State Pension Age

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) on securing this profoundly important debate.

The state pension age has been discussed for over 70 years. I appreciate that we only have an hour to add meaningful contributions, which is why I wish to speak about the handling of the state pension age. As hon. Members are aware, both the Pensions Act 1995 and the Pensions Act 2007 looked to stagger the equalisation of the state pension age over a series of years. Regrettably, there has been an unfair acceleration of this process, trapping half a million women, who must wait at least an extra year to receive their state pension. It is estimated that over 6,000 women in my constituency of East Lothian alone have been affected.

Let me make it clear: this is not about the principle of equalising the state pension age; it is about the practical roll-out of the policy. In 2005, the Pensions Commission argued that any planned increase to the state pension age should carry at least 15 years notice, the same timeframe that was contained in the 1995 Act. The 2014 Pensions Act established, however, that 10 years notice of state pension age increase was appropriate, and the Pensions Act 2011 gave just five years to plan for these changes. Age UK have been very clear on this, saying that it gives

“insufficient time to prepare for retirement.”

There is also the question of how the information was brought to the attention of those affected.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about the notification period that people have been given. Does he agree that it is a scandal that women such as my constituent Winifred Setzekorn only found out about the increase in their state pension age four years before turning 60?

[Martin Whitfield]

Absolutely, and the point is very well made.

Across the UK, the profound unfairness of the changes has influenced and empowered local action groups working under the WASPI campaign. This debate was sought not only because of the inherent unfairness of the accelerated change, but because it offers an opportunity to pay credit to the diligence of some of the WASPI women in the work they do—women such as Pat Milligan, a local WASPI co-ordinator in East Lothian, who puts it far better and more eloquently than I. She tells those women she meets who have been trapped by these changes that they need to be active, write to the Minister and take their complaint to the Government. In her words:

“This is your pension; this is your fight.”

I am therefore tentatively pleased that the Minister has promised to create a dedicated team to handle these complaints, but it will be interesting to see what response complainants get.

On a wider note, the way that we parliamentarians handle this issue is also critical. Among the 6,000 women affected in East Lothian, those aged between 60 and 62 will see their incomes fall disastrously.

Supported Housing

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. Of course, in my area of the Scottish borders it is the Scottish National party, which is in government in Scotland, that is responsible for the cuts to our local authority budgets, not the UK Government. Therefore, I suggest that the intervention directed to me should be directed to my colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, where the Scottish Government have slashed local government funding.

It is right that the UK Government are looking at how to ensure a sustainable future for supported housing. Under the last Labour Administration, spending on housing benefit increased by 46% in real terms. Average social rents have risen by around 55 % over the past 10 years, compared to 23% in the private rented sector. This was simply just not sustainable. It is essential, therefore, that whatever funding model is introduced for supported housing is sustainable and works for providers, commissioners and vulnerable tenants, as well as for the taxpayer. Whatever funding model is adopted—and if devolved Administrations are given control over funding—it is crucial that local variations are considered.

The local housing allowance rate in my area of the Scottish borders is the lowest in the whole of Scotland. It is therefore important that any future funding model encourages investors to come to the borders instead of building elsewhere. I hope that the Minister has considered areas such as the borders when deciding on the future funding model for supported housing. Of course, it is also open to the SNP Scottish Government to provide additional funding for those in receipt of housing benefit through discretionary housing payments, which have been devolved. I await with bated breath a commitment from any SNP Member who has concerns about the changes to supported housing payments actually to do something, rather than just complain. The Government have demonstrated that they are willing to listen to concerns.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is new to this House, so I will forgive him, but SNP Members have been doing and saying things on this issue for quite some time. It may interest him to know that a Department for Work and Pensions civil servant told the Communities and Local Government Committee on 13 June last year that the evidence review and policy conclusions would be published “before the summer recess”. That was last year; we have been waiting for the Government to act for quite some time.

[John Lamont]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point. As she will know, I spent 10 years in the Scottish Parliament, listening to her colleagues complaining constantly about UK Government policy decisions. But despite the fact that the SNP there had more control over welfare than ever before, it was unable to use the powers it had to take action.

The Government have demonstrated themselves willing to listen to concerns about this important issue, and I welcome that. I am confident that we will see a set of proposals next week that will provide security and certainty for tenants and providers, as well as value for money for the taxpayer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

This has been a long and convoluted debate, starting back in 2011 and continuing through 2015 and 2016 and up to now. It was said earlier that it is good that the Government are listening, but surely it would have been a lot more logical for them to have listened first, before they acted and threw the sector into such chaos. Nevertheless, I am glad that they have listened. I pay tribute to those in the sector throughout the UK, including the Chartered Institute of Housing and the National Housing Federation. I pay particular tribute to the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and to Zhan McIntyre and Jeremy Hewer, who have done a huge amount of work on this issue, making sure that we are all kept well informed about the developments in Scotland.

Like other Members, I challenge the Government on some of the detail. At the very least, there should be no detriment to any housing provider—no housing provider should lose out as a result of the future proposals. I challenge the Government to tell us the level of funding for supported accommodation that will be considered reasonable. There has been some debate about the cost of supported accommodation, which varies widely from sector to sector and from specialist provider to specialist provider. We need to understand what a reasonable cost actually is, because there can be such huge variations, depending on the type of housing provided.

