DWP Estate: Office Closures

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if she will make a statement on proposed office closures in the Department’s estate.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance on whether it is orderly for an hon. Member who has taken very substantial donations from a trade union to ask an urgent question on a matter of direct interest to that trade union?

--- Later in debate ---

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

At the Department for Work and Pensions, we constantly look at ways to improve our services. I wish to say up-front that we know it is important to communicate changes to all relevant stakeholders so that everyone understands our plans and why we are making changes.

This seems to be an unusual situation, Mr Speaker. It is very disappointing that the embargo agreed with the Public and Commercial Services Union does not seem to have been respected. Clearly, our staff should be the top priority at this time. I hope colleagues will understand that I am not able to go into all the detail this morning as we are briefing affected colleagues as we speak. In fact, the delivery of the first stage of the strategy is being announced to affected colleagues at 10.30 today—right now. The Minister for Employment will write to MPs with an affected site in their constituency after 1 pm today, and there will be a written statement to Parliament tomorrow morning. The letter to MPs will include notification of a virtual surgery that the Minister for Employment will hold on Wednesday 23 March.

The change is to back-of-house offices and will support the delivery of the Government priorities to get more people back into employment, to deliver long-term savings for the taxpayer and to meet Government commitments to modernise public services. The Department has developed a strategy that will, over the next 10 years, reshape and improve how, where and when it delivers services to claimants. The Department is transitioning to an estate that is smaller, greener and better. This will deliver substantial benefits by increasingly developing modern, secure, resilient, sustainable and automated systems to drive better experiences for our customers, colleagues and taxpayers.

The plans for the next three-year period affect the future delivery of back-of-house services—that is, services that are delivered remotely via telephone and online, without the need to see customers face to face. I assure the House that the plans do not affect Jobcentre Plus and customer-facing roles. We have been engaging fully with PCS union representatives at the sites affected since January, and PCS union representatives will be present at sites for the announcements today, as the House would expect. Our focus today is, of course, on supporting staff through the changes.

Changes to DWP estates are not unusual. Like most public services, we are always looking to meet our customers’ changing needs, reflecting developments in technology and the approaches of successive Governments. We value our staff and are working with them now to support those who will be affected by the changes as we seek to deliver the best possible services to our customers at all times.

[Chris Stephens]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my position as chair of the PCS parliamentary group—which, of course, contains more than 100 Members of Parliament.

Will the Minister confirm that the announcement could mean that 3,000 jobs in the Department for Work and Pensions are at risk of redundancy? What measures will he take to ensure that that does not happen? Has there been an equality impact assessment of the proposals? I am thinking particularly about the impact on employees who have disabilities, for example, and may not be able to move to another location that may be miles away.

The Minister is aware that the proposals were first mooted six years ago and that the Department is looking to close offices in areas of high economic deprivation. That seems rather counterintuitive in the context of the so-called levelling-up agenda. Has an economic assessment been made of the closures and their impact on the local economies in the areas where it is proposed to close offices?

[David Rutley]

On our plans, we have, as I said, been working closely with colleagues and PCS over recent months. Around 12,000 colleagues will be moving from one site to another that is in close proximity—that will involve around 28 sites. Around 1,300 colleagues could be involved at sites where there is no other strategic site nearby. We are looking at what opportunities there are within the DWP and at what other opportunities there might be across other Government Departments. We have seen in other areas how this can work, and we are committed to doing that. Clearly, we will look at any other options that might work for those individuals.

Let me turn to the impact on the local economies. There are not normally too many people involved on each individual site, but, clearly, we have been working very hard to strengthen local economies, with the opening of a large number of new jobcentres. Again, I stress that this is about back-of house roles. This will not impact on jobcentres and the customer-facing interactions within the constituencies.

In-work Poverty

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered in-work poverty.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. Before I start, I want to pass on our best wishes, from all sides of the House, to the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), who I am sorry to hear has covid. I am sure that her colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), will do an admirable job in her place.

