Winter Fuel Payment

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell]

A Labour Government must always protect the poorest in our society.

The total saving for this year—£1.3 billion—is 0.1% of the total Treasury spend. However, when only 1.6 million pensioners not on pension credit need energy support, that drops to 0.04% of the Government’s budget, assuming that all get the top rate of £300, although most will get less. If we add in additional health and care costs, the saving shrinks again.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2024 will take up to £300 per household from two groups of low-income pensioners: those eligible for pension credit who do not claim it and those who are just over the pension cliff edge but still living on very little. As I understand it, pension credit take-up rate is around 63% and, at best, will be around 68%. The saving to the public purse is predicated on that basis, but the savings will be wiped out if everyone eligible for pension credit took it up, which surely should be the goal. Does my hon. Friend agree that this proposal simply does not stack up?

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend has done the maths, and I think it speaks for itself.

The Chancellor cannot make this just an economic argument, because there is also a humanitarian cost. We need the capacity to find an “escape route”, as the former Chancellor, Ed Balls, stated, because people need a safety net. When Labour’s Gordon Brown came to power, he said he was

“simply not prepared to allow another winter to go by when pensioners are fearful of turning up their heating, even on the coldest winter days”.—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 780.]

Now, they are fearful. The winter fuel payment covered around a third of people’s bills, but it now covers only 12% to 17%. With the 10% rise in the price cap on 1 October, and without cost of living payments, pensioners are exposed to far greater risk. The average bill is £1,717, but older people are at home more, and more likely to live in homes that are less efficient, so they will pay even more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I wholeheartedly agree that the Minister has inherited the most dreadful legacy from the absent Conservative party. Could she clarify for me the issue of take-up of pension credit? It currently sits at 63%; the ambition is 68%. What would happen to the proposed savings of £1.4 billion if pension credit was successfully rolled out to everybody entitled to it? Would those savings not disappear?

[Emma Reynolds]

The savings we have estimated—£1.4 billion this year and £1.5 billion in the next financial year—take into account a boost in the uptake of pension credit. We are absolutely determined to see an increase in that uptake, so the Secretary of State and I have already engaged with charities and local authorities. The Secretary of State spoke to Age UK and Citizens Advice about how we work together.

Last week was Pension Credit Week of Action. I encourage hon. Members to look at my X, although I know it is not so fashionable with everyone these days, for a video of a visit I did last week precisely to raise awareness of pension credit. Pension credit is not a simple process—we are looking at how to simplify it—but charities such as Age UK and Citizens Advice will help pensioners to go through it online. The online version is much simpler than the paper version, believe it or not, as the paper version has lots of questions that will not be applicable. We are also delivering a major campaign in print and broadcast media, including for people to reach out to retired families, friends and neighbours to urge them to check if they are eligible.

We will write to all pensioners about housing benefit; this is a question that one of my hon. Friends asked me yesterday. He had a constituent on housing benefit who was concerned that that would be taken into account as a form of income when the Government looked at his eligibility for pension credit. I confirm that that is not the case: housing benefit is not taken into account with regard to income. Please, I urge pensioners on housing benefit, who will be receiving a letter from the Department, to apply for pension credit.

As a Government, we are looking to merge the administration of housing benefit and pension credit to make that much simpler for people. The previous Government promised they would do that—some years ago, in fact—but were not going to until 2029. We think that that was slow decision making, and we are seeking to do it as soon as is operationally feasible. It is not a simple exercise, but it is something that we should do.

Autumn Statement Resolutions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Ind)]

The Government have tried some sleight of hand with this so-called “autumn statement for growth” just as the OBR has revised its projections for the economy downwards. Indeed, the OBR’s figures for the coming years tell a very different story from the Chancellor’s: GDP growth was nil in the three months to September, while the OBR has revised growth for next year down by more than half from 1.8% to 0.7%, for the year after that down from 2.5% to 1.4%, and for 2026 marginally down as well. These figures are cause for alarm, signalling a potential economic downturn. In fact, retail sales are already falling and unemployment is rising. The OBR now forecasts that unemployment will go even higher than previously thought, reaching 4.6% by 2025.

If we have learned anything from the past 13 years of the Tories at the helm of the economy, it is that working people and the most vulnerable in our society are always the ones who are made to pay the price for their damaging decisions. A clear example is the Chancellor’s spin over the cuts to national insurance, which in reality will give back to workers less than a quarter of the £44.6 billion that will be taken away from them in frozen tax thresholds by 2028. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) advised, the 5% energy price cap rise will impact as well. These national insurance cuts will not do anything to help those earning less than the threshold, who are mostly low-paid, part-time workers and those in the gig economy lacking basic employment rights and protections, and they will disproportionately impact women.

Furthermore, the total absence of additional funding for public services will hit those most in need the hardest. Taking £1.2 billion out of the pockets of disabled people and affecting 700,000 people with a one-third cut in their benefits and increased conditionality, while handing businesses £12 billion in tax giveaways, is totally unconscionable. But it serves as a reminder, if we ever needed one, of whose interests the Conservative party serves. It is not its billionaire backers who will be impacted by the record waiting lists in the NHS, as they all have private healthcare, nor will it be their children whose education is negatively impacted by cuts to school budgets. How can the Government claim to be promoting economic growth when the very fabric of our society is fraying at the seams after more than a decade of crippling austerity?

At the local authority level, as well, we are seeing councils across the country teetering on the brink of collapse. They have enormous holes in their finances. What do we on Teesside get from the Government in response? We get the condescending slur of “holes” of a different variety.

Thanks to the Conservatives’ decision to slash local government funding, along with the disgraceful mismanagement of the previous administration in my town, Middlesbrough Council has been put in the unwelcome position of having to sell its major income-generating assets to try to deliver a balanced budget. While food banks creak under the strain and thousands of children go to school hungry, we have the farce of Members on the Conservative Benches blaming the newly elected Labour administration for clearing up the mess left by others.