We need to look into the funding assumptions for the years ahead, because we know from the National Housing Federation that 85% of developments have been pulled because planning assumptions could not be made on the basis of the funding that was going to be available. That was compounded by the 1% rent reduction imposed on housing associations in England, which meant that they could not act on the funding plans they had made, and there was a subsequent impact on house building and housing provision.

I was tempted to read from the transcript of the debate in June last year, because much of what I wanted to say today was still true, until the Prime Minister sprang her U-turn. I have previously made the point about the time limits on short-term accommodation. Will there be a time limit for people in short-term temporary accommodation? Not everybody will be ready to move on at the point at which someone has set a time limit. Local providers need flexibility to ensure that people are protected.

The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations asked specifically for any new funding model to be piloted and evaluated before it is fully rolled out. It also asked for the implementation of any recommendation to be deferred until the completion of the universal credit roll-out in 2022. Perhaps the Minister can give us a little more information on those issues.

Scottish Women’s Aid has asked for clarification on the shared accommodation rate and for particular provision to be made for cases of domestic violence, similar to the easement in the jobseeker’s allowance system, to provide flexibility for women.

Members have not given a huge amount of attention to the wide range of conclusions and recommendations in the report, which I was glad to be part of producing. It recommends that attention be given to the oversight arrangements for housing in supported accommodation in England. The report says that the Select Committees believe that

“the oversight arrangements in Scotland are better than they are in England,”

and that

“lessons can be learned from the Scottish system to make the system of oversight in England simpler and more robust.”

I urge the Government to look at the Scottish system, because it is very robust.

The report recommends that a capital grant scheme is introduced for new supported accommodation and that the funding mechanism reflects actual costs. It also recommends that the Government consider the housing benefit rate for 18 to 21-year-olds, because they should be supported when they leave supported accommodation. In England there is currently a disincentive for them to leave supported accommodation because they will not be eligible for housing benefit.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Michael Tomlinson]

I would encompass those questions in one by saying that better communication is needed. Each of us, as a Member of Parliament, bears a responsibility for that communication, too. Having heard the responses, we should pass them on to our constituents in good faith and in good time.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Michael Tomlinson]

No, I will not.

The Government should be listening, and they have listened on telephone numbers. It was implied last week that it was a premium-rate number and that all telephone calls cost 55p a minute, which is absolute rubbish, but I am pleased that the Government have listened and, in fact, have gone further by indicating that all telephone calls to the Department for Work and Pensions will now be free. I welcome that development.

The Government should not listen to those who want this policy to fail. The system is not perfect, and the Government are right to listen and to learn from their mistakes, but it is not cruel to encourage people into work. It is not cruel to support people while they are in work, to remove barriers to people increasing their hours or to remove disincentives for people getting into work. Arguably, the cruelty was in the old system. People were penalised if they wanted to take on more hours, which left them trapped on benefits, rather than enabled to reach their full potential.

--- Later in debate ---

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

I am a new Member here. I was here for the debate last week, but I did not have the opportunity to contribute. However, I agree with the Minister that that debate was a good one.

It is outrageous that the Government are ignoring the clear will of the House— expressed by a vote of 299 to zero—to pause and fix the roll-out of universal credit. This is a real danger to the authority of Parliament. I will highlight two issues in my constituency to the Minister. A jobcentre is closing in my constituency, and many of my constituents are worried that the roll-out of universal credit will mean more trips to the jobcentre, which means that they will have to travel further. That could result in more sanctions as people are late or miss an appointment.

[Alison Thewliss]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Afzal Khan]

I only have one more short point; then I will see if the hon. Lady can have another opportunity.

The second point is that rent arrears are higher among universal credit claimants, young people cannot receive payments towards housing costs, and claimants need to borrow money before they receive their first payment, and all of that is contributing to a higher risk of eviction and homelessness. Will the Minister commit to addressing these issues?

Universal Credit Roll-out

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I shall highlight a few constituency cases before I address a more substantive issue.

I would like to talk about the £33,000 in rent arrears for just 57 new single Thenue housing association claimants. The Minister should know that none of them have received their payment within the six-week target.

I would like to discuss Bridgeton citizens advice bureau, one of whose clients is a single female aged 45 with existing anxiety and depression. She has been sanctioned four times and has had no money since 5 March.

I would like to talk about my vulnerable constituents: a man with mental health issues being supported by his partner—and they have a baby. They got into rent arrears of more than £1,000 because universal credit was £314.66 short of the rent for their emergency homeless accommodation.

I would like to talk about the £143,833 arrears faced by Glasgow City Council’s homeless services, for 73 claimants. That number has been and is increasing as more people move on to universal credit.

I would like to talk in particular about the two-child policy, because if ever there was an argument for pausing the roll-out of universal credit, this is it. I was glad to see yesterday that the Child Poverty Action Group was given permission to apply for a judicial review of the policy. If the court finds, as it has found before, that real misery is being caused to no good purpose, I hope the Government will not waste yet more public money on appealing the decision.

