Social Security and Pensions

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

It is important that the debate covers both orders—social security and pensions—because the issues, and the circumstances facing our constituents, are the same. As the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) said, if the orders are not approved, there will be no increase at all, but it is telling that he and the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) are the only Conservative Back Benchers to have spoken in this debate and they agree with Opposition Members that the Government’s proposals in relation to the 3.1% increase are insufficient. It is interesting that no Back Bencher is willing to say that they support the Government; I can only assume that they are dealing with the same casework as I and other Opposition Members have received about the circumstances that people face. Inflation is exceeding all expectations, outstripping wages for those in work and impacting on the price of the essentials that we all need in our daily lives.

Earlier today I attended the Scottish Affairs Committee where we heard about access to cash, which is very important for rural communities such as mine and for vulnerable constituents. I visited virtually the access-to-cash hub pilot, whose staff described to me how people budget in pennies—pennies and pence. That is what we are talking about. The decisions that the Government are making in these orders will mean that those people will no longer be able to survive and will fall over a cliff edge.

Benefits are not keeping pace with the cost of living; let us look at disabled people. Much has been said of the universal credit cuts and failure to provide additional support for those on legacy benefits, who are, disproportionately, disabled people. As I said in last week’s disability Green Paper Westminster Hall debate, living costs are simply more expensive for those who are disabled or have a disabled child. Scope’s data from 2019, before the pandemic, suggest that those costs equate to nearly £600 per month, and I would be interested to learn what that figure is now. Put simply, disabled people are more likely to be in energy poverty. They may need electronic devices to cope with their disability, they need increased heating if they have mobility issues, and specialist food plays a part as well. The Minister mentioned the extension of the warm home discount, but the consultation on that closed four months ago and I would be interested to hear when the result will be published.

On pensions, the position is straightforward. The Conservatives have chosen to break a 2019 manifesto commitment by scrapping the triple lock. Choosing to use the September CPI figure only, despite the fact that we knew at the time what inflation was going to look like—in fact, it is even worse than we were told it would be—is a retrograde step, and it means a £1 billion real-terms cut. A 1.1% uptick in just one month means that pensioners on the basic state pension will miss out on £80.60 next year, and those on the new state pension will miss out on £104. The total cost of uprating pensions and benefits by 6%—the Bank of England’s previous estimate of the peak of inflation—would be £4.5 billion. Interestingly, a similar amount was recently written off to covid fraud.

Nobody is saying that the Government are totally responsible for the variety of systemic factors contributing to the increasing cost of living that we are experiencing, particularly those related to the pandemic. What Opposition Members—and indeed some Conservative Members—are saying is that the Government are failing to provide the support that is required. Given that we know what to expect, why are we not taking steps to ensure that benefits and pensions meet the increase in living costs? Anything else is a cut, which will impact on the most vulnerable the hardest. We will see this in our inboxes again. In order to get the Prime Minister out of his current hole, the Government will spend in excess of £10 million setting up an Office of the Prime Minister. People see those decisions and actions, and they will judge accordingly.

Disability Benefits Assessments

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I thank the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for securing this important debate.

One of my constituents in North East Fife is a young man with post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and autism, who has been refused PIP. Due to those disabilities, he has been struggling to gather the evidence needed to make an appeal. He is overwhelmed by the requirements placed on him, and is already struggling with simple tasks. In his own words, he would rather die than put himself through this process again. That is clearly a broken system. The disability Green Paper acknowledges that

“some people continue to find assessments difficult and stressful”,

but that does not begin to fully describe the distress felt by my constituent, and clearly by so many others.

The Green Paper is, however, a step in the right direction. I welcome, for example, proposals for the audio recording of assessments by default. That has long been called for by disability rights groups. In the context of immense distrust in the system, people need to know that what they have told their assessor has been accurately recorded. However, as it stands, the Green Paper does not commit the DWP to a timeline by which that will be implemented. It also does not commit to making it easier for people to access the written reports made about them. Transparency is vital if trust is to be restored to the system. I invite the Minister to address that in her response.

The Green Paper still presents missed opportunities. It acknowledges that it is vital for work coaches to have an understanding of the medical problems that their clients experience, but does not say the same of healthcare professionals involved in the assessment process. Why would we not want assessors to understand what they are assessing? It would increase trust in the process if claimants felt they had been understood. It would increase the number of decisions that are right first time, and would decrease the amount of taxpayers’ money spent on mandatory reconsiderations and appeals. To me, that is simply a win-win, and I hope that the Minister agrees.