Another matter that the Chancellor addressed in his statement that has a major impact on my constituency relates to freeports. The Government have announced their intention to extend the duration of the tax reliefs available in freeports from five to 10 years. The Chancellor explained that this decision was made in part thanks to “tenacious representations” by

“the unstoppable Mayor of Tees Valley”.—[Official Report, 22 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 332.]

I must say that that description of the Mayor is not incorrect. He has certainly been unstoppable in locking the taxpayer into dreadful deals that set up private investors with all the reward but none of the risk, which is left to the public purse. In the latest edition of Private Eye we are told how the reckless boasting of Lord Houchen regarding the announcement of British Steel setting up an electric arc steel recycling plant on Teesside—on its own land—has left the Chinese-owned company with the British taxpayer over a barrel. Too eager to claim credit for something that has nothing to do with him and to present the deal as done while the company is still in negotiations with the Government over subsidies, he has potentially cost the public purse astronomical amounts of money. Such is the arrogance displayed by the Mayor, his office even put out a video showing him hand-signing a legal agreement with the caption “new electric arc furnace”, although on closer inspection the document turned out to be an old one for a solar farm.

This sums up how the Conservative party operates: all smoke and mirrors, when behind the façade its decisions only leave the British public worse off, much like this tawdry “autumn statement for growth”. The Home Secretary really let the Tory party mask slip with his foul-mouthed outburst last week, but he and his colleagues should be in no doubt that the people of Teesside and people across the country have long memories and will let their voices be heard at the ballot box as soon as they get their chance.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 4th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

2. What assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of its policies on reducing regional inequalities in employment.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

7. What assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of its policies on reducing regional inequalities in employment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

I have no problem at all with defending the Government’s record on employment. There are now nearly 4 million more people in employment than there were in 2010, including about 2 million more women, and unemployment across the country, including in the north, is at a near-historic low.

[Andy McDonald]

In his blog today on ConservativeHome, Lord Ashcroft says:

“On the cost of living, two thirds of voters...thought the Government could do more to help but was choosing not to.”

Given the regional disparity in earnings, does the Secretary of State accept that the roll-out of fair pay agreements providing sectoral minimum terms, as outlined in Labour’s “A New Deal for Working People”, would not only boost the economy but address the blight of in-work poverty and insecure work that is having an impact on so many households in my constituency and throughout the country?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of support during the cost of living squeeze that we are experiencing. My Department has been responsible for distributing millions of payments to the most vulnerable people, including £900 in total to 8 million low-income households, £150 to 6 million disabled people and the £300 payment to pensioners. On the question of work, we put up the national living wage by over 9% to £10.42 this April.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for asking about that. It is right that we work across Government to identify priority areas where we can deliver meaningful change and progress for disabled people to improve their lives. That is what that action plan will do. We will be drawing up ideas, consulting on them, and then getting on delivering them. I look forward to hearing his views as we take that work forward.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

T8. My constituent, Brandon, was medically discharged from the armed forces in 2020 after serving six years. He sustained a number of physical injuries and mental health consequences, but the DWP is failing to adhere to the armed forces covenant and to recognise the Ministry of Defence’s medical assessment for universal credit purposes, or to recognise the assessment of Combat Stress for personal independence payment purposes. Will the Minister consider his case and take the appropriate action to address those deficits?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter and it is a concern. There are 11 armed forces leaders and 50 champions across the DWP. I would be very happy to look at this particular case, if he were able to raise it directly with me.

Draft Biocidal Products (Health and Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2022 General Committees

[Mims Davies]

I have many notes. I thank the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford for her questions and the spirit of them—I am being passed even more notes, so I feel pretty sure that I can answer most of her questions.

Let us start with the most important issue: resourcing and funding. The HSE has already increased the number of staff working on chemicals regulation by around 40% from 256 in March 2020 to 355 in March 2022, with further significant recruitment planned over the next two to three years, which I hope answers the question raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green. That reflects the need for increased resources for the HSE’s post-EU exit responsibilities.

Likewise, the total budget for the HSE’s chemicals regulation division has grown by 39% from £22.4 million to £31.2 million between 2018-19 and 2022-23. It was always anticipated that it would take several years to reach full operating capacity following Brexit, due to the need to recruit and train large numbers of new staff in specialist disciplines required for chemicals regulation.

It is an honour to be the Minister responsible for the HSE. The depth of work it does across covid and all sectors is a joy to behold and learn from, with its cost recovery scheme and the way that it works. One of its recruitment plans is to grow and progress more of its own people, which I very much welcome.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Given what the Minister just said, does she see it as a matter of regret that we have lost over 400 HSE inspectors since 2010? During the covid crisis, their roles had to be adopted by debt collectors, who were performing their functions by inspecting premises and carrying out tick-box exercises in their stead.

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. In the time that I have been working with the HSE as a Minister, whether on visits to Derbyshire or to Bootle, I have been really impressed with its ingenuity and the way it has got people to come into the sector, grown its local workforce and given people opportunities. It is brilliant at bringing people in and training them. If he is saying that we welcome people from all walks of life to come into this growing sector, we are on the same page.

[Mims Davies]

My right hon. Friend is right to talk about learning and development within the business, which is really important. In my engagement with and visits to the HSE, it has been very clear about that, but it also has many people in the field and around the country who balance working from home with working from the base where they deliver their processes. It is a mixed picture, but I am happy to look at that point and raise it with management.

The HSE’s chemicals regulation division has reached full capacity and will be in a position to meet the usual timescales set out in the legislation, but it is important to bring this measure to the House, to give us the time to achieve this recruitment and, ultimately, make sure that this area is safe and works. I hope that reassures hon. Members.

The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford asked why we have to do this and whether we envisaged the timetables. The changes will ensure that regulatory deadlines provide sufficient time for the HSE to clear the backlog of applications, and will give legal certainty to the affected businesses, whose products, vitally, will be able to remain on the market while their applications are, rightfully, assessed.