On universal credit in Northern Ireland, the advice on the UK Government website says that if someone wants to make a claim under the non-consensual sex exemption—using the form I have in my hand—they should make contact by phone or online, or collect a form from their work coach. In Northern Ireland, under the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967, anybody to whom a claim of rape is made has a legal duty to report that crime to the police. That duty falls not only on the work coach and the DWP, but on the third-party referrer—the doctor, nurse, social worker or sexual violence support worker has to report that crime to the police. Women in Northern Ireland should not face the choice between being forced into a criminal justice situation, which may make them feel not safe from a former partner, and putting food in their children’s mouths. That is no choice at all. The Government must pause the roll-out, particularly to save women in Northern Ireland from that danger.

The non-consensual sex exemption form is absolutely clear. It says:

“Please be aware that in Northern Ireland, if the third party knows or believes that a relevant offence (such as rape) has been committed, the third party will normally have a duty to inform the police of any information that is likely to secure, or to be of material assistance in securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of someone for that offence.”

Universal credit must be paused and fixed now. It is not safe for women in Northern Ireland.

UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Thursday 12th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is right to mention deaf people’s experience of disability living allowance and personal independence payments. Action on Hearing Loss has a base in my constituency. When it set up a welfare rights service for deaf people, it found that many were getting absolutely no support whatsoever. They could not access the online service or the phone service, so they got nothing.

[Deidre Brock]

My hon. Friend makes an important and rather sad point.

I understand that the definition of DDPO is one where the management committee or board has at least 75% of representation from deaf and disabled people; where at least 50% of its paid staff team are deaf and disabled people, with representation at all levels of the organisation; and where it provides services for, or works on behalf of, deaf and disabled people. Disability charities are not necessarily DPPOs and DPPOs are not necessarily all geared up to work easily with the Government, but will the Minister give a commitment to reach out to them and invite them to the table? That is, after all, one of the recommendations.

I am sure that it has not escaped Whitehall’s notice that there is a recommendation in the report that organisations representing persons with disabilities should be adequately funded. Perhaps that could be addressed early to ensure that the DPPOs can adequately resource their involvement in the Government’s planning.

I do not intend to cover every recommendation—there simply is not the time today—but it might be worth looking at paragraph 25, which indicates that the Government should improve accessibility standards. I remind the Minister that this is Guide Dogs Week and ask whether she might take into account the needs of guide dog users who would like pavement parking to be banned and audio announcements on buses so that they can know where they are. They would also like disability equality training to be provided to public transport providers, including taxi drivers and minicab drivers, along the lines of the training being introduced by the Scottish Government. Will any of that be possible?

Jobcentres and the DWP Estate

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Evans. It is also a pleasure to see my old friend from the Strathclyde fire board, the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant). I can confirm that he is a bit of a wind-up merchant, but his comments failed to address the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) started with. The issue is the structural poverty and historic unemployment and deprivation that Glasgow and the west of Scotland still see as a result of the Tory legacy from the ’80s and beyond. This Tory Government seem set on compounding that poverty and misery and making it worse. They are not looking at the communities that the cuts affect; they are looking only at lines on a map or on Google Maps. They are not looking at the Scottish index of multiple deprivation, as my hon. Friend mentioned. If that index was placed over the map, they would see that the cuts are falling on the poorest communities and those who need support the most. They deserve support the most, because they are the furthest away from the labour market.

I do not know whether the Minister has since taken it down, but when he had us over to his office after the cuts were announced, he had an enormous poster on his wall, right behind where he sat. It was a kind of heat map of the joblessness figures for the whole country, and Glasgow was a great big red beacon on that map. That is exactly where the cuts are falling and where support is needed the most.

My hon. Friends have mentioned the issues with the digital divide. They talked about how difficult it is for people, such as the character in “I, Daniel Blake”, who are pencil by default rather than digital by default. That is true of people in the east end of Glasgow and many of the poorer communities in Scotland. Citizens Advice Scotland did a report a few years ago called “Offline and left behind”, which pointed out that the majority of CAB clients it sees would struggle to apply for benefits and jobs online. That will continue to be the case, because many of them are older workers and further away from the job market. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Danielle Rowley) mentioned the 1950s women affected by the state pension changes. The Government have made great play of trumpeting that there will be support for those women. Where will that support be if the infrastructure they rely on is taken away from their communities?

I have mentioned before in the Chamber that I met a women in my constituency outside Bridgeton jobcentre, which is due to close. She was in bits. She was a WASPI woman who was being forced back to work. She was continually receiving letters calling her into Bridgeton jobcentre. Because it was just down the street from her house, she was able to get her baffies on to get there, but she was scared going in. She was terrified. She was crying going in and coming back out. These are the kind of women who need to be able to access support nearby. Getting up, getting fully dressed, getting on a bus and travelling to the other end of the city would be too much for her. She would fall out of the system and get no support at all. That is not acceptable, and it is not the kind of society we want.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) asked, who will pick up the slack? Who will take up the burden when the jobcentre has gone away? It will be services such as the Scottish Association for Mental Health and the Glasgow Association for Mental Health, which provide so much support to people with mental health issues that are preventing them from taking a job, caused by trauma they have experienced or issues they have had in their lives. Those issues are multiple and complex, and we ignore them at our peril.