Work should always be a pathway and route out of poverty. The fact that the phrase “in-work poverty” even exists is a damning indictment of successive Conservative Government policies over the past 12 years. The Government are clearly making life harder for working people, as I will illustrate with a number of examples. I am conscious that a large number of Members want to participate in this important debate, so I will truncate my remarks, but I want to illustrate my argument with some examples from a number of sectors.

Clearly, one of the issues is the increase in taxes and national insurance, which is in direct contravention of a commitment that the Conservatives made in their last general election manifesto. We are also having to deal with the problem of the huge increases in energy prices that the Government, via Ofgem, have allowed to take place. Members may recall that I had a question for the Prime Minister last Wednesday in order to contrast the position of the French Government, who have capped energy price rises at 4%, with that of our Government, who have capped energy price rises at an incredible 54%. That has had a huge impact on people who are in work.

Fuel poverty, food poverty, energy poverty, housing poverty and child poverty are all measures of economic failure, and they are all on the increase. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, one in eight workers are struggling to make ends meet. If work guaranteed a decent standard of living, the UK would be going through a golden age of prosperity. Instead, the Conservative party has delivered successive year-on-year policies of austerity over a decade. The social security safety net has given way, after a decade of wear and tear.

Without the most basic protection, a decade of pay cuts and wage stagnation has left working families ill prepared. Many have no savings at all, and people certainly have far less resilience to cope with the current cost of living crisis. In the workplace, we have seen employment rights deliberately weakened, a dramatic increase in the number of zero-hours contracts, and an expansion of the gig economy, with a growing proportion of working people in insecure employment.

I also want to mention the appalling employment practices. Poor employment practices, such as fire and rehire, are rife, even with very profitable and long-established companies, some of which are household names. Despite recent and repeated assurances from Ministers at the Dispatch Box—often condemning the practice—they have done nothing to outlaw the practice of fire and rehire by rogue employers. The Government have disregarded the interests of working people and dismissed the private Member’s Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner).

The key workers we all clapped for and honoured during lockdown are bearing the brunt of our low-wage, poverty-pay economy. Figures produced by the TUC reveal that 43% of north-east key workers—over 173,000 people —earn below £10 an hour. Personally, I do not think that £15 an hour is an unreasonable ask in this day and age.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I thank my honourable comrade for giving way. Is he as surprised as I am at a recent article, published by The Herald newspaper and The Ferret website, showing that 20% of jobs advertised on the Department for Work and Pensions website paid under the national minimum wage rate of £9.50? The Department really needs to launch an inquiry into why that is the case.

[Grahame Morris]

Absolutely. It should concern us all when the DWP is advertising jobs that fall below the minimum standard and even the limited protections afforded to working people.

We know that even a modest increase in the minimum wage to £10 an hour would transform the lives of key workers, including one in three care workers—so many of us applaud care workers for their contribution, particularly during the pandemic—and 173,000 childcare workers. It would raise the incomes of over half a million people.

Workers across the country are struggling to feed their families and heat their homes. I will give some examples, including one I received from the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. Like many of us, I have met the cleaners employed by the Churchill Group who are fighting for a real living wage of £15 an hour. I will also highlight the fact that the GMB trade union is campaigning against real-terms pay cuts for nearly 150,000 ASDA staff, and the ongoing University and College Union strike in the university sector. The pattern is the same: terms, conditions, wages and pension rights are being eroded; workers who try to negotiate are blocked, ignored and blamed; while well-paid directors shrug their shoulders with uninterest, often while picking up huge bonuses.

The workers who kept our supermarket shelves stacked during the pandemic are now struggling to feed their own families. I was shown a survey by the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers’ Union, which was very illuminating; it was conducted by the union of its members, who are in the food sector. It found that between February and March 2021, 40% of those surveyed had eaten less than they should have eaten because they did not have sufficient cash; 35% had eaten less than they should have to ensure that other members of their household got a meal; and 21% relied on goods and contributions from family and friends to make ends meet. These are people who are in work—shift workers who supplied the country with bread during the pandemic.