The active substances will be reviewed by the HSE, and the legislation allowing flexibility and timeliness should be welcome. I reassure hon. Members that the work to review the programme is in development. The HSE will continue to communicate and engage with stakeholders on its work in due course. It has already started work on evaluating the active substance applications, which fall outside the formal review programme.

There was a question about how the businesses will be notified about applications. Businesses have been notified and have submitted more than 400 biocidal product applications. That includes new applications, changes to existing authorisations and renewals, while 250 are complex new applications, which require the most resources. Compared with the EU workload, that represents about 70% more than anticipated, but I strongly believe that the HSE can withstand that. I thank the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford for making those points.

I have covered the staffing measures. On the long-standing transition arrangements that allow the biocidal products to stay on the market until their applications are assessed, most affected products have previously been on the market for many years, and in most cases in the EU as well. I reassure colleagues that this is nothing for us to worry about. The HSE has the experts, and the draft regulations will allow it to do its work and to monitor as it can and should.

The HSE has a process for monitoring international scientific information of relevance to UK active substances and products, including the EU assessments. Should new evidence emerge, the HSE will again work with any relevant regulatory agencies and take any suitable action as a result.

[Andy McDonald]

The Minister is being generous in giving way. Given the commitments she has made this afternoon, is she able to give any indication to the Committee as to the increase in the HSE’s budget following the autumn statement? It has an awful lot more work to do.

[Mims Davies]

I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about the budget. I have information about the staffing that I can give him, but I point to the cost recovery in this area. The HSE is exemplary on that. I am happy to write to him with more detail, if that is helpful.

I want to cover data; forgive me, I have so many notes here, I cannot find the bit on data. Here we go—so many bits of paper! I hope hon. Members appreciate that this is a technical instrument and it is important that we get it right. I would rather give more detail and data than less.

The HSE’s assessment of biocidal products remains based primarily on the data submitted by the businesses. They have to act for the authorisation in place for their products on the market. The businesses can continue to do that without access to the EU databases. That is not under threat. The risks of loss of access to the EU databases are being considered as part of HSE’s work to manage biocide authorisations taking into account the loss of access to EU databases, but HSE’s long-term objective is to develop solutions that will allow the authorisation processes to work without disruption, so that no risks materialise.

I hope that I have covered most of the questions put to me. I welcome the Committee considering the draft regulations. I reiterate that the statutory instrument is a technical change only and that there are no policy changes. It relates to biocidal products that are used to control harmful organisms, including disinfectants, insecticides and rodenticides—products that have important roles in protecting human health and critical infrastructure. The instrument will therefore allow us to ensure that the legal supply of such products is not impacted in the long term.

The draft instrument provides important additional time for the HSE to complete biocide authorisations while applications are addressed, and extends the relevant deadlines by a one-off period—I stress the “one-off”—of five years after the regulations come into force, by which time the HSE forecasts that the authorisations will have been cleared. After that, it will return to the normal processing times set out in legislation.

I remind the Committee that no cost to businesses arises from the changes made in this draft statutory instrument. Importantly, it provides legal certainty that, where biocidal products are already on market in Great Britain waiting for an authorisation decision, they can continue to be used and supplied. That will ensure that suppliers of biocides are treated fairly and that there is no disruption to the legal supply of essential biocidal products while the backlog of applications is cleared.

The draft regulations provide a transitional measure to supplement the existing Great Britain biocidal products regulation or GB BPR, bringing over the last elements of pre-EU exit regulation. That change ensures that a certain type of biocidal product authorisation application, namely same product applications, can be treated in an identical way to other applications. Again, that has no impact on businesses and is a technical correction to ensure the biocide regime is now fully functioning as intended.

To conclude, the draft instrument will provide the necessary extension to the legal deadlines to enable HSE to process affected biocidal product authorisation applications. That will provide legal certainty to businesses that biocidal products on the market awaiting their application to be processed can remain there. In turn, biocidal products essential to the functioning of society can continue to be made available and used appropriately.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) Trade and Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 2022

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2022 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Julie Marson)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) Trade and Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 2022.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I am conscious that I may not be the Minister that Committee members were expecting, and I congratulate the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) on her appointment.

This draft statutory instrument was laid before Parliament on 23 June. As part of this Government’s ambitious international trade agenda, the United Kingdom signed a free trade agreement last year with European economic area and European Free Trade Association countries, such as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. The agreement included a chemical annex as part of the technical barriers to trade provisions, which committed both parties to co-operate in the field of chemicals regulation. The draft statutory instrument makes a provision for this chemical annex, so that the Health and Safety Executive can share information on chemicals that it holds, such as individual regulatory substance evaluations and risk assessments with the authorities in those countries.

The SI also allows the UK authorities to use information received from EEA and EFTA countries to help ensure protection in the areas of health and safety, the environment and consumers. The sharing of information will promote greater transparency and understanding of our respective regulatory approaches and of chemicals safety. It will also help to create a greater understanding of the decision-making processes in the UK, which will build trust and confidence with the EEA and EFTA countries, enhancing the robustness of decision making and therefore reduce regulatory costs for UK businesses wishing to place chemical products on the market in EEA and EFTA countries.

The SI also corrects three minor outstanding deficiencies in retained chemicals law relating to leaving the EU, to ensure that the chemicals regime continues to operate effectively and to remove references to the EU in relevant pieces of legislation. There are no policy changes or changes to duties. As the instrument is so technical, I am sure that a brief summary of the changes will be welcomed.

The first of the three retained regulations to be amended is the GB biocidal products regulation, which governs the placing on the market and use of products that contain chemicals that protect humans, animals, materials or articles against harmful organisms such as pests or bacteria. It is in place to ensure that those chemicals are safe for humans, animals and the environment, while improving the functioning of the biocidal products market. The market covers a wide range of products such as wood preservatives, insecticides such as wasp spray and anti-fouling paint to remove barnacles on boats.

Secondly, the GB classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures regulation ensures that the hazardous intrinsic properties of chemicals are properly identified and effectively communicated to those throughout the supply chain, including to the point of use, partly through standardised hazard pictograms and warning phrases associated with specific hazards, such as explosivity, acute toxicity or carcinogenicity.