The Government are content to let the voluntary sector, food banks and charities pick up where the state has left off and rolled back. The Tory Government are obsessed with dismantling the social security infrastructure of our nation. The things that were put in place to help and support people when they need it most are all being unravelled. That speaks to the issue with the HMRC offices and the DWP back offices. In a lot of cases, they were placed so as to facilitate economic growth in areas that had issues. The hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) illustrated that perfectly by talking about the impact on the wider community of the 250 jobs and £4,000 a week. I would not be surprised if the figure were higher. It is a small sample—a snapshot in time—of the people who go there to work and use the local sandwich shop or the local paper shop. They will buy things in the high street on their way to and from the office. That is true of every single jobcentre that the Government propose to close. Closures will have an impact on the local economy. Empty buildings will be sitting in communities going unused and becoming derelict.

[Mr Sweeney]

The hon. Lady will know that many communities in Glasgow have seen regeneration of their high streets. In particular, there are many great regeneration initiatives in Glasgow that aim to find new and innovative uses for high streets. Surely a progressive measure would be for the DWP to work in partnership with regeneration agencies in Glasgow to look at options such as collocation that would drive vibrancy back into high streets, drive economic activity, drive better job opportunities into communities and create a virtuous cycle of economic growth in Glasgow and around the UK. That is surely what the DWP should be looking at, rather than having a silo mentality of cutting overheads at the expense of everything else. It should be looking at how it can crowd in growth and opportunities through other more entrepreneurial activity, such as collocation.

[Alison Thewliss]

I absolutely agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Clyde Gateway, which works in my constituency and across the boundary into Lanarkshire, is a prime example of that. It was not consulted. It has been the driver for economic regeneration in the east end of Glasgow. It has got people into work. It has looked at the people who are furthest away from the job market and got them into apprenticeships and real paying jobs against all the odds of ill health and deprivation, but it was not consulted or involved in the process. It was not asked about collocation. It would bite the Government’s hand off if they wanted to move HMRC offices from the city centre out to the east end of Glasgow, because it knows the impact that would have on positive regeneration. It would bring in jobs and benefit to the wider economy. It knows that, and it has tried to attract organisations such as Police Scotland, which has come into the area. The area is starting to come up, because it is getting those extra, good-value jobs, and people are moving into the area to build their lives rather than just coming in and out for work. That is hugely important.

The Government would save money with collocation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) pointed out, it is much cheaper to have offices in Livingston than in the centre of Edinburgh and much cheaper to have jobs in Dalmarnock or Shawfield than in the city centre of Glasgow. The Government are wedded to the idea of shiny big offices in the city centre. If it is not important where the jobs are done, why should they be done in the most expensive office space that can be found? Why can they not be in local communities, giving benefit to the wider area? As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South said, that is part of the Government’s cack-handed approach to the issue.

The Government have not looked at the data. We have all asked written parliamentary questions, and they cannot show us the data that evidences the decisions. It is not there. They do not know how many claimants of particular types go and use the jobcentres in question. With the transition to universal credit, it is likely that those jobcentres might be needed more rather than less, because people will need to go in and out about the work-related aspects of universal credit, when they are asked to do more work or earn more. The Government do not seem to be thinking about that at all.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) said, we do not know any detail on outreach. I ask the Government to be careful about how it is done, because there is a huge stigma for some people in accessing jobcentre services. If they are going in and out of the building they can just about cope, but if the services start to be in the community centre, their pals might know they are going in. An officer might sanction someone right there in the middle of the canteen. Such things are really upsetting, and the Government need to think about how they are done, not only for the safety, data protection and dignity of the people using that service, but for the safety of staff. The number of attacks on jobcentre staff has gone up as people get increasingly upset and frustrated with the process. The Government have a duty to those staff to ensure that they are safe, wherever the service is.

There is a security guard on the front door of each jobcentre in Glasgow. If I walk in, someone will come up and challenge me and say, “Who are you? Why are you here?” Within seconds of me walking in the door in Bridgeton, they were saying that. There is a reason for that, and the Government need to think about the safety of staff when they proceed. They need to be careful to do it in a sensitive and effective way. I suppose the Government would know that if they had visited any of the jobcentres in Glasgow or the wider area. I imagine a Government entourage would roll into the building and the jobcentre staff would know they were coming, unlike when I just pitch up on the doorstep, but the Government should consider trying that. They should take up the offer of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) to visit the jobcentres in Inverclyde, or any jobcentre at all. They could understand the geography and see what it is like for clients to go from one place to another on two buses. Rather than just sitting in an office using Google Maps, they should do the journey themselves.

We have invited the Minister before to come on journeys with us around Glasgow. As part of its campaign, the Evening Times in Glasgow did case studies and went out on journeys to and from all the different jobcentres. It has done great campaigning work on the issue, and it knows the city well—certainly a good deal better than Ministers.