I will also highlight the excellent Right to Food Campaign, which was mentioned in this very Chamber yesterday. The campaign was set up and promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), and it has been endorsed by my own union, Unite. It seeks to make the Government responsible for addressing the raging income inequalities and the broken benefit system that have pushed so many people into a spiral of poverty.

I saw a quote on social media just before this debate and thought how relevant it is to what we are discussing, because we are talking about the cost of living crisis. The country has more than enough resources and more than enough money to keep everyone warm, housed, free from hunger and properly clothed; in fact, the country has enough wealth to do that a hundred times over. So it is not really a cost of living crisis; what we have is an inequality crisis.

I think the Government should scrap some of the provisions that currently apply to those in receipt of universal credit. Let us not forget that a substantial number of those in receipt of universal credit are in work—they are the working poor. The five-week wait before they can receive a penny is a major contributing factor to the huge increase in the number of people having to turn to food banks.

We need to start putting people before profits. Sadly—it is lamentable, really—poverty has become the norm in Britain; it has become normalised. Yards away from where we are having this debate, homeless people are freezing on the streets and sleeping rough for want of a home. Children go hungry. We see Members of Parliament, particularly Members of the Conservative party, posing for photographs at food banks, and I think the irony must be lost on them that those food banks exist only because of the policies that this Government have promoted.

To return to energy prices, the French Government have capped cost rises at 4%, Germany has cut tariffs and Spain has introduced a windfall tax on the energy companies. But here in Britain, standing charges are doubling and the energy price cap will see energy bills rise by 54%—that is £700 more on average—for our families. Peterlee is the biggest town in my constituency, and EDF, one of the big six energy companies, has many customers there. It is interesting to contrast what is happening in Peterlee with what is happening in Paris. Will the Minister explain why French state-owned EDF can cap cost increases at 4% in Paris while my constituents in Peterlee face a 54% increase in their bills?

Tax rises are exacerbating the cost of living crisis as many in our nation struggle with rising prices. I happened to meet a farmer last weekend, and we chatted about a number of issues. He grows oilseed rape and wheat, and he said that the price of wheat is doubling, and that the price of fertiliser is doubling as well, which will cost him an extra £10,000 a year. He reliably informed me that the cost of wheat, which was £150 a tonne, is now £300 a tonne. That will filter through into dramatic increases in food costs for staples such as bread. The prices of many basic staples, including margarine, tomatoes and apples have increased by as much as 45% in the past year.

Figures from the Trussell Trust and the Independent Food Aid Network show that more than 3 million food bank parcels were distributed in 2020-21. I tried to get the figures for the food banks operating in my constituency —at the community centre in Dawdon and at the East Durham Trust in Peterlee—but they are not part of the Trussell Trust, so the excellent work that they do is not included in those statistics, meaning that the figure is even bigger.

Average petrol and diesel prices are £1.61 and £1.73 per litre respectively, but regional public transport is expensive and unreliable after a decade of neglect, meaning that families have no alternative to protect against increasing fuel costs. The energy cap is up at 54%, and further increases are in the pipeline. The Conservative party once promised to be the “greenest government ever”, but the Public Accounts Committee recently described the green homes grant as a “slam dunk fail”.

House prices are rising beyond the reach of first-time buyers; sky-high rental costs leave little at the end of the month for deposits and savings; and we as a country have abandoned council housing, which is quite disgraceful—that social housing delivered low-cost homes for the post-war generation.

Nelson Mandela said:

“poverty…is man-made and can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings… Overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of justice. It is the protection of a fundamental human right, the right to dignity and a decent life… While poverty persists, there is no true freedom.”

Once again, we see that poverty is a political choice. It is a Conservative political choice, and one that this Government should be ashamed of.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see a friend of the worker in the Chair, Ms Rees. I thank my good friend and comrade the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for making an excellent speech to kick off the debate. The contributions—with the possible exception of one—have been very impressive indeed.

I want to make a number of points. First, in-work poverty and inadequate living standards remain the norm for far too many people on these islands. We urge the UK Government to look at the minimum wage rates in the country. They need to not only amend the definition of a worker, but go further by strengthening protection for workers.