The third amendment is to the GB prior informed consent regulation, which implements the UK’s obligations under the international Rotterdam convention and requires exports of listed chemicals to be notified to the importing country. For some chemicals, the consent of the importing country must be obtained before export can proceed.

In addition, this SI makes minor technical amendments to several pieces of EU-derived domestic legislation. The provisions for CLP, BPR and PIC, which I have just mentioned, were brought into GB law from EU law. However, during the process, some EU references within the legislation were not removed, so the SI will ensure those references are removed so that CLP, BPR and PIC work as domestic legislation in Great Britain.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I was not intending to speak, but, just from listening to what the Minister has had to say, does it not occur to her that we, as the authors of the REACH—registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—regulations in the first instance, have now spent all of this time rewriting things to simply delete references to the EU regulations, and barriers now exist? Has she made any assessment of the cost incurred in trying to make this transition—the cost to businesses in my constituency, who are heavily dependent on engaging with the European Union—and what the fall-off in trade has been? Has any assessment been made?

[Julie Marson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I would just point out that REACH is a completely different issue. That is covered by the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. I take his point about the changes that have ensued from the changes in bringing EU law into UK law, but I would emphasise to his question that there are no costs involved in this SI—in these changes to UK businesses. In fact, this is about moving barriers to trade through replicating EU trade agreements with other countries, so it is actually working to remove costs and trade barriers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

I am going to try, Mr Speaker.

That may be a devolved issue, but I would point out that many employers in Wales have been putting on transportation to bring workers in. That has been happening particularly in Ynys Môn—in Anglesey—to support production there. Working with the jobcentre to put on suitable transport makes a difference in getting people into work too.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

T7. Pensions and benefits have been uprated by 3.1%, whereas inflation is set to be 6.2%, or 8% if The Daily Telegraph has got it right. That means that pensioners and benefits recipients will not be able to pay for the most basic essentials. How can the Minister look people in the eye when the Government have inflicted yet another real-terms cut?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

The factual matter is that the state pension has increased by in excess of 5% over the past two years. There is also £5 billion-worth of pension credit—I encourage the hon. Gentleman to get his vulnerable constituents to apply for that—and the Chancellor’s £9.1 billion package for energy bills. I also encourage the hon. Gentleman to get his constituents to apply to the local authority fund.

In-work Poverty

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for securing the debate.

If anything proves how broken the current economic model is, it is the extent of in-work poverty—it does just that. I have listened carefully to the remarks from Government Members. You would not think, Ms Rees, that they have been in power for 12 years. The hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) talks about work being the best route out of poverty. Are cleaners not entitled to a decent wage? Are security staff who keep our hospital staff and patients safe not entitled to a dignified life? Are care workers not entitled to the decency of a wage that they can live on? Are the shopworkers who we applauded not entitled to be able to make ends meet? Or have people got to leave those jobs and get “better” ones? What an indictment it is on this Government that they say such a thing.

It is a fact that one in six working families is now in poverty—a record high. It puts paid to all the Tories’ boasts of job creation when the jobs that they are creating still confine people to destitution. The latest employment figures, published by the ONS yesterday, show that real wages dropped by 1.5% over the past year. That is the worst fall in real pay for eight years.

This is clearly a situation that the Government are actively pursuing. The motion they passed last month—effectively cutting pensions and social security payments by 3% to 4% in real terms—along with their slashing of the universal credit uplift, the rise of the energy price cap and the increase in national insurance contributions all point to the simple conclusion that this Government are knowingly pushing more and more families into circumstances where they have to choose between staying warm and putting food on the table.

Just as with the coalition Government’s austerity programme after the financial crash, we hear from this Tory Government that it is those in most need who will have to bear the biggest brunt of the fallout of the covid crisis, and now the illegal and atrocious Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Government’s argument is that the cost of living crisis is a sacrifice that must be made to oppose Putin’s actions—it is nonsense and must be called out. Poverty is a political choice, and the Government are choosing for that sacrifice to be made by working people instead of the wealthy. In fact, despite the ongoing crises, billionaires have never had it so good.

[Grahame Morris]

Would my hon. Friend comment on the level of profits being generated by the energy distribution companies for gas and electricity, and what alternatives there are in windfall taxes on those companies?

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. Those transmission companies are enjoying a scandalous rise in profits; if ever a case was made for public ownership of the transmission of energy, that is it. The time is absolutely now.

There are also a number of longstanding factors that have caused the spiralling levels of in-work poverty. Above all is the fact that the so-called national living wage of £8.91 an hour is significantly below a wage that people can actually survive on. I have said it time and again: we need to raise the minimum wage to a level that allows people to live fully flourishing lives, not just get by. The planned rise to £9.50 an hour next month simply will not cut it. In the midst of a cost of living crisis, with inflation soaring, the national minimum wage is nothing but a poverty wage. The time is right for a £15 an hour minimum wage—in fact, it is way overdue.

Different categories of workers are going to work with different types of employment rights. We need to consolidate those categories into a single status of worker so that people have the same full employment rights from day one. I am pleased to have introduced to this House the Status of Workers Bill, which was guided through the other place by my noble Friend Lord Hendy. I implore the Minister to allow the Bill the necessary time to pass through this House, so that it can make the fundamental change to workers’ rights that could do so much to turn the tide of in-work poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on securing the debate. I recall having had a similar debate with a similar cast list recently, so some of the arguments are familiar but some have been amplified. I take all of them seriously and will endeavour to answer some of the questions. No doubt others will be addressed separately, but I look forward to responding to them. Like the hon. Member, who is very kind, I wish the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies) a speedy recovery and return to good health. She would have been keen to be here had she had been able to.