[Mr Sweeney]

There are a couple of relevant points about the need to have a security guard on the door, which reflects a number of problems with the current provision. There is the protection and morale of staff, but there is also the morale and self-esteem of the people who use the service. It is a measure of how the service conducts itself and how the interface with the service feels. People who already have anxiety issues, low self-esteem and problems with engaging are being introduced to this kind of Kafkaesque nightmare, where they feel intimidated and are effectively being negatively influenced to dissociate themselves from using the service.

[Alison Thewliss]

I agree that it seems to be part of a wider plan to stop people using the services in the first place and to get people away from going there and seeking support.

I cannot speak for the rest of the country, but I will speak for Glasgow. What is good about jobcentres in Glasgow is that Bridgeton, Parkhead and Easterhouse all have citizens advice bureaux round the corner, very close to people. If someone finds themselves sanctioned or is stressed or worried, or needs extra support, that support is literally around the corner. They can cross the road to get there, and that help and support will be there. I know from speaking to staff at citizens advice centres in Glasgow that that happens regularly; they are there to provide that service. At Shettleston, which will replace Bridgeton, Parkhead and Easterhouse, there is no citizens advice bureau across the road. I wonder why that is.

In Possil, as was mentioned, there are other services as well. In Langside, there is a college across the road, which is exactly where we would want something that can encourage people to up their qualifications and seek new opportunities.

There are opportunities for collocation that we know the Government have not even explored or looked at. I understand that they offered something to the Scottish Government with no options. Rather than engaging properly and thoroughly, they said, “This is what we are thinking of doing—and we are doing it.” As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West said, they did that rather than looking at the whole estate and what is the best type of service for people—what works and actually improves things. In all the discussion, there has been nothing about which jobcentres are effective and which are not. Where do things work well for people and where do they not, and how can we improve that? It is just all about cuts, not about people.

[Bill Grant]

I come back to my theme of modernisation. [Interruption.]

[Bill Grant]

I visited the Ayr jobcentre a couple of weeks ago, as I did the one in Cumnock. Cumnock is a deprived area and there are challenges there. On my modernisation theme, I recall a visit as far back as 2005 and 2006, when I retired from the fire service and went to the jobcentre in Ayr. It was a very uninviting, dark and intimidating place. The staff were behind screens for their protection. It was not very welcoming.

I say the word “modernisation” again, because when I went to the Ayr jobcentre just a couple of weeks ago, it was a very warm and welcoming place. The staff’s morale was high and they were enthused to tell me of the good work they were doing. Somebody will keep me right, but I thought the term was “job coaches” for those employed to encourage people into work. They were proud of the work that they had done through the modernisation of the premises. I found the staff’s morale high, though they are better judges of that. In some cases, modernisation works. I found it warm and welcoming there, whereas more than a decade ago it was a terrible place to visit.

[Alison Thewliss]

Modernisation is fine, but that is very different from shutting it, which is what is happening in this situation. These jobcentres are not being modernised—they are being removed and closed; they are gone. Modernisation is not what this debate is about.

I appreciate that time is tight and I have gone on for a wee while now. My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North and for Glasgow South and the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) powerfully raised the need for an equality impact assessment. The Government said that they would provide an equality impact assessment of each jobcentre after the event, not before deciding on the closures. We have not seen those as yet.

[Hugh Gaffney]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)]

Order. Just before this intervention, I would give a gentle reminder that we are now under some time limits, in order to give equal time to the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson, and Members will also want to hear what the Minister has to say. Are you taking an intervention now?

[Alison Thewliss]

Yes; I am just about done.

[Hugh Gaffney]

Has the Minister watched “I, Daniel Blake”? Let us be modern and look at the world. Ken Loach made a very good film, so let us look at “I, Daniel Blake” and have a reality check on the whole DWP estate.

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Gentleman will find that Ministers will never say whether they have watched it. They probably ought to. I would be happy to put on a movie night if that would help.

We need to see the data and to know what happens next. We need to know what happens in the transition period and what the alternative services are, and whether there are going to be outreach services. What I really want more than anything else is for the people in our constituencies in Glasgow and right across the country, wherever they are, to have a no-sanction guarantee, at the very least for an interim period until the new arrangement settles in. If one person gets sanctioned because their bus does not turn up, that is an absolute scandal that falls on this Government. I will raise any constituency case I get of that kind with the Minister on the Floor of the House; he will know all about it.

Jobcentre Plus: Closures

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

There has been comprehensive consultation. As I set out earlier, an announcement was made in January. There will, indeed, be further consultations to the extent that any redundancies are necessary.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

These are not reforms; they are cuts. Closing Bridgeton jobcentre is a cut in support for the people who need it the most. As I see in my surgeries, these people are already getting hit and being sanctioned by this Government. People having to travel from Bridgeton jobcentre to Shettleston jobcentre will have to take two buses and use money from their income. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that not one person will end up being sanctioned for being late because of that?

[Mr Gauke]

We expect people to make reasonable efforts to get to the jobcentres that are relevant to them. If people make reasonable efforts they will not be sanctioned.

High Court Judgment: Benefit Cap

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the High Court judgement on the benefit cap.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hanson.