The Green Paper also fails to address DWP’s approach to new illnesses, or to illnesses that are less understood due to the relapsing and remitting nature of their symptoms. That includes diseases such as myalgic encephalomyelitis, multiple sclerosis and now, of course, long covid. Long covid is currently a diagnosis of exclusion—has an individual had a positive covid test, and are they experiencing symptoms that cannot otherwise be explained? There are some 150 possible symptoms, of which the most prevalent is fatigue, but they can present in any combination in different people. It is not yet recognised as an occupational disease, and there is no coherent strategy from the DWP for supporting sufferers.

I ask the Minister to consider a few key points. The first is evidence of diagnosis. Diagnosis relies on a positive test, but those who continue to suffer symptoms from covid caught in the first wave will have never had a test result. How can they prove their illness? The second is guidance for businesses. The Green Paper sets out that the Government’s intention is to stop disabled people from falling out of work, but if we are to prevent long covid sufferers from falling out of work, action has to be taken now. The third relates to the broader point about relapsing-remitting diseases in which fatigue is a primary symptom. The Government must give proper guidance to assessors and work coaches about how best to assist people with those illnesses.

There is one final missing element in the Green Paper: it does not consider the adequacy of social security payments. Put simply, it is more expensive to be disabled or to be the parent of a disabled child. PIP might be a start, for those who can get it, but research released before the pandemic showed that even after receiving that payment, disabled adults face average extra costs of nearly £600 per month. PIP is not enough. The system is failing disabled people. I ask the Minister to commit to reforms that place disabled people at the heart of the social security system, and to urgently address the specific issues raised today.

Underpayment of Benefits: Compensation

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I think all hon. Members here know this is not the first time the ombudsman has found maladministration in relation to the Department for Work and Pensions. Before Christmas I wrote to the Minister about two of my constituents who seem to have been given incorrect advice by benefit advisers in relation to being on remand and being released without charge. They are suffering financial hardship as a result. I listened to what he said about reading the report and taking its recommendations, but what is the DWP doing when these issues are highlighted to it by MPs and rights agencies to ensure we deal with them at an early stage?

[David Rutley]

I am relatively new in post—I have been here about three or four months—and all I can say is that I take a very active interest in the correspondence from MPs across the House. I hope people are aware of that. I will gladly separately follow up either in writing or in a meeting about the particular points that the hon. Member makes. We need to learn lessons. Our postbags are invaluable sources of information that sometimes are not really seen by officials or civil servants in the same light. It is an invaluable source of information to help me do my job. I will gladly follow up.

Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th November 2021 Commons Chamber

I hear the Minister’s reassurances that this is for one year only. I have been in this House too long though. We have been promised something for one year only and then suddenly it has become permanent. That is the big fear out there—that actually there will be another special circumstance next year and the year after, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham pointed out, we will lose the commitment given a number of years ago that there would be the continuous link with earnings so the pensioners of this country would share more equitably in the wealth within our country. That is why I support these amendments.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. This debate has to finish at 6.51 pm and I intend to bring the Minister in at about 6.46, so I ask the two remaining speakers to take about six minutes each.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

When we first debated the changes to the triple lock in September, the Secretary of State suggested we take advice from my friend the former Pensions Minister, Steve Webb—with whom I speak from time to time, the Secretary of State, who is now in her place, and the Minister will be happy to know. We usually do so when he is highlighting cases of people having lost out on entitlements due to failures in DWP systems.

As well as holding the DWP portfolio for my party, I am here to serve the interests of my constituents and I can tell Members that I have not received a single email or letter supporting the suspension of the triple lock. I have, however, received email after email asking me to fight to maintain it and pointing out that our state pension is already the lowest in Europe, with people worrying how they are going to make ends meet this coming winter.

On Second Reading, the Secretary of State told us this suspension was to deal with a one-off anomaly caused by the pandemic. I wonder whether she or the Minister actually engaged with the Prime Minister on this in advance of Second Reading, because his comments on the subject do not align with that argument. The Prime Minister has told a very different story, where quickly rising wages are not just desirable but an intended outcome of Brexit. So I have to ask: whose explanation should Parliament believe on these wage increases? Do the Minister and the Secretary of State align with the Prime Minister on this now and if so why are the Government intent on leaving pensioners behind, far too many of whom are already on or below the poverty line?