The UK is experiencing the highest levels of in-work poverty this century, which disproportionately impacts groups facing high living costs, such as lone parents—the majority of whom are women—disabled people and people with caring responsibilities. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report that was mentioned earlier shows that around two thirds—the actual figure is 68%—of working-age adults in poverty in the UK live in a household where at least one adult is in work. The figure has never been higher since records began in 1996, so we now have the highest ever levels of in-work poverty. For too many people, low-paid jobs offer no opportunities to progress to better work and better wages, and far too many people are in insecure work with unpredictable hours and incomes, which is something that I want to touch on. That is, of course, in stark contrast to the situation in Scotland.

[Grahame Morris]

The hon. Member is making some excellent points, but I wonder what impact the Government’s decision to close jobcentres will have on constituencies such as mine and perhaps 60 others. What impact will that have on alleviating in-work poverty and on encouraging people who are out of work into paid employment?

[Chris Stephens]

It will increase in-work poverty. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government tried to close half the jobcentres in the city of Glasgow. People there are having to spend more money and go further in order to get to a jobcentre to see whether they can get better work.

As we have a Minister from the Department for Work and Pensions in front of us, I want to point out that a number of people claiming universal credit are in work. We have a situation—the Minister responded to a written question on this issue—whereby half of DWP claimants have their universal credit claims deducted. I would argue that that is a poverty tax. In some cases, £60 a month is taken away from someone’s universal credit claim. Universal credit is supposed to be a subsistence benefit that is paid at a rate that people can live on. If we take £60 a month away from them, people have to choose whether to heat or eat. That really needs to end. Advances need to be replaced by an up-front grant or a starter payment, as we argued on the Work and Pensions Committee. The recovery of tax credits needs to be at a lower level, and I would say that debts of more than six years should be written off entirely. There are a number of lawyers in the Chamber and they know that if I try to sue them for a debt that is over six years old, a sheriff in a Scottish court would write that off and absolve the debt.

I also want the Minister to respond to a point that I made earlier during my intervention on the hon. Member for Easington. In the jobs advertisements on the DWP website, 31% of full-time jobs and 50% of parti-time jobs pay less than the real living wage of £9.90 an hour. Some 20% are advertised as paying less than the national living wage of £9.50. I will give three examples: Burger King pays £6 an hour, Pizza Express £6.56 an hour, and Farmfoods £6.66 an hour. None of the adverts clarifies wage rates for different ages, and all the companies have made substantial profits in the last year or two, so increasing the wage rates and asking them to pay more certainly would not harm those businesses all that much. I am talking about multinational companies, and I would like to know what the DWP is going to do about the adverts. Will it refer itself to the national minimum wage compliance unit, which has a number of vacancies? Perhaps we can advertise those jobs on the DWP website.

I want to touch on what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said about discrimination in the national minimum wage rates, because he is absolutely right. There is a nonsensical argument that somehow young people are not active participants in the labour market. If Burger King has a 17-year-old next to a 37-year-old and they are both flipping hamburgers, they are equal participants in the labour market and should be paid the same rate for doing the same work. That is what I call equal pay. The equal pay legislation always encourages people to get the same rate for the same job, the same work.

What would happen if we increased wages? People would spend money. A false argument is also made about public sector pay—that somehow it takes money out of the economy. But that is not how it works. When people get a wage increase, they do not put it in a shoebox and hide it under bed; they go out and spend it in the economy. It means that they can afford things that they could not afford before, so they spend more on food and other items.

To touch on the contribution of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald)—I support his Bill and I know that he supports my Workers (Definition and Rights) Bill—there needs to be a definition of “worker”, so that we can strengthen workers’ rights. For four years the Government have been sitting on the Taylor report, which sought to address the issues, but at the last Queen’s Speech we were told that it was no longer a priority for them. That is scandalous. We need to take a real look at protection for workers and at eliminating zero-hours and other unfair contracts.