Prior to this debate, I had just come out of a meeting with Communities that Work, a group of housing associations that help people into work and to progress in employment. I am grateful for the work it is doing. One of the participants was Helen Johnson, a livin futures manager at Livin Housing in the north-east, who is doing great work in Country Durham. Despite party political differences and different views on policy, we can all applaud the work those people are doing to help literally thousands of people—in this case, tenants—to achieve their potential in employment opportunities. I congratulate them on that work. All hon. Members present want to see everybody have the opportunity to progress in work, improve their earnings and realise their potential.

[Andy McDonald]

We hear with unerring regularity the mantra that the only way for someone to progress and live a good and flourishing life is to progress out of their current job. It will then be occupied by somebody else, who will be paid a low wage. Where is the dignity or decency in that philosophy, which does not have regard for the people doing the key jobs we applauded all the way through the pandemic?

[David Rutley]

I understand the hon. Member’s point, and that is why we have taken steps in that direction. I was going to come on to that in my speech, but I will come to it now. The national living wage, which we have already talked about, is projected to increase to £10, and other steps are being taken. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Easington would have the courtesy to let me respond. He raised that question earlier in the debate. Another important point is that policies, such as the increase in work allowances and the reduction in the taper rate for people on universal credit, are helping people in work to progress, do better and flourish.

We have already seen the creation of exiting job opportunities in the north-east, including through the industrial zone at the UK’s largest freeport, Teesworks, which is expected to create 20,000 jobs. Many of them are in green energy, establishing literally a green industry revolution in a region that many hon. Members participating in the debate represent. We should not forget that 6,000 jobs will be created as a result of Nissan’s plans for the UK’s first large-scale battery factory, as part of a £1 billion electric vehicle hub in Sunderland. That is alongside Stockton being on the frontline in the battle against covid, with the Novavax vaccine being made in Billingham later this year.

Opportunities abound in the north-east. Of course, we need to go further. I am disappointed that we are not hearing about these opportunities. So often we recognise that there are challenges, but there are also opportunities, and this Government are working hard to create them.

Regional Inequalities: Child Poverty

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for securing this debate. Sadly, during the last 12 years of Tory Governments, the squeeze on wages has meant that in-work poverty has hit new highs, with one in six working households below the poverty line. That has meant that, in my hometown and constituency of Middlesbrough, over the past five years alone, relative child poverty levels have almost doubled, and two out of five children now live in households with an income below the poverty line.

Those in need are now set to be hit by the Tories’ cruel and callous slashing of universal credit, along with their plans to raise national insurance contributions. All the while, the cost of living crisis is shooting up, thanks, in part, to the Government’s catastrophic mishandling of the fuel crisis.

We know that we are one of the most unequal countries in Europe. We have pockets of incredible wealth and of shameful poverty and marginalisation. That is undoubtedly a regional issue, but inequalities also exist within our regions, with obscene levels of wealth alongside destitution. That inequality has widened under this Tory Government. They have frozen pay and benefits while billionaires—Russians included—have flourished.

Shared prosperity funds, towns funds and future high street funds will not do what is fundamentally necessary to close the gap of regional inequality, which is to return power and resources to the communities where they rightly belong. The Tory trick of creating competitions for communities, pitting them against each other for central Government funding, must be exposed as the divisive pork-barrel politics that it really is.

The hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) talked about making work pay. Okay, let’s do that. If we are really serious about giving workers the security, prosperity and respect that they rightly deserve, then we must have a plan to make it happen. We in the Opposition do. To begin with, we would not increase taxes for working people or cut universal credit. Instead, we would bring in a windfall tax on the oil and gas giants to help with the rising bills. We would give Britain a pay rise and deliver a new contract for the British people.

[Peter Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman is making some important points. As for giving things back to communities, he knows, as I do, that our region, Tees Valley, has had devolution, and our Tory Mayor is delivering jobs and opportunities for our region. The hon. Gentleman talks about the opportunity to serve a windfall tax on energy companies; that windfall tax would prevent those oil and gas companies from investing in and transitioning to the renewables that we so desperately need.

[Andy McDonald]

Well, if that was actually going to happen, the Tory Tees Valley Mayor would have no hesitation in bringing the trade unions into the conversation to ensure that they had good, secure, unionised, well-paid jobs. However, he refuses to do so.

As I was saying, that is why I was so honoured to work with our trade unions chairing our power in the workplace taskforce and produce our party’s Green Paper, “a new deal for working people”. I am delighted that that has been adopted as party policy, because that would mean that we would be raising pay for all, ending the scourge of in-work poverty, and delivering a social security system that provides a safety net for all with decent sick pay.

We would use public procurement for supporting good work, as our wonderful Welsh Labour Government are doing in Cardiff. We would empower workers to act as a collective to secure better terms and conditions. We would establish fair pay agreements, recognised in law, providing a floor across industries and sectors—think about the care workers. We would create a single status of workers and put an end to all the variations thereon, including bogus self-employment, and give all workers day-one rights on the job. We would strengthen the rights of the employed and self-employed, letting working people have a secure, stable income on which to build a good life. We would ban zero-hours contracts and outlaw the tactics of fire and rehire, and so much more. Lastly, we would repeal the trade union legislation, to enable our trade unions to bargain for their members.

We are at a crossroads; we can either return to the status quo of outsourcing, privatisation, exploitation, and extraction of value, which will only extend regional inequality and child poverty, or we can take a different path: one that will deliver for our people, truly bringing an end to the scourge of child poverty and regional inequalities. Poverty is a political choice; let us choose to eradicate it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siobhain McDonagh]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andy McDonald]

Will the Minister give way?

Social Security and Pensions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

No, I will make some progress. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will chunter later, and I will look forward to that.

Since the start of the pandemic, the Government have assisted the country, its people and its businesses with more than £400 billion in support. Since 2011, the Secretary of State has used the consumer prices index for the year to September as the measure for price inflation in her annual statutory review of benefit rates. The Bank of England forecasts that CPI will reach 7% in spring, before falling to 5.2% in quarter 1 next year and returning to a more historically normal level of 2.1% by the beginning of 2024. CPI will be the measure used in the Secretary of State’s application of the triple lock, which will mean that the new and basic state pensions increase by the highest of earnings growth in the year to May and July 2022, CPI in the year to September 2022 or 2.5%.