I am happy to support the Bill as it has returned to us from the other place, which has worked admirably across the Benches to find this compromise. The Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), reminded us in his considered contribution that this is not just about pensioners now; it is about the young, people who cannot get on to the housing ladder and whose wages have been suppressed. We in this place need to ensure that the decisions we make about pensions now give people the reassurance in future that there will be a sustainable state pension for them to live on. The Bill in its current form acknowledges the distortions to the labour market caused by the pandemic, but also acknowledges that inflation is rising. Under that Bill, pensioners will be able to keep the heat on and afford their weekly shop.

I acknowledge that the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) at least tried to justify the Government’s position this evening, but I note that no other Conservative Back Bencher has had the appetite to do so. There is a simple choice before the House today. I cannot support the Government’s amendments, which will cause such harm to so many.

[Patricia Gibson]

I rise to support Lords amendments 1 and 2. The Tory Government’s abandonment of the link between earnings and pensions, smashing the triple-lock manifesto commitment, is truly disgraceful. We are told this is necessary because this year’s earnings measure is “skewed and distorted”. There are many things swirling around Westminster that are skewed and distorted, but the triple lock is not one of them. The UK Government commitment to the triple lock remains, we have been told today by the Minister, but he will understand that that assurance is met with widespread scepticism because today he is here to tell us why their breaking the triple lock must proceed.

We in the SNP tabled an amendment to this Bill requiring the Secretary of State to assess, and be held accountable on, the impact that the legislation would have on levels of poverty among pensioners in each of the devolved nations. It was shamefully voted down by the Tories, and Labour abstained, which it will have to justify to pensioners across the UK. Pensioners across the UK, and certainly in Scotland, have been watching carefully and will not easily forgive that betrayal.

This Government have not listened to pensioners and they have not listened to Members of this House who have defended the triple lock. I doubt they will listen to the Lords either, but I sincerely hope the Minister will prove me wrong.

We have been told today by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) that this would be “reckless” with taxpayers’ money. I find that insulting and wrong-headed, as will many of my constituents. What we have heard shows that the fiscal restraint we are told is necessary is being balanced on the back of pensioners, such as those in my constituency. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) about how money can always be found, and we need only look at the DUP deal to see that. Money can be found when it is considered necessary.

Politics is about choices and choosing to break promises. Hard commitments made to pensioners about the triple lock are being broken. We are watching and our constituents are watching and they do not approve. The Government tell us that wages are rising, as we have heard, and we know that inflation is rising, so what justification is there to break the triple lock—to change the goalposts in the middle of the game?

Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 20th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House, while recognising the extraordinary circumstances of the covid-19 pandemic, declines to give a Second Reading to the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill because it represents a broken manifesto commitment made by the Government at the last General Election, fails to address the impact of the pandemic on the two million pensioners living in poverty and fails to increase key benefits, such as making permanent the uplift to Universal Credit.”

The Government are on track to break yet another of their manifesto promises. It is another example of how this Government are willing to turn their back on people living in poverty—now it is pensioners, but next month it will be those on universal credit.

The Liberal Democrats want Britain to be the best place in which to live and to retire, but, frankly, we all accept that it is far from that. People who have worked hard and paid taxes all their lives deserve a comfortable retirement when the time comes. It was our party that was instrumental in putting the triple lock in place, providing a lifeline to millions of pensioners who had seen increases as derisory and as low as 75p per year.

When pensions were only pegged to price inflation, their real value shrunk to one of the lowest in the developed world. We all deserve to live in dignity, to be able to afford food and heating, and to be able to live a life with some meaning or enjoyment, and reaching retirement age does not and should not change that.

There are more than 18,000 people in my constituency claiming the state pension, which is over 20% of the local population. They have worked, paid taxes, raised families, and built communities, and I want them to know that they are visible. The Conservative party clearly does not feel the same about their local pensioners, with the 20 hardest hit constituencies all being represented by Conservative Members. The Secretary of State’s own constituency is the fifth most affected by this broken manifesto commitment.

We all accept that we have lived in exceptional times over the past 18 months, and that earnings growth this year is out of the ordinary, but the big picture here is that this Government are refusing to take any action to lift any group out of poverty. The refusal to do so highlights the hollowness of the phrase “levelling up”. They are cutting universal credit, taking away vital income from 5.5 million households, and pushing thousands of families further into poverty. They have refused throughout to increase legacy benefits at all, ignoring the needs of recipients who are disproportionately disabled. Technical issues were given as the reason for this, but, 18 months on, a lack of appetite seems to be the more obvious case.