Employers are currently able to text four people to say, “The first one here gets the shift.” That has to end. People phone taxis and run out of the house to get there first, spending money as they do so, only to end up as the runner-up and get nothing. That is completely and utterly scandalous. I have included that in my Bill, because we need to address it. We also need to look at flexible working and at strengthening parental, neonatal and miscarriage leave for workers.

SNP MPs have consistently sought to strengthen workers’ rights and have promoted Bills to do so. I commend the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union for its Right to Food campaign. I will welcome that in Glasgow, because it has identified Glasgow South West as one of the constituencies in which it wants to do work. There is much that the Government need to do to address in-work poverty, before it gets even worse.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I understand the point that the hon. Lady makes; she makes it well and she makes it long. Perhaps we could do an Adjournment debate on the subject later. I recognise her point—I was trying to bring in a bit of humour there. With the fuel duty freeze that has been put in place we have been able to keep that cap over time. I recognise that we are in challenging circumstances; that is why the Chancellor has put in place a three-point plan. We have £20 billion set out in this financial year that is designed to help vulnerable people facing challenges and to deal with rising energy costs, £9 billion of which goes to the Chancellor’s three-point plan. We are doing substantial work to try and address those challenges, and we will continue to review the situation. As hon. Members will appreciate, throughout the pandemic we looked at what the challenges were and we responded. We responded well in the Department I work in—universal credit was particularly resilient.

I want to address the questions raised during the debate. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens)—a good man who understands a lot of those matters—asked about jobs being advertised on the DWP website. They go through a process and are checked to make sure that they are at the minimum wage or above—there are obviously some exceptions. If he has further information on that, I will gladly follow up because I know he takes the issue very seriously.

[Chris Stephens]

I will send the Minister the articles from The Ferret website and The Herald, which found 10,000 such jobs in Scotland alone. Does that not suggest that there is a problem?

[David Rutley]

I will take a look at the hon. Gentleman’s point. I am not familiar with all those issues, but he knows that I will follow that up.

Other points were raised about the health and social care levy, the purpose of which is to deal with backlogs in the NHS and the future costs of social care. Those with the broadest shoulders will rightly pick up the bulk of the cost, with the highest earning 14% paying around half of the revenues.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who is no longer in the Chamber, spoke about statutory sick pay. That is just one part of our welfare safety net and the wider Government offer of support for people in times of need. As we move on from the pandemic, the Government are continuing to take a broader look at the role of SSP—we are keeping the system under review.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) always contributes well in these debates; I hope I have addressed some of his points about energy costs. We will continue to take a look at those issues.

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) was concerned about uprating, but we have followed the time-worn process of looking at inflation in the year to September. All benefit ratings since April 1987 have been done on that basis; the Opposition could have changed that approach when they were in Government. However, in recognition of the challenges we face, we have a £20 billion package of support this year to help people.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West also talked about deductions. I remind colleagues that we have put a spotlight on dedications, and we have reduced the maximum amount from 40% to 25%.

[Chris Stephens]

Will the Minister look at the issue of pursuing debts that are over six years old? It seems a nonsense that we still pursue people who have had a debt for longer than that period, and then taking a deduction.

[David Rutley]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but as a member of the Work and Pensions Committee he will also realise that we are experiencing record levels of fraud, and we are absolutely determined to bear down on that. We need to get the balance right, because it is taxpayers’ money that we are talking about.

Pensions Guidance and Advice

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) on securing the debate and on his opening speech.

There was a serious flaw in implementing the pension freedoms. They were announced by George Osborne in his Budget speech in 2014 and implemented the following year. He said in his announcement that

“no one will have to buy an annuity. We are going to introduce a new guarantee, enforced by law, that everyone who retires on these defined contribution schemes will be offered free, impartial, face-to-face advice on how to get the most from the choices they will now have.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 793.]

It was a very clear recognition of the risks involved in people having much more latitude over their pension savings—often the largest sum of money they will ever have access to—and that the Government needed to ensure that everyone had guidance to help them make sound decisions. However, that guarantee has never materialised, and the hon. Member for Amber Valley was absolutely right to say that hundreds of thousands are accessing their pension pots without understanding what they are trying to do.