On 22 June 2017, a ruling was made in response to a judicial review of the imposition of the benefit cap brought by four lone-parent families who had three children under the age of two. This was supported by Gingerbread, Shelter and the Child Poverty Action Group, all of whom I thank for their briefings on the matter. The judgment was damning of this Tory Government. In my speech I intend to refer to Mr Justice Collins’s judgment and I absolutely commend it to anybody with any interest in this issue.

Mr Justice Collins was quite clear in his findings:

“Whether or not the defendant accepts my judgment, the evidence shows that the cap is capable of real damage to individuals such as the claimants. They are not workshy but find it, because of the care difficulties, impossible to comply with the work requirement. Most lone parents with children under two are not the sort of households the cap was intended to cover and, since they will depend on DHP, they will remain benefit households. Real misery is being caused to no good purpose.”

In response, the Department for Work and Pensions says that it intends to appeal the decision. I find that truly shocking and urge the Minister to reconsider, unless she supports misery being caused to no good purpose.

Back in the Government’s own assessment before the 2015 Welfare Reform and Work Bill, there was an acceptance that the policy of reducing the cap from £26,000 to £20,000, or £23,000 in London, would have a disproportionate impact on women. It even stated:

“Most of the single women affected are likely to be lone parents: this is because we expect the majority of households affected by the policy to have children.”

The Local Government Association says that this lower cap is being implemented without a full understanding of the impact of the original cap. I ask the Minister, what did they expect to happen? Mr Justice Collins found that the policy is unlawful and discriminates against female single parents.

The Supreme Court has said previously that the benefit cap breaches the UN convention on the rights of the child and that:

“It cannot possibly be in the best interests of the children affected by the cap to deprive them of the means to provide them with adequate food, clothing, warmth and housing, the basic necessities of life.”

Mr Justice Collins reiterates that point in his findings, stating in paragraph 40:

“the effect of the cap means that the children and their parents have restrictions on what can be provided by way of housing, food and other things that an average child should have available. Further, as the ministers have said, it may be necessary to try to move to cheaper accommodation to avoid the effect of the cap so that there will be an upheaval for the family. I have set out the evidence of the damage to both family and private life which the cap has produced and will continue to produce.”

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I commend my hon. Friend for her sterling work on this campaign. In her conversations with the UK Government, have they indicated how this policy is compatible with their family test?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

They have not. The family test would appear to be something the Government have said in some grand papers and then not implemented at all.

According to the most recent DWP statistical release from May this year, 66,000 households were capped as of February, up from 46,000 in November 2016, because of the lower cap being applied. Some 74% of them were capped only because of the introduction of the lower cap levels, and 72% of capped households, or some 48,000, are single-parent families. Some 79% of single-parent capped households, or 38,000, have at least one child aged under five years old, including 15%, which is 7,200, with a child aged under one at February 2017. At February 2017, 83% of capped households, or 55,000, had between one and four children, and 10%, or 6,800, had five or more children. That is a very small number in that whole pool of people, but those are significant figures and each of them is hiding its own tale of misery.

I am not even convinced that this policy will save money as there are significant consequential costs: the cost of bad debt to councils and housing providers when the rent costs can no longer be met by the tenant—that single parent in a household—who has been capped; the cost of court proceedings to go through the process to evict that individual and to reinstate the property after eviction and bring it back on to the market; and the cost of temporary housing for that family once they have been evicted and have presented themselves to social workers as being in need of housing. The LGA estimates that the cost of temporary housing is £2 million per day—£2 million per day that we do not need to be spending because of people being evicted as a result of this cap.

There are also the costs to children’s services and mental health services due to the stress on families—the stress of not being able to pay the bills, of going into housing arrears, of eviction and homelessness and of all the other things such as maybe having to leave their homes and the support networks around them. There is the cost to the education of the children involved as they are forced to move schools. This is not just about the younger children, as their older siblings in the family might have to move schools and go to a different area away from family and support networks. All of those are costs, and we must bear them in mind.

Single-parent families of young children are forced by this Government into a no-win situation. They cannot earn enough via work because they cannot take on a job that will pay them enough to get out of the cap—they cannot take on more than the 16 hours that they need because they have childcare obligations to children under two. Some of the mothers involved in this case are breastfeeding. It is more difficult to go out and start work when someone has obligations to go back and feed their child, and we should not be forcing them to do so because, as we know, those early years with a child are extremely valuable. The families are also trapped because they cannot get enough support from the state. Sadly this leaves them with destitution, food banks and both physical and mental ill health. These are women who are doing their best and struggling to provide a better life for their children. We should be helping them, not cawing the legs from under them.

The Scottish Government’s independent adviser on poverty and inequality, Naomi Eisenstadt, said yesterday that

“life outcomes are largely determined by the wealth and social class of one’s parents at birth… it represents not just fundamental unfairness, but also significant waste of talent and opportunity for the economy and social cohesion of Scotland.”

I would argue that that applies more widely to the UK as well. By taking parents’ circumstances and punishing them—not allowing them the means that they need to feed their families—we are stunting the life chances of the children throughout their lives. We are punishing people for the circumstances they are in.