The decision to increase national insurance is a further tax on young people, on working people—those who have already been hit the hardest by the pandemic. We know that people are willing to make sacrifices when it is needed—we have seen that during the pandemic—but a part of that must be seeing that we all follow the same rules. There must be a fairness in what is being asked of us. There cannot be one rule for them and one rule for us, which, sadly, is what we see time and again from this Government.

This Government’s habit of breaking their promises makes me very wary of this Bill. We might be told that this change is just for one year, but they also promised no increase in tax in their manifesto and they have just increased national insurance.

[Guy Opperman]

I am listening with great interest to the hon. Lady’s speech. I just want to know whether she agrees with Sir Steve Webb, the esteemed former Pensions Minister, who, for five years, represented her party in this House and who indicated on 16 June that he strongly supported the sort of change that the Government propose tonight, but that she opposes.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I thank the Minister for his intervention. I am grateful to have the opportunity to respond to him, especially as the Secretary of State did not give me that opportunity.

I agree that we have seen extraordinary circumstances over the past 12 months, including significant increases in wages, causing this anomaly, but what this Bill fails to do—I will have this conversation with my friend, Steve Webb—is help those of working age in poverty through maintaining universal credit, or pensioners themselves.

The Bill has only two clauses and five subsections. It fails to address any of the problems with the state pension, or to assess the impact of suspending the triple lock. There are already 2 million pensioners living in poverty, the majority of whom are women and/or from black and Asian communities. This Bill ignores them and the disproportionate impact that suspending the triple lock will have on people already struggling. The promises made by a party in their manifesto matter. It is the essence of the mandate that they claim.

Just last week, during the urgent question on transport, the Transport Secretary welcomed increases in wages and hoped that they continued and were sustained. That is the whole point of the triple lock; it is about helping pensions to keep up with the cost of living.

Women have already been left behind when it comes to the state pension, with those born in the 1950s—the WASPI women—being unfairly penalised by the Department for Work and Pensions’ failure to properly notify them about the change in pension age. Women who had worked hard and planned for retirement suddenly found themselves without either. With women more likely to rely on the state pension than men, this policy is another damaging blow.

Last year, I talked about the importance of the triple lock for intergenerational fairness. This Bill is not just of interest to those of state pension age. Unless we truly trust that this Government will keep their promise—and there is no evidence to show that this will be any different from the other broken promises over the past two years—this will impact everyone. Jobs for life and final salary pensions are a thing of the past. It is harder than it has been in recent memory to get on to the housing ladder. It is fair and right that young people today are able to look ahead to a state pension, but if we return to the days of minimal increases to pensions, they will be impacted, too.

I am asking the House to support the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats for all the reasons that I have outlined. While there is no doubt that the pandemic has required exceptional measures, this Bill was an opportunity for the Government to support poorer pensioners and to right previous wrongs, and it is an opportunity that they have ignored. Why is there no impact assessment on how this will affect groups already disadvantaged under the pension system? I hope the Minister will address that in his closing remarks. Why do the Government continue to ignore the needs and wants of ordinary people, and why do they think that anyone will trust their word given what has happened over the past few weeks?

The public deserve better than these broken promises, better than this Government, and the 2 million pensioners living in poverty certainly deserve better than this Bill.

Universal Credit and Working Tax Credits

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

The Government give the impression that they do not think £20 is a lot of money. Although having and spending income is important, it is vital that those who do not have to count the pennies do not forget about everyone else. For many people, £20 is not a box of biscuits from an organic store in west London but what is spent on an entire week’s food shop. The Facebook group “Feed your family on a budget” was set up last year by one woman who managed to do just that on a £20 budget, and that group alone—it is not a unique initiative—has more than 340,000 members. The real impact of taking £20 away from 5.5 million households across the UK is people skipping meals, unable to feed their children, and even more reliance on food banks, which are being used more than ever before—more even than before the pandemic.

On Monday, the Secretary of State suggested that people could make up £20 by working two extra hours. The Government consistently demonstrate that they do not understand that, for many, universal credit is an in-work benefit and that work has other expenses, such as transport and childcare, which mean that claimants will need to work at least another six hours a week to make up for the cut, not two.