We do have the Pension Wise service, which is excellent. It is free and impartial, as George Osborne promised, and as the hon. Member for Amber Valley said, it gets very good ratings from those who use it—the problem is that very few people do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) rightly said—I apologise to her for being absent for some of her speech—one of the reasons why Pension Wise is important is so that people can avoid being scammed. In June 2015, I received from the Treasury the answer to parliamentary written question 2227, which said that

“Pension Wise was launched to help people understand their options when taking advantage of the pension freedoms, including how to spot and avoid scams.”

Over the past seven years, there has been a very big phenomenon of pension scams that it is in everybody’s interest to prevent. So the default should be that people get a Pension Wise appointment.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Is the Chair of the Select Committee as concerned as I am that, despite Pension Wise being an excellent service, the number of Pension Wise appointments is actually falling? There is real concern here, which is why many of us want to see auto-appointments.

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

The importance of guaranteeing guidance was stressed repeatedly, not just in George Osborne’s announcement but by the Government in the couple of years afterwards. The Treasury’s public financial guidance review, published for consultation in March 2016, said:

“Guidance is vital to ensure that individuals are fully aware of their options before they make a decision on what to do with their retirement savings”.

The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), who was then Economic Secretary, said in April 2016 that the Government were introducing

“a requirement that, in effect, ensures that consumers with a high-value annuity receive appropriate financial advice before making the decision to sell their annuity”.—[Official Report, 19 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 876.]

In April 2018, her successor—the current Economic Secretary—the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), said that before proceeding with an access or transfer application,

“subject to any exceptions, schemes must ensure that individuals have either received Pension Wise guidance or have opted out.”—[Official Report, 24 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 831.]

That commitment, which the Minister appeared to believe he was delivering four years ago, has never been delivered.

The Treasury has very good reason to be concerned that people should make sound decisions in this area, but so does the Minister’s Department. Baroness Buscombe, when she was a Minister at the Department for Work and Pensions, said in May 2018 that

“We all want people to make more informed decisions and to make it the norm to use Pension Wise before accessing their pension.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 May 2018; Vol. 790, c. 1995.]

Let me quote back to the Minister what he said in a debate on the Pension Schemes Act 2021, that Pension Wise should become the norm. He has since distanced himself a bit from that view, but he did express it: on Third Reading, I said that I was sorry he had not followed Baroness Buscombe and expressed the view that Pension Wise should become the norm, and he intervened on me to correct me. He said:

“I do—I said so.”—[Official Report, 16 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 136.]

I responded to his intervention by welcoming the apparently universal agreement that taking up Pension Wise guidance should be the norm. Everyone agreed, but in October 2020, the Department published the “Stronger Nudge to pensions guidance” statement of policy intent, which said that the new nudges that would be introduced would increase take-up from one in 33 to one in nine. The most recent figures quoted by the Social Market Foundation last week suggest that take-up now stands at about one in seven.

As the hon. Member for Amber Valley said, the expectations at the start were way higher than that. Michelle Cracknell, the then head of the Pensions Advisory Service, which was subsequently absorbed into the Money and Pensions Service, said in evidence in October 2014 that

“ambition is that the take-up rate will be very high, with over 75% of people taking the guidance”,

but that it might only be 25% to start with. In fact, it has never got anywhere near 25%, let alone 75%.

The Committee’s concern about Pension Wise take-up is long-standing and goes back well before I became Chair, to the period years ago when the hon. Member for Amber Valley was a member of the Committee. The Committee’s 2017 report stated:

“Free and impartial Pension Wise guidance, provided by telephone or face-to-face appointment, is greatly valued by those who use it. Take up, however, is not high enough.”

The report went on to point out that

“the existing Pension Wise promotion regime”

had

“proved insufficient.”

It is a very good service: nine out of 10 of those who use it report high or very high satisfaction—that is a pretty impressive—but it is hidden away from most people. The default ought to be that people get an appointment. That is why the Committee has recommended at least trialling automatic Pension Wise appointments.

