pension could never be lower than that guaranteed minimum. The crux of the idea was that, rather than paying additional national insurance to the state in order to build up an additional state pension, people could build up a similar amount of occupational pension through a workplace pension scheme. The system ran in that way from 1978 to 1997. Having set out the detail, which I accept is complicated, let me turn to the order before us.
The order provides a measure of inflation protection for the guaranteed minimum pension part of an occasional pension built up between April 1988 and April 1997. Legislation stipulates that, when there has been an increase in the annual level of prices as measured the previous September, the order must increase the guaranteed minimum pension part of the occupational pension by that percentage or 3%, whichever is lower. As the September 2023 figure was 6.7%, the increase for the financial year 2024-25 will be 3%. The cap of 3% aims to achieve a balance between providing some measure of protection against inflation for members and, crucially, not increasing schemes’ costs beyond what they can generally afford, in order to avoid undermining the viability of some schemes and seeing them go into the Pension Protection Fund.
An obvious question comes to mind: what happens when inflation is above 3%, as it is currently? Most members who reached the state pension age before 2016 will still get the same inflation protection for their post-1988 guaranteed minimum pensions as if they had never been contracted out. That is achieved through an uplift that they receive in their additional state pension. For those reaching state pension age after April 2016, who are therefore receiving the new state pension, there are transitional arrangements in place, which are particularly beneficial for people who are contracted out. These members will therefore still get the 3% increase from their occupational pension schemes.
I recognise that this is perhaps a very complex and technical area, but I am satisfied that the order ensures that the burden placed upon schemes is an appropriate one, but also one that ensures that recipients get an increase in their pensions that gives them some measure of protection against inflation. I therefore commend it to the House.
Alison McGovern
I am not entirely sure whether that intervention was for me, so I will let the Minister respond when he winds up. However, on companies keeping their promises, that seems like one of the basics to me.
As I said before, we support these measures and will not oppose the Government’s proposals, but I would very much welcome the Minister’s comments on the questions I have raised.
Autumn Statement Resolutions
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. As I still have to get 16 speakers in, I shall have to reduce the speaking time limit to six minutes.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Last week, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out his autumn statement, there was much anticipation about what kind of rabbit would be pulled out of the hat. Despite the Chancellor’s upbeat delivery, the performance was less Harry Potter magic and more Paul Daniels-style trickery.
Almost all of the Government’s financial headroom—the amount they have left over after their commitments—was blown on a small tweak to national insurance contributions. The Chancellor lauded the changes, suggesting that they would save people hundreds of pounds every year, but he failed to mention that even with the changes, the average person will pay more in tax overall. I can see that the cost of covid must be paid for, but I object to the spinning of a larger tax burden as a smaller one. That is partly because the Chancellor continued a freeze on tax thresholds—the level at which our constituents start to pay tax. Higher inflation means that many more will be dragged into paying more tax, whether at the higher or the basic rate. That is giving with one hand while taking substantially more with the other. The Resolution Foundation has identified that under the plans, taxes will rise by the equivalent of £4,300 per household in the decade from 2019. Even by the end of this Parliament, it expects that households will be £1,900 worse off than at the beginning of it.
In Government, the Liberal Democrats delivered tax cuts for millions by doubling the amount someone could earn before they started paying tax. By contrast, this Conservative Government are one of the highest taxing Governments in history, allowing increasing numbers of low and middle-income earners to be dragged into paying ever increasing amounts of tax. It is simply not sustainable. We need more efficient spending of public money, with targeted investment, to ease the squeeze and save us money down the line. For example, of the £784 billion of taxpayer money that the UK Government spent last year, £39.3 billion was given to households as an energy subsidy. It would not have been necessary to give away so much of that taxpayer money had Lord Cameron, as Prime Minister, not cut the “green crap”.