The UK Government will say, as they always do in these types of debates, that the best way out of poverty is work, and that those receiving benefits should face the same choices as those supporting themselves solely through work. If those phrases are on the Minister’s sheet today, I advise her to cross them out now. Mr Justice Collins stated:

“those observations are entirely irrelevant in relation to lone parents such as the claimants who find themselves in real difficulty in being able to enter work because of the need to care for a child under 2.”

The circumstances of the parents in this case are worth reading out in full, just in case those looking at Hansard or watching at home have not had the chance to read through some of the circumstances. The first claimant, “DA”, was

“homeless, living with her four-year-old son in a refuge in north London as a result of serious domestic violence from her husband, which led to her having to leave her council flat. She is due to give birth in mid-June. When living in the refuge, she was not subjected to the cap since it does not apply to those victims of violence who have to live in a refuge. It was submitted that she was not able to be a claimant since she was not a lone parent with a child under two and was living in a refuge. That objection has not been seriously maintained since she will become subject to the cap when she gives birth on leaving the refuge. Furthermore, I was informed that she has now been given emergency accommodation for those who are homeless which costs £247 per week. She has investigated the possibility of private accommodation but has found, as is confirmed by her solicitor who has made a statement based on her experience of dealing with many clients who are homeless or suffering the effects of the benefit cap or the bedroom tax, that very few private landlords are prepared to accept tenants who depend on housing benefit particularly if they are capped. As must be obvious, when she gives birth she will not be able to work particularly as she wishes to breastfeed. Furthermore, the council has refused to allow her to join its housing list since she came from outside its area as she was fleeing violence and does not have the necessary four year residence in the borough. She has been informed that when capped she will have £217 per week available for rent. She has mental and physical problems as does her son. She is anxious to work when she can.”

The other claimants are equally worthy cases and worthy of the attention of everyone in this House, but I would like to mention the last one, a parent who has four children:

“WBA has four children, aged 17, 14, 13, 7 and 14 months, the youngest also being a claimant. The youngest child was conceived following a rape by her husband: she has indeed been the victim of an abusive relationship over the years. She has since February 2017 been living in suitable accommodation, but the cap has resulted in a shortfall of £151.76 per week. She was able to obtain DHPs but only for short terms and with no promise that they would continue. On having been granted a DHP on 20 April 2017, the council wrote a letter dated the same day saying it had been cancelled. The way she has been treated has distressed her. She wishes to work when she can.”

I should mention another campaign that I am involved in, which is on the rape clause. This family will potentially lose the rights to child tax credit and universal credit unless the mother fills in the form to say that she has been raped. This is a family who are already under significant pressure. They deserve support, not further demonisation and stigmatisation.

The Government will talk about childcare. They will say that they are offering childcare to people, and that that is an important point. Actually, it is not an important or relevant point in this case. The money they are offering for nursery places is not for this specific group, the under-twos. The cost of nursery places, particularly for under-twos, can be prohibitive in a lot of cases. The childcare ratios for under-twos bear a higher cost, and some nursery providers will charge more for an under-two’s childcare place than for a three or four-year-old’s. Some nurseries do not deal with under-twos at all—they do not take babies.

There are issues of availability and flexibility as well as cost. If the parent goes out to work, they are essentially working to pay for the nursery place, not to bring extra money into the house. They cannot always rely on family, because they may have had to leave home and move to a cheaper part of the country so that they can afford housing—the Government have put them in that situation as well. They cannot rely on older family members, who might be WASPI women who have been forced back to work and cannot carry out childcare tasks as they might have before. This is not really a choice for a lot of these women.

The Government expect women to make the same choices regardless of their circumstances, but some of the women in the cases I mentioned do not have the choices that we would all like. They may not have a choice over their reproductive rights. They may have been raped. They may not want to have a termination. They may not have all the choices they would want. It is interesting that the benefits charity Turn2us, which runs a helpline, has reported an increase in inquiries about whether or not to proceed with a pregnancy, as a result of the benefit cap. That is absolutely appalling. The Government are forcing women into such choices.

The women in these cases did not become single parents by choice, but by circumstance. These things happen in life. We cannot always choose to end up how we set out in life. The benefits system should be a supportive safety net, not something that punishes women for their circumstances, particularly if they are facing domestic violence.

The chief executive of the Women’s Aid Federation, who gave evidence in the case, mentioned that because of the perverse nature of the system, there has been bed-blocking in refuges. Women are not subject to the cap while they remain in the refuge, but the second they leave it, they are. That creates unfairness in the system: there are women who cannot come into the refuge because other women literally cannot afford to leave, since they will lose so much money if they do. It is appalling that women are forced to make that choice. It also forces women into making the choice of leaving in the first place, because if they know that with the benefit cap and with the children they already have they cannot possibly afford to support themselves going into housing—possibly expensive private lets—they will stay, risking their own and their children’s safety. The Government should take heed of that, if nothing else.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

It cannot be possible that any Minister listening to these cases could intend people to live in such circumstances. To be generous to the Government, is it not more likely that the ideology of austerity and of arbitrary caps is forcing people into them, through policy?

[Alison Thewliss]

Absolutely. The entire policy and the way that people end up as a result of it need to be reviewed. It is causing genuine hardship to no good purpose, as the judge pointed out. We need to look at the whole policy in the round.