Sir Hector Sants, the chair of the Money and Pensions Service, told the Committee in March that 72% of people change their mind about what they will do with their pensions savings as a result of talking to Pension Wise. As he pointed out,

“that tells you that the vast majority of people, left to their own devices, will probably make a poor decision.”

As far as I can see, the Government’s current policy will leave the great majority of savers in exactly that position.

We need to do more. Government and regulators need to end their indifference on this. We need at least a trial of auto-enrolment into a service that enables better outcomes from pensions savings. There will no doubt be difficulties, but let us at least try it out. The Money and Pensions Service has told the Committee that it would be very happy to support a trial.

The Committee recommended that

“the Government sets a goal for the Money and Pensions Service for the combined use of Pension Wise and paid-for advice when accessing pension pots for the first time”

of

“at least 60 per cent”.

The Minister suggested in his intervention that he thinks use might not be far from that level at the moment, so let us use that as a clear goal. The Committee also recommended

“that automatic Pension Wise appointments are trialled.”

We suggested

“two trials: one with an appointment when a person accesses their pension for the first time and another at the age of 50, before they can access their pension savings.”

I commend those proposals and recommendations to the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

The Select Committee, of which I am a member, has heard evidence from the Association of British Insurers, the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association, the Financial Inclusion Commission and Age UK, which all say that there should be an evaluation trial of auto-appointments as a means of increasing take-up of pension guidance. They are correct, are they not?

[Alan Brown]

My hon. Friend is right; I was going to come on to that. When the industry and all those bodies are saying that there should be a trial of auto-appointments, it is not controversial, and is something the Government should embrace. It was a Conservative Government that set up the Pension Wise advice system as a complementary service to the pension freedoms legislation, so it surely makes sense that the Government want to ensure that as many people as possible access impartial advice.

According to the Association of British Insurers, over £42 billion has been flexibly withdrawn since 2015, but just 14% of defined-contribution pension pots are accessed after the use of Pension Wise. We are talking about potentially billions of pounds being accessed with a high risk of it not being utilised properly for maximum gain. As the hon. Member for Amber Valley pointed out, people might make decisions that suddenly mean they are in higher tax bracket for the first time in their lives. Simple advice would remedy that.

Realistically, those figures should make the Minister sit up right away and pledge to take action. As others have highlighted, Financial Conduct Authority data confirms that the use of guidance and advice has actually decreased in recent years. Again, that should be an urgent call to action for the Government.

In March 2020, the chairman of the Money and Pensions Service, Sir Hector Sants, told the Work and Pensions Committee:

“A significant number of the people who contact Pension Wise will come away saying that, after having spoken to our guidance service, they have concluded that they should do something different from what they had in mind in the first place… There is a figure that suggests that 72% of people are saying they have changed their mind about what they will do as a result of talking to our guidance service. In a way, that is a simple statistic that tells you that the vast majority of people, left to their own devices, will probably make a poor decision.”

Again, £42 billion has been accessed since 2015, but 72% of the small number of people who received advice ended up making different decisions following receipt and consideration of that advice. The level of cash that is being accessed, with poor decisions possibly made on the back of that, is frightening—and, of course, some people are being scammed altogether.

The chairman of the Financial Conduct Authority, Charles Randell, made the following observation when asked about the adequacy of regulatory policy when he gave oral evidence to the Treasury Committee in November 2020:

“This issue about people making poor choices when exercising the freedoms and responsibilities that have been put on them in the last 10 years, through a variety of changes in Government policy, is probably the one that I worry about most of all.”

Does the Minister not share these concerns? I am concerned that he does not. I welcome the fact that the right hon. Member for East Ham highlighted comments that the Minister has made previously that he does not seem to be holding true to. Is the Minister blind to these concerns that everybody in the industry is raising?

The other crucial aspect in all this is that, for those who have used Pension Wise, it has been deemed a success. When the Government have a success story that they can relay, why are they not trying to build on it and enhance it? The 2019-20 Pension Wise user evaluation found that 94% of appointment users were very or fairly satisfied with their overall experience of Pension Wise; 88% of appointment users said that Pension Wise helped to improve their understanding of pension options; and 70% of Pension Wise users correctly answered eight true or false statements relating to their pension options, compared with 43% of non-users. That last statistic is proof of the additional knowledge gained by accessing impartial advice.