There were a couple of welcome measures in the statement. I was pleased to see the extension of the business rate discount, including for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, of which we have many excellent ones in my part of east Devon. The decision to keep the triple lock on pensions was also welcome, and ensures that pensions rise to match earnings, giving pensioners peace of mind and financial security. I called for that in Treasury questions less than a fortnight ago, so it is pleasing to see it rise in line with earnings at 8.5%. But the rest of the autumn statement was notable for what the Chancellor did not say. There was no additional money for the NHS or social care, despite the fact that the winter cold is already starting to set in. I am genuinely puzzled by that. It is a disastrous oversight that risks inflicting real challenges on our dedicated health professionals and our communities in the year ahead.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is lucky: like me, he represents a constituency in Devon. That means he knows how much people in Devon value our community hospitals. In my own corner of Devon, Seaton Community Hospital is at risk of having a whole ward of the facility stripped away to be sold off or even demolished. That is due to the continued squeeze on local healthcare budgets, with Devon NHS alone facing an almost £40 million shortfall. The Chancellor’s statement did nothing to address that grim situation.
There was also a distinct lack of funding to help clean up our rivers and beaches. Because of the wayward activities of water companies and the fact that the Government have just left this issue to Ofwat, we are seeing huge levels of raw sewage put into our once pristine local rivers and beaches. That is harming biodiversity and putting the health of people and animals at risk. The scandal also pervades England’s chalk streams. For example, those that empty into the River Itchen near Winchester contain unique biodiversity and ecosystems. Our sites of special scientific interest also see sewage dumping and ecological vandalism.
How would I sum up the autumn statement? Overall, it sums up the current Conservative Government: out of touch. Floundering for a buoyancy vest, their party ship continues to list and sink. Our communities deserve better. Devon deserves better.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Work Capability Assessment Consultation
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts(2 years, 2 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 your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on our proposed changes to the work capability assessment, which aim to ensure that no one who can work is permanently written out of this country’s strong labour market story. It is a story that has seen nearly 4 million more people in work compared with 2010, 2 million more disabled people in work than in 2013 and record numbers of people on payrolls. But although the overall number of people who are economically inactive has fallen strongly from its pandemic peak, there remain over 2.5 million people who are inactive because of long-term sickness and disability. Yet we know that one in five people on incapacity benefits who are currently not expected to prepare for work want to work in the future if the right job and support were available, and the proportion of people going through a work capability assessment who are being given the highest level of award and deemed to have no work-related requirements at all has risen from 21% in 2011 to 65% last year.
This situation is excluding significant numbers of people from receiving employment support to help them to move closer to work opportunities. It is holding back the labour market and the economy, but perhaps most important of all, it is holding back human potential. I want to ensure that everybody who can do so benefits from all the opportunities that work brings—not just the financial security, but all the physical and mental health benefits too. No one who can work should be left behind. That is why, earlier this year, we announced an extra £2 billion-worth of investment to help disabled people and those with health conditions to move into work. That includes bringing in our new universal support employment programme, which will assist disabled people and those with health conditions to connect with vacancies and provide support and training to help them to start and stay in a role.
Through our individual placement and support in primary care programme, we are investing £58 million to help more than 25,000 people to start and stay in work. We are modernising mental health services in England, providing wellness and clinical apps, piloting cutting-edge digital therapies and digitising the NHS talking therapies programme. We have also published fundamental reforms to the health and disability benefits system through our health and disability White Paper. That will see the end of the work capability assessment and a new personalised tailored approach to employment support to help everyone to reach their full potential.
The scale of our reforms means that it will take time to implement them, but there are changes we can make more quickly that will also make a difference. So before the White Paper comes in, I want to make sure that the work capability assessment—the way we assess how someone’s health limits their ability to work, and therefore the support they need—is delivering the right outcomes and supporting those most in need. Today my Department is launching a consultation on measures to ensure that those who can work are given the right support and opportunities to move off benefits and towards the job market. As I have said, we know that many people who are on out-of-work benefits due to a health condition want to work and, assisted by modern working practices, could do so while managing their condition effectively.
We have seen a huge shift in the world of work over the last few years, a huge change that has accelerated since the pandemic. This has opened up more opportunities for disabled people and those with health conditions to start, stay and succeed in work. The rise in flexible working and homeworking has brought new opportunities for disabled people to manage their conditions in a more familiar and accessible environment. More widely, there have been improvements in the approach many employers take to workplace accessibility and reasonable adjustments for staff. And a better understanding of mental health conditions and neurodiversity has helped employers to identify opportunities to adapt job roles and the way disabled people and people with health conditions work.
The consultation I am publishing is about updating the work capability assessment so that it keeps up with the way people work today. The activities and descriptors within the work capability assessment, which help to decide whether people have any work preparation requirements to improve their chances of getting work, have not been comprehensively reviewed since 2011, so it is right that we look afresh at how we can update them given the huge changes we have seen in the world of work.