Some of my constituents will face a £30 a week loss or even more, because, as we have seen so many times before, the Government have failed to understand the impact of their policies on the devolved nations. Parents who receive any amount of universal credit in Scotland—even as little as £20—are entitled to Scottish child payments, best start grants and best start food payments. Altogether, the cut could mean a loss of more than £1,700 a year. The Scottish Affairs Committee report on welfare published earlier this year noted that there appears to be “a good working relationship” between the Governments, but this cut suggests otherwise.

Of course, “just work more” is never as easy as this Government seem to think it is. There are 1.1 million single parents eligible for universal credit, many of whom need to work part time. I have raised this issue before by asking the Secretary of State to explain the disparity between universal credit and legacy benefits for young parents, where the former benefit acknowledged the additional burden of parenthood and provided the higher rate of payment usually given to those 25 and over. She has failed to provide an adequate explanation to me or 100 charities from around the UK, and indeed other hon. Members, who signed the letter I wrote about this.

The bottom line is that reducing an already inadequate safety net is not going to get more people into work. Research by the Trussell Trust shows that 900,000 people say they will not have enough money to travel to work or essential appointments, and this is a particular concern in rural constituencies such as North East Fife. If people cannot afford to get to work, how are they supposed to get those extra hours? It is a vicious cycle, only worse. Indeed, figures from Fife Council today suggest that crisis applications to the Scottish welfare fund have rocketed since the start of this financial year. This cut is taking place while the effects of the pandemic are still being felt, and we need to make sure that those people and families are supported.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Will Quince]

I have a lot of time for the shadow Minister, but however many times she asks the same question she is going to get the same response. The Government have focused support on UC and working tax credit claimants because they are more likely to be affected by the sudden economic shock of covid-19 than other legacy benefit claimants. I am not going to comment on the live litigation, but I would say that legacy claimants can make a new UC claim and benefit from the £20 a week increase; the Government encourage anybody to go on gov.uk and use one of the independent benefit calculators to check carefully their eligibility before they apply.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

The nation is today uniting to toast an important milestone in the Prime Minister’s road map to recovery, with the long-awaited full reopening of the hospitality sector—thank God for that, given the rain we are suffering. The British public have stood up to the challenge of the pandemic and, while still being cautious, we need to get out there and spend our dosh. Let’s do our bit to support our communities, businesses and jobs, including more than 1 million workers who were furloughed and whom I hope we will now see back at work. As hospitality booms, I am sure that many more new kickstarters will be out there, able to hit the ground running.

[Wendy Chamberlain [V]]

Before the introduction of universal credit, single parents under the age of 25 received a higher rate of benefit payment in recognition of the increased costs of raising a child as a single parent, but that support has sadly not been extended to young single parents who are in receipt of universal credit. Does the Secretary of State agree with me and the assessment of One Parent Families Scotland that the omission amounts to a “young parent penalty”?

[Dr Coffey]

No; we took a sensible approach in having a differential rate for universal credit. Of course, if any of the hon. Lady’s constituents would like support to secure extra income via the child’s other parent, the Child Maintenance Service is there to help parents in such situations.

Income Tax (Charge)

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 4th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Over the past year, more people than ever before will have come into contact with our social security system. In March 2020, around 3 million people were on universal credit; in January, it was 6 million. They will have discovered that what is billed as society’s safety net is, in fact, full of fairly large holes. That has been the experience of my constituents in North East Fife, and it will be the same for hundreds of thousands of people throughout the UK.

A year ago, Liberal Democrats welcomed the Chancellor’s move to help to fix the net via the £20-a-week uplift in universal credit—that money was needed even before the pandemic began—but as time went on, it became clear that further support was not going to come. We called for an uplift to legacy benefits, which are disproportionately received by people with disabilities, but after initially being told that the universal credit uplift was a first step because its computer system was easier to change than the systems operating legacy benefits, it turned out that no uplift would be forthcoming.

We asked for extra support for unpaid carers—a group of people who are under-appreciated, overworked and absolutely need our further support—yet rather than the £20 a week that they need at the very least, the increase the Chancellor is giving in the Budget is a derisory 5p a day.

The decision to create another cliff edge by ending the universal credit uplift in six months means taking away £1,000 a year from those who need it the most. Freezing the personal allowance is a stealth tax that simply means that the poorest will pay an increasing proportion of their income in tax as many begin to make the transition from universal credit to employment as the economy recovers.