In contrast to the evidence gathered since 2015, the Government’s approach to non-advised savers seems to inhabit a space somewhere between “fingers crossed it’ll be okay” and “if savers stuff it up, that’s their own fault”. Again, that brings me back to what the hon. Member for Amber Valley outlined about the known risk that affects savers; he put it well.

Currently, 19 million people are at various stages of their defined-contribution pension journey. Their retirement outcomes depend, first, on the generosity of their employer’s pension offer and, secondly and critically, on the decisions they make at the accumulation and decumulation stages. If a saver has contributed to pensions for over 40 years, surely it is right that the system does all it can to ensure that they take as little time as 40 minutes for a guidance appointment.

The Minister’s response to this issue of low take-up of guidance and advice has not been to address it directly but instead to point to the “stronger nudge”, as he did earlier, or to other pet projects such as mid-life MOTs and pension dashboards. They are measures that I support, but they are not available in the here and now, whereas Pension Wise is. As for the stronger nudge, the FCA and his own Department admit that, on the basis of trials to date, it is unlikely to have a dramatic effect on guidance take-up. Indeed, the trials suggested that there would be an increase of only 8% in the take-up of advice, so that clearly is not the solution.

Once again, I ask the Minister and the Government to commit to a trial of auto-appointments. Two trials could be considered: one with an appointment when a person accesses their pension for the first time, and another—this idea came from the Select Committee—with an appointment at the age of 50, before someone can access their pension savings, which is the kind of mid-life MOT that the Minister supports. Piloting an auto-appointment system for the Pension Wise service is a clear recommendation of the Work and Pensions Committee, and the Association of British Insurers supports it too.

The Committee also recommended that the UK Government should set a goal of at least 60% of people using Pension Wise, the Government guidance service from MaPS, or receiving paid-for advice when they access their pension pots for the first time. Meeting such a target would see billions of pounds being accessed in a way that minimises the risk of poor decision making by people who are not used to assessing such sums of money.

Will the Minister confirm, once and for all, that he supports a trial of auto-appointments, as recommended by the Select Committee and the industry? It is a no-risk option for the Government to implement. Will he confirm the timescale for such a trial? If not, will he say why he is ignoring the advice and why he is willing to allow people unwittingly to continue making bad decisions with their pension pots? If they are accessing that money and using it for the best means possible, it should be able to support not just them but the wider economy better.

Benefit Cap

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Linden]

Ever since its introduction in 2013, the benefit cap has limited the support that some of the most vulnerable people in our constituencies receive. Based on the latest figures from the Department for Work and Pensions, as of August 2021, 180,000 households have had their benefits capped, including over 6,400 households in Scotland, and are receiving on average £54 per week less in support than they would if the cap was not in place.

Perhaps the most counterproductive aspect of the cap is the fact that the people who require the highest level of support are the most likely to be affected, which is not only unjust but simply does not make sense. Why reduce the amount of support that the most vulnerable people in our society require? On top of that, the vast majority of households affected by the cap are exempt from working to increase their income, either because they have a disability or because they have childcare responsibilities. It is a Catch-22 situation for so many people on benefits: they are unable to work to increase their income and they have their benefits cut regardless.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Is my hon Friend, my good friend, as concerned as I am that having the benefit cap in place is leading to—he has outlined the figures—an increase in food insecurity across these islands, and that the pressures on food banks, pantries and citizen supermarkets will be immense because of the actions of the Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

The internal assessments we have produced—and we have produced several—showed that UC does help more people get into work. At the moment, in an economic environment where there are record vacancies, which I will touch on later, we are helping more people get into work.

The benefit cap was introduced as part of a strategy to reform the system of benefits for people of working age. The cap limits the combined sum of prescribed welfare benefits that households may be entitled to. The aims of the benefit cap policy are