Using the same period for CPI each year—I think this is the point that the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) was making, and I am keen to get to his point—means that the peaks and troughs are evened out over time. Around half the time, CPI in the year to April is lower than it is in the year to the preceding September, and around half the time it is higher, so there is a smoothing effect. I understand the point that he makes.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

The Minister is making an interesting point. He talks about peaks and troughs and smoothing, but inflation is going in only one direction. At the end of this process, will people who are dependent on benefits be worse off or better off? It looks to me as though they are going to have a tough time on top of an already tough time.

[David Rutley]

We recognise that these are challenging times, and that is why, as I said to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the Chancellor set out last week what we are doing to support vulnerable people with the rising costs of energy. We are taking steps to recognise and lean into the peaks in the inflationary pressures that we are seeing not just in the UK, but globally. We recognise the impact that global increases in energy prices are having on household finances. As the Chancellor announced recently, from 1 April the energy price cap will rise from £1,277 to £1,971—an increase of almost £700 in energy bills for the average household. We are introducing crucial and timely measures to help with the increased costs, as part of a comprehensive package of support worth £9.1 billion in 2022-23.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) who, unlike most of his colleagues, makes quite a thoughtful contribution that is perhaps just slightly more in touch with what is happening on the ground in our constituencies.

Not to diverge from that moment of conciliation, I too pay tribute to our work coaches, as the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck)—and the Minister did. I am looking forward to yet another visit to Shettleston jobcentre in my constituency—I actually used to have more jobcentres in my constituency, but the UK Government in their infinite wisdom decided to shut three out of four jobcentres in Glasgow a few years ago. Although I have massive ideological differences with the Department for Work and Pensions, I have nothing but respect for the work coaches at the jobcentres, who do a phenomenal job, albeit implementing policy from Whitehall with which I profoundly disagree.

If a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, it is fair to say that our social security safety net is our society’s weakest link. We are debating the annual uprating orders against the unique backdrop of an ever-worsening cost of living crisis, with the very poorest in our constituencies consistently left behind by a Tory Government who are not focused on doing their day job. The cost of living crisis comes on the back of universal credit being slashed by £20 a week, which was the single biggest cut to social security since the formation of the modern welfare state. Those of us who do not sit in Caxton House’s ivory towers can see that millions of our fellow citizens are facing real hardship right now. The British Government must urgently reverse their universal credit cut and instead introduce an emergency package to support families and boost incomes.

Our economy has not recovered to where it was pre pandemic, yet we have soaring inflation on a scale not seen for decades, which shows no sign of going away any time soon. Consumer prices were 5.4% higher in December 2021 than they were a year before—the highest inflation rate in almost 30 years. In mid-December the Bank of England forecast that the CPI inflation rate would remain at around 5% over winter, before rising to 6% in April 2022. However, based on last week’s forecasts from the Bank of England, we can now safely expect inflation to rise to over 7% in just a couple of months. The rise in CPI inflation coincides with the perfect storm of a significant rise in energy bills, by 54%, to an average of £1,971 from April. Then we have to add to the mix the Tories’ regressive and deeply unpopular national insurance hike, which will clobber the very youngest and the lowest earners in the country.

It is not just the Opposition, and indeed the SNP, that are raising the alarm about the cost of living crisis. New analysis from Citizens Advice Scotland found that an estimated 640,000 people—around one and seven—are finding their household energy bills unaffordable due to low incomes, with the figure set to increase due to the energy price hike. Yes, I acknowledge that the autumn Budget made some modest adjustments to the taper rate for universal credit, but only for those who are in work. For context, that actually impacts only four in every 10 universal credit claimants.

Analysis from the House of Commons Library shows that over 340,000 households in Scotland are directly affected by the £20 a week cut to universal credit, with incomes slashed by £1,040 per year. To help the Minister understand, that is £1,040 a year less for people to spend in our communities on gas, electricity and the weekly food shop. I can tell the Minister that my low-income constituents in Parkhead, as I suspect is also the case for his in Macclesfield, will not be finding that extra £1,000 in their savings, because many of our constituents live month to month and hand to mouth. Instead, the Minister’s constituents, like mine, will be going without food or heat just to try to keep their heads above water this winter. That is why charities such as the respected Trussell Trust, whose food banks are in increased demand, want the Government to reinstate that £20 cut from universal credit. They want to stop families “spiralling into destitution” with steeply rising costs for heating and food.

Besides reversing cuts to universal credit, the British Government must urgently deliver a financial package to help families by delivering a low-income energy payment, matching the Scottish child payment UK-wide, introducing a real living wage and increasing statutory sick pay in line with a real living wage.

[Andy McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent contribution. Universal credit was uplifted in response to the covid crisis. The situation for the poorest in our society has not improved over this period, and in fact, going into this cost of living crisis, it is getting worse and worse. Does he therefore agree that it is a completely unsustainable position to remove that £20 uplift in universal credit, and that the correct response, among the many responses, should be to restore that with immediate effect?

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I think we all welcomed the increase to universal credit at the beginning of the pandemic, but it was a clear admission by the UK Government that social security was inadequate in its current form. A lot of people were plunged into using universal credit, perhaps for the first time, and it was their only interaction with the social security system. Lo and behold, many of those people using the social security system for the first time ever realised that a lot of the stereotypes and nonsense that comes out of Whitehall about a life on benefits somehow being luxurious and about lying around watching “The Jeremy Kyle Show” were not actually the case, and that the social security system was so poor. It is only a suspicion of mine, but I think that is why Ministers at the time decided to put that £20 in place. I say to the hon. Gentleman and the Minister that if the Government could concede in March 2020 that universal credit was inadequate, surely they have to understand that it is inadequate now.