Last week, my team and I undertook a virtual visit to the jobcentre in Cupar. It was great to meet the fantastic team there, who have coped brilliantly with the required changes to working practices and are clearly making a difference to many who access their support. Despite that North East Fife team’s efforts, I have real concerns about how the Government plan to get people back into work.

Take-up of the kickstart scheme has so far been sluggish. To some extent, that is understandable, given the current restrictions, but when the scheme was launched I asked the Government to reconsider the requirement for businesses to be able to participate directly only if they had 30-plus vacancies, and although I am pleased that they eventually changed that decision, the initial decision prevented businesses in my constituency from moving forward more quickly with the scheme. The pandemic has hit the job prospects of those aged 18 to 24 most heavily; kickstart needs to succeed.

Tourism and hospitality are two key sectors in North East Fife, and I have previously raised in this place many examples of small businesses that are struggling because of covid-19 and lack of support. I welcome the continued 5% VAT rate for hospitality, which many Members from all parties called for, along with the furlough extension, but the reality is that the Budget offers very little for the cafés, shops and sports clubs at the heart of the local economy. Hairdressers such as Alex Thaddeus in Cupar also need a VAT reduction, which the hair and beauty industry has called for. The data tells us that women are also paying a disproportionate economic price during the pandemic.

The furlough extension is useful, but when I have spoken to businesses such as the Ship Inn and the Dory in the East Neuk, they tell me that it now comes with costs—it is not the same scheme that it was a year ago. That means that the small business owners who are currently unable to open face painful choices—accruing more debt, laying off staff or, indeed, closing altogether.

Many Members have raised the self-employed. I can think of many constituents who have found themselves excluded. Beneath the Chancellor’s rhetoric, there is no real change to the self-employment support; it is just that more people qualify now because they have 2019-20 tax returns.

Some of the Scottish Government’s support schemes are problematic. There are Barnett consequentials sitting on the desk of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance right now, and in Scotland we have been in harder lockdown for most of the past year. Just this morning, I spoke to my team regarding bed-and-breakfasts such as Lillian May in Newport-on-Tay, which is still waiting—and has been since December—for Fife Council to get further guidance from the Scottish Government on the administration of funding for bed and breakfasts.

Social Security

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the very powerful contribution of the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes). As a Greenockian myself, I certainly pay tribute to the heritage of the Clyde shipbuilders.

I am pleased to support today’s motion, which would uprate the payments made to sufferers of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases. Members have already spoken about the absolutely devastating impact of these terrible diseases on both the sufferers and their families. It is particularly sobering that The Guardian reported that, alongside Australia, the UK had the highest rates of mesothelioma in the world in 2019. According to the National Asbestos Helpline, 13 people in the UK die every day from conditions that were caused by exposure to asbestos. That is more than twice the number of people killed daily in road accidents.

It is important for us to reflect on the failure of this place, and across the country, to appreciate the dangers of asbestos. The link between asbestos and other related diseases was first established in the 1950s, but it took another 40 years for a UK-wide ban to be enforced. Despite the ban, asbestos is still all around us, and that is quite literally the case for the building that we are in right now, and also for other public buildings such as hospitals and schools.

The Health and Safety Executive plays a key role in such assessments, but, as other Members have highlighted, its funding has been slashed and the number of inspectors has dropped significantly, too. The HSE also plays an important role in research around these and other occupational-related diseases, and I urge the Minister to address that issue in his wind-up.

It is, of course, entirely right that these schemes are under discussion today to ensure that sufferers of asbestos-related illnesses are compensated. None the less, there is an outstanding issue regarding the equalisation of payments to dependants who make a claim after somebody who has had one of the illnesses has died. This is a question of fairness, which is, after all, why the schemes were established to begin with. Will the Minister set out whether further consideration has been given to the issue of equalisation?

We must also reflect on the level of uprating, which is in line with inflation and other disability benefits that have already been passed in this place. When the uprating statutory instrument came through the House, I spoke of the importance of ensuring that legacy benefits and also carer’s allowance received additional uplifts, in line with the universal credit uplift, to reflect the impact that the pandemic has had disproportionately on these groups. The same argument very much applies to the sufferers of asbestos-related illnesses and their families. Diagnoses such as these are incredibly difficult at any time for the person in question and their family. I can only imagine the incredible pain and trauma during a period such as this where restrictions mean being able to see only a very limited number of people. We must acknowledge just how difficult such diagnoses are for the person and for their family at all times, and especially over the past year, and it is right that support is there to reflect that. That will be particularly true for diseases such as mesothelioma, for which the life expectancy for sufferers is sadly very poor.