The Government will say that there is the discretionary housing payment. Yes, there is, but the savings from the benefit cap amount to £155 million, while the amount put towards the DHP by the Government is £37.1 million, so there is no way that the money can be made up in that way.

The Local Government Association has found that the

“cumulative impacts of welfare reform are contributing to a…housing affordability crisis.”

The Government have a huge part in that. There is a lack of rehousing options for women. Where can they move that is cheaper than where they are now? If they live in a city such as London, they would probably have to leave it altogether, which would mean leaving the family, school and other support networks they might have. There is a lack of social rented housing, particularly in some parts of England. A lot of it used to be local authority housing that has either been bought under right to buy or has gone to housing associations or other areas where there is less control over it. Not enough new housing has been built in its place, so there are fewer options for people. Private lets are extremely expensive. When private landlords see someone who they think will not be able to pay the bills in a few months’ time, they will not take them on. As the judgment states,

“the reality is that DHPs do involve short term payments and give those affected no peace of mind.”

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

May I say how grateful I am that the hon. Lady secured this debate? I would like to cite one extra figure: 3,270 children in Scotland have been affected by this cap. We have heard harrowing tales about individuals who have suffered because of it, and about the difficulty that the Government are placing them in: an ultimate Hobson’s choice that single parents, predominantly mums, have to make over their children. In Scotland, 3,270 individual children are being made subject to this cap. They are under 18, they do not vote, and their parents have to make the choice.

[Alison Thewliss]

I agree.

The judgment further notes that inquiries were made

“of local authorities about their practices in dealing with DHPs. Of the 235 who responded, none had ever made a permanent award nor had any agreed to make a payment before a tenancy commenced.”

So somebody who goes into a new tenancy cannot expect to get that payment, and neither can the landlord expect to receive it. It is not enough of an option. By their very nature, discretionary housing payments are discretionary—they are at the discretion of whoever the person applies to. They are also oversubscribed in many areas, because people know that they are their only option to try to top up an income that is dwindling as a result of Government policy.

The other problem with moving people to so-called cheaper areas around the UK is that those areas also tend to have higher rates of unemployment. People are not moving to areas where they are more likely to get work; they would get work in areas where rents are higher, because there is more demand for it there.

The issue of private landlords is particularly worrying. The judgment mentions evidence from the Residential Landlords Association and the National Landlords Association that

“private landlords are very reluctant to take on tenants who were capped and many would seek to evict such tenants.”

It is not even that people will not get a tenancy, but that they will be evicted from the tenancy they already have. That seems particularly cruel.

All these problems are avoidable. They are a result of Government policy, and there is a choice here for the Government. We are in a very different situation now from the one before the election. There is no longer a majority for austerity in this House. The Government have a choice. They do not have to waste further money on appealing the judgment. I understand that they have already wasted at least half a million pounds on other appeals relating to the bedroom tax and the carer’s allowance, but they should not waste more public funds appealing a case that has already been proven to be an injustice. They should put their hands up and say, “There is an injustice here, and we will put it right in the interests of the children who are affected.”

The Government have a choice. The Chancellor has stated that the British people are “weary” of austerity. I urge the Government to do something about it for these women, for their children and for families across the UK. If money can be found on the magical money tree for £1 billion to prop up the Government, it can be found for women and children across these islands.

Personal Independence Payments

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks and indeed for your remarks, Mr Speaker, about the fact that you never chuntered from the Back Benches. This means that I will be able to correct my own memory of those circumstances, having sat next to you on the Back Benches for many years as well.

We are obviously trying to improve all aspects of the PIP process—the accuracy and the speed of the assessments—and, as I have said, the early provision of more objective health information will improve the situation hugely, not least for my hon. Friend’s constituents and others who find the process stressful.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I challenge the assertion that PIP is better for people with mental health conditions. One of my constituents has a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and used to receive DLA on the grounds of a need for continual supervision. This procedure is not recognised under PIP, and my constituent has lost not only her entitlement to PIP but consequently her working tax credit, which was passported via DLA. She is now considering leaving her job. What reassurance does this announcement give to my constituent and others in similar situations?

[Damian Green]

I can only repeat the facts to the hon. Lady. Over two thirds of PIP recipients with a mental health condition get the enhanced rate daily living component, which compares with just 22% who received the highest rate DLA care. As I have just explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), for the mobility component, which is the other part of PIP, the relevant figures are 27% and 9%. The facts are incontrovertible. More people with mental health conditions are receiving PIP than used to receive DLA. It is a better benefit for people with mental health conditions than DLA.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Single-sentence questions, I hope. Alison Thewliss.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I am astonished that the Secretary of State said that the rape clause was not punitive, given that, in their response to the consultation, the Government said that many respondents considered it

“unacceptable for Government to ask women to re-live the ordeal of a rape just in order to make a claim for benefit.”

Will the Minister and the Government accept that the policy is simply unworkable, and absolutely despicable?

[Damian Green]

I do not accept that, and I do not think the hon. Lady’s description of the exemptions to that clause accord with reality. The system that we are proposing is not remotely punitive; it is entirely sensible and workable.