The other point that I am sure the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) would have made is that the uplift was not extended to those on legacy benefits. People in receipt of legacy benefits had increased costs as a result of the pandemic and having a disability. Some 2.5 million people in these islands were denied that £20 uplift by the Government. That is subject to action in the High Court, and the Government would have done well to realise that they should not have had to be taken to a legal court on that, and that the policy was morally wrong in the court of public opinion.

The orders before the House do not do any of the things I have suggested need to be done in reforming social security, and it cannot always be left to the devolved Governments of these islands to try to alleviate bad social security policy from a heartless and callous Westminster Government for which Scotland did not vote. Indeed, we have not voted for a Conservative Government since the 1950s. While the SNP is doubling the Scottish child payment in April, the Tories at Westminster have cut £20 a week in universal credit from some of the very same families, knowingly pushing thousands of families into poverty.

Scotland’s SNP Government are already spending £71 million to mitigate in full the bedroom tax and an additional £10.9 million to mitigate other welfare cuts, including the benefit cap and changes to local housing allowance rates. As the former UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, pointed out,

“mitigation comes at a price and is not sustainable.”

I guess the question I would pose not just to the Government, but to all parties in the House, is this: is the sum total of their ambition for devolution simply to be a sticking plaster for Westminster’s ever-weakening social security net?

Far too many households have been left behind and will not benefit from this uprating, because the Tories are refusing to fix known policy failures. It is not just universal credit that needs fixing. When it comes to the benefit cap, thousands of households have seen their incomes hit hard because the Government have refused to extend the grace period that gives claimants nine months’ exemption from the benefit cap. As the Poverty Alliance points out, how the benefit cap is designed means that those who require the highest level of support from the benefit system are the most likely to be affected. That is simply unjust and it is having a brutal and real impact on low-income families.

Based on the DWP’s latest figures, 180,000 households have had their benefits capped, including more than 6,400 households in Scotland. The benefit cap disproportionately impacts lone-parent families—the majority of whom are women—as well as larger families and black and minority ethnic families.

While we are at it, we need to address the two-child limit and the associated rape clause. Quite simply, thousands of families with children are being pushed into poverty because the British Government refuse to scrap the two-child limit on child tax credit and universal credit. I do not know how the two-child limit and the associated rape clause ever got past the Government’s family test, but I am sure the Minister will reflect on that in his winding-up speech.

Research by the Child Poverty Action Group shows that the majority of those affected by the two-child limit are families with three children and, indeed, the majority are working families. In April last year, 1.1 million children were affected by the two-child limit—237,000 more than the previous year. That number will continue to grow, as nearly all low-income families with three or more children eventually become subject to the limit.

The five-week wait for the first payment is also needlessly pushing people into hardship. That could be easily fixed by implementing our proposal to turn advance payment loans into non-repayable grants after the claimant is deemed eligible.

I will turn to sanctions, because far too many households face destitution because DWP rules push them into debt through sanctions and deductions. The Minister will recall that last week I tagged him in a tweet about the fact that it took his Department 151 days to reply to my letter about a constituency case. If the DWP can sanction my constituents for failure to attend a jobcentre or for turning up late, I wonder whether we would do well to sanction the Minister for not keeping up with his correspondence pile or for failing to reply to Members of this House. I am reminded of the old saying that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

The SNP has long called for the UK Government to fix these utterly fundamental flaws in the UK’s social security system. We need to deliver a system that actively tackles poverty and inequality, and that empowers people. Put bluntly, Scotland’s Government, though they wish to, cannot change these policies, as 85% of welfare expenditure and income replacement benefits remain reserved to this place and to UK Ministers. That includes universal credit, which is a reserved benefit.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) will touch on the pensions aspects of the orders, so I will draw my remarks to a close with what is becoming an annual comment from me on uprating. The Westminster austerity agenda continues to punish and to make life a misery for some of the most vulnerable people in all our constituencies. I know that the orders we are debating tonight are an annual formality for the House, but so long as Scotland remains bound to Westminster, I and my party will always speak up for the most vulnerable and make the case for a decent, robust and generous social security system. There is no escaping the fact that, until Scotland is independent, we are forced to accept the majority of social security policy from a Westminster Government we did not vote for and whose support can, at best, be described as meagre.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Mills]

No, I think the Chancellor could do that at any point and, as I said, he can make changes to the biggest benefit system quite quickly if he sees the need to.

The case that I am trying to make to the Minister is that, at times, the Government can act much faster. I accept that huge investment in IT for legacy benefits that we are phasing out may not be effective, but I would have thought that, in the modern world, with the more modern systems, we could move on from basing the April rise on the inflation position six months earlier. I hope that the Government can find a way to base the rise at least on the December measure, so it is only three months out of date. I accept that for most years that would not make much difference, and for some years it could actually mean a slightly lower rise than using the September figure, but at least that would give us the best possible protection against this awful situation. Inflation is already much higher than it was at the reference point, and it will be even higher still by the time these amounts are paid.

I fear that the position is even worse than that at which I started—that of believing that benefits are in the right place and therefore an inflationary rise is needed. I genuinely fear that many of the benefits we have are now lower than people need, so a lower than inflation rise for benefits that are already too low leaves people in an impossible position. That is why I supported retaining the £20 uplift in universal credit.

I have told the Government many times that, if they believe that all these benefits are sufficient for the standard of living that we want people to have, they should do and publish an assessment of the basket of things that people have to buy and prove they can afford to buy them all. I would then happily support them. If such an assessment showed that benefits were too high, we could have a debate, but it is incredibly unlikely that it would show that. It is overwhelmingly likely that it would show that the measures that were necessary over the last 10 years have ended up going too far and that we are not giving people enough for the decent standard of living they ought to have. If that is so, we need to fix them. I challenge the Government to publish that assessment over the next year and prove their case that benefits are okay. Let us then get the inflationary increase done right. We cannot keep having this same debate in which many of us think that benefits are not in the right place and yet we cannot prove it because that is for the Government to do and, for some reason, they do not want to.