For instance, the work capability assessment does not reflect how someone with a disability or health condition might be able to work from home, yet many disabled people do just that. Our plans include taking account of the fact that people with mobility problems, or who suffer anxiety within the workplace, have better access to employment opportunities due to the rise in flexible working and homeworking.
We are consulting on whether changes should be made to four of the activities and descriptors that determine whether someone can work, or prepare to work, to reflect changes in working practices and better employment support. This includes looking at changing, removing or reducing the points for descriptors relating to mobilising, continence, social engagement and getting about. We are not consulting on changes to the remaining descriptors, which will remain unaltered. These changes will not affect people who are nearing the end of life or receiving cancer treatment, nor will they affect the majority of activities for those with severe disablement, such as if a person has severe learning disabilities or is unable to transfer from one seat to another.
We are also consulting on changes to the provision for claimants who would otherwise be capable of work preparation activity but are excluded from work preparation requirements on the basis of substantial risk, most commonly on mental health grounds. The original intention for substantial risk was for it to be advised only in exceptional circumstances. It was intended to provide a safety net for the most vulnerable, but the application of risk has gone beyond the original intent. We are therefore consulting on how we might change how substantial risk applies, so that people can access the support they need to move closer to work and a more fulfilling life. We are also considering the tailored and appropriate support that will be needed for this group, safely helping them move closer to work.
These proposals will help people to move into, or closer to, the labour market and fulfil their potential. We are consulting over the next eight weeks to seek the views of disabled people, employers, charities and others on our proposed changes. If the proposals were taken forward following consultation, the earliest we could implement any change would be from 2025, given the need to make changes to regulations and to ensure appropriate training for health assessors.
These plans are part of our wider approach to ensuring that we have a welfare system that encourages and supports people into work, while providing a vital safety net for those who need it most. A welfare system that focuses on what people can do, not on what they cannot do, and that reflects the modern changes to the world of work. It is time to share the opportunities of work far more fairly. It is time for work to be truly available to all those who can benefit from it. It is time to get Britain working.
I commend this statement to the House.
Mel Stride
I share my right hon. Friend’s keenness to see these proposals—whatever may or may not emerge—come forward as soon as possible. They will require a lot of work on IT systems and changes to systems. The providers will have to incorporate the changes that may or not come forward as a result of this consultation. Let me reassure him that, given the benefits there will be to many people who will otherwise not benefit from work, I am as anxious as he is to make sure that we move forward at speed.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Scottish National party spokesman.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The big difference between the SNP and the Conservative and Labour parties is that we do not approach this from the point of view that people are somehow on the make and on the take; we do not assume that when somebody comes for an assessment they are somehow trying to cheat the Government. That is why it is important that the Select Committee on Work and Pensions noted in its recent report the concerns that disabled people are still experiencing psychological distress as a result of undergoing these health assessments.
Let me show just how perverse some of those assessments are. One of the first constituency cases I dealt with as an MP involved someone literally being asked at an assessment whether they still had autism. That gives us an idea of how fundamentally flawed this whole process is. Has the Secretary of State read the Institute for Public Policy Research report that came out today? It makes a specific recommendation to:
“Limit conditionality to facilitate person-centred support on universal credit.”
It says:
“People with health conditions, single parents and parents of young children on universal credit should be exempt from requirements or financial penalties under any circumstances.”
Has he seen that?
Will the Secretary of State also agree to look again at the Access to Work scheme? Far too often, the Government’s own Committee has received evidence that shows that Access to Work simply is not working. I come back to my fundamental point: will the Government change their philosophy—this deep suspicion that somehow claimants are on the make and on the take? All they actually need is support from their Government.
Mel Stride
I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People will be meeting the hon. Lady very shortly. That is in the diary, so those matters can be discussed in greater detail then. Specifically, she asks what support we will be providing. It will be exactly the kind of support to which she has just alluded. There will be universal support to help train and place individuals in work, and it will stay with those individuals for up to 12 months to make sure that they get the support to hold down that job.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement.
Cost of Living Support
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts(2 years, 4 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(2 years, 7 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
(2 years, 7 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(2 years, 7 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
(2 years, 8 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(2 years, 8 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
(2 years, 8 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.