Early detection is incredibly important for occupational lung-related diseases, as it is for all such diseases and cancers. The national lockdowns will undoubtedly have had a huge impact on people coming forward with symptoms to get checked. I pay tribute to the fantastic work of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) to make the case in this place for catching up with cancer, and to all the many charities and groups that have been making that argument, too. I urge the Government to bring forward further measures to ensure that we catch up with the national cancer backlog. One way that can be done is through proper investment in our healthcare service and cancer services. I hope the Chancellor will address the issue in the Budget tomorrow.

Finally, I note the work to support sufferers that the Minister outlined in his opening remarks, but ask him to address this point. On the uplift in the regulations, will he set out how he has taken into account the impact of covid-19 on people with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases, in terms of not only the direct impact on health outcomes for sufferers in relation to covid-19—which is, after all, a respiratory virus—but the indirect impact caused by shielding, increased costs and fewer opportunities to get symptoms checked?

Pensions

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Monday 1st March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

The Government’s annual automatic enrolment evaluation report is a testament to the success of automatic enrolment, with the most recent edition from 2019 showing that more than 10.2 million employees have been automatically enrolled across more than 1.6 million employers. As a result, the number of eligible employees with a workplace pension has skyrocketed from 10.7 million, or 55% in 2012, to 18.7 million—nearly 90%—in 2018. That is very much to be commended.

I have spoken before about the importance of intergenerational fairness in our pensions policy. The decisions we take now will continue to have an impact decades down the line. The automatic enrolment policy means not just that people in the next 10 or 20 years will be better off in retirement, but that the generation who are just entering the workforce now will be, too.

As other Members have referenced, what is perhaps most notable about this order is not what it changes, but what it does not, with only the upper limit for the qualifying earnings band being revised, but not the lower limit or the earnings trigger, which the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), and the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), referenced. While I understand the rationale for making this decision, which the Minister set out in his opening remarks, it is important that the progress made over the past decade does not start to slow down. In the words of the Government’s 2017 review, we must “maintain the momentum”.

The 2017 review contained proposals to lower the age threshold down to 18 and to abolish the lower earnings limit, with an estimated target date of delivery in the mid-2020s. We are now nearly four years on from that review and, as the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), mentioned, we have seen no change. Although “mid-2020s” can potentially be a bit elastic, that target is inching closer and today’s statutory instrument does not change the lower earnings limit either. Like others, I would be grateful if the Minister updated the House on progress towards the changes.

Another area that the review highlighted was the gaps in coverage, which particularly impact on people with multiple low-paid jobs and young people. The recent Supreme Court judgment on Uber workers has profound implications for the gig economy. Like the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, I would be grateful if the Minister set out how his Department intends to respond to that ruling in respect of auto-enrolment and set out a timescale.

A reduction in the earnings threshold for automatic enrolment would also help the ongoing problem of the gender pensions gap, and I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for tabling an early-day motion on that very topic. According to the Chartered Insurance Institute, the average pension pot for a woman aged 65 is just one fifth of the size of average pension pot for a 65-year-old man. Prospect estimated the gender pensions gap to be 39.5% when measured in terms of income, which is more than twice the size of the gender pay gap.

One factor in that inequality is that people with a salary below the earnings threshold are disproportionately women. More broadly, Members will be concerned to see reports in the press by the former Lib Dem Pensions Minister Steve Webb that thousands of women have been underpaid their state pension, so we would be grateful if the Minister updated the House on that issue, as well as setting out his plans to reduce not only the gender pensions gap but other gaps, including the gap in relation to those from black and other minority ethnic groups. Will he set out whether the Government will move forward with changes to automatic enrolment to help to deal with that? As I said at the beginning of my speech, automatic enrolment has been a success.

In the debate on the Ministerial and Other Maternity Allowances Bill, there was much discussion about the use of impact assessments so, finally, I would be keen to hear what assessment the Department for Work and Pensions has made of the impact of today’s changes on women and other minority groups. I look forward to the Minister’s winding-up speech.