[Andy McDonald]

The hon. Member is making an excellent point about the assessment that would be needed. Does he think that, in an assessment of adequacy, it would be relevant to factor in the consequences of underpayment in terms of monetising demand on other services that people go to? There is a cost to poverty and usually it is extraordinarily expensive not just for the person suffering from it but in regard to the demand on other governmental services.

[Nigel Mills]

I absolutely agree that asking people to live without enough money to heat their houses and to eat creates all manner of knock-on consequences that will inevitably end up costing the taxpayer money in the long run. It should not be a big challenge or a contentious point of debate to want to ensure that the benefits we are giving the poorest in society are enough for them to live on, so I cannot see why we would not publish periodic analysis just to check that everything is in working order.

We should remember that many millions of people cannot go and get a different job or work a few extra hours to make up the difference. They cannot work, they are retired or they are not in work—they have no chance to earn an income, so what we give them is what they get, and we need to make sure that it is sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I resent the premise of this debate. I resent the Government bringing forward an unamendable order on such a significant issue, because that leads to the conclusion, as the hon. Members for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) said, that if we reject the order there will be no increase whatsoever. We should not allow Parliament to be blackmailed in that way. The response is fairly straightforward: on the issue of poverty in this country, there has to come a time when this House rises up. We have heard example after example. We can all give examples from our own constituencies—the heartbreaking stories of how people are suffering at the moment. So we should not accept the Government bringing forward an unamendable order and expecting us either to go through the Lobby like sheep and vote for it, or to abstain.

[Andy McDonald]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this country is facing a crisis that is being visited on the poor, and that to put this House in the position of simply having to accept it is absolutely reprehensible? We should be demanding that this order be taken away and that we get a proper settlement and a proper increase for the people most in need. Surely that is the duty of this Parliament.

[John McDonnell]

I completely concur. I understand those who say that if we vote against this tonight we will be accused of voting against an increase, but far from it—if we vote against it we will be instructing the Government to come back immediately with an alternative that meets the cost of living challenge that working people now face.

It is no good relying on statistics from seven months ago when we know the crisis that people are facing. I find it interesting that the Government can arrive at flexibility when they are saving money but not when they want to assist our constituents. I say that because I was here for the debate on the triple lock. At that time, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has pointed out, we were facing the prospect of an increase of 8% based on the triple lock linked to earnings. Actually, that was pretty damn accurate as to what people would be facing. The Government were fleet of foot. They scrapped the triple lock altogether, suspended its operation and then came forward with this.

Every Member who has spoken so far, on both sides of the House, has said that this will mean a cut in people’s living standards when faced with the prospect of a 7% rate of inflation. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) eloquently set out the rationale for why the Government needed to do more, but I say to him that the Government will not do more unless this House is firm in its view and rejects this order tonight. They will not come back with an emergency package unless we start kicking up a fuss on both sides of the House. That is why they have come to the House with an unamendable order. They were worried that if there was an amendable order, we could have had a majority in this House for doing something better on behalf of our constituents. I find it outrageous that they have tried to put us in this position.

The hon. Member for Amber Valley, who is no longer here, made an extremely interesting speech, as he always does. I do not usually agree with him on much, but he always presents an argument we can understand—or a rationale, anyway. His argument to the Government was that if they are trying to tell us that their social security system is meeting the needs of our people, they should publish the basket of goods, the costings and so on. Well, the Government do not do that, but others do.

Frequent reference has been made tonight to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s analysis of poverty and of what the Government’s measures will do. The figures are startling. Over 8 million working households are in poverty, as are 2.1 million pensioners and 4.3 million of our children. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) made the point that, in the fifth richest country in the world, we have over 4 million children living in poverty. The figure for disabled people is now 3.8 million, which has increased dramatically over the last four or five years as a result of benefit cuts.

I am not willing to sit here tonight and be blackmailed into either voting for this motion or abstaining. I want the opportunity to vote against it and to give an instruction to the Government to go away and do better: to come back with a real proposal that will increase benefits, at least so that they match inflation. After 11 years of austerity, I would expect the Government to be coming up with proposals to start making up some of the ground that has been lost over that time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) said.

I will make one final point. Every time we have one of these debates, we get a Government Minister telling us how wonderful they are because they have created all these new jobs that people can go into. I met a group of unpaid carers this morning, and I said that it looked as though their allowance was going to go from 67% to 69%. Given the hours they work as unpaid carers, even if they are doing 35 hours per week—most of them do triple that at times—they will be paid something like £2 an hour for what they do. Unpaid carers save this country about £130 billion in costs that would otherwise fall on the state. They cannot get other jobs because they are looking after their relatives. They are desperately underfunded and most of them, as a result, are living in poverty. This order will do nothing for them whatsoever.

My commitment to that group of carers I met this morning means that I will not vote for this. I will vote against it, and I will demand better action from this Government. I will demand that Ministers go away and come back tomorrow with a realistic proposal that will tackle poverty in this country and lift at least some of those carers out of the hardship and suffering that they are unfortunately experiencing at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

As we explained during oral questions earlier today, we are providing a package of £58 billion in support for the disabled, and we are working incredibly hard to ensure that more of them who are able to do so can get into work. A huge package is available. We have talked about the three-part plan that the Chancellor set out last week, involving £9 billion of support to tackle the energy challenges facing people across the country, in addition to the normal support that we provide.

[Andy McDonald]

Will the Minister give way?

[David Rutley]

I will make some more progress.

The aim over the two years of the pandemic has been to give fairness to pensioners by protecting the value of the state pension in 2021-22, despite the decline in earnings, and to taxpayers in 2022-23 by suspending the earnings limb of the triple lock because of a statistical anomaly, distorted by the cumulative effects of the economic impacts of coronavirus. Although inflation rose by 0.5% last year, pensions rose by 2.5%, and this year they rose by 3.1%. Over two years, pensions have risen by 5.6%.

The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) made an important point about pension credit take-up. I have been speaking to my colleague the Pensions Minister, who says that take-up increased from 71% in 2017-18 to 77% in 2018-19. However, more work is clearly needed, and we are working very hard to increase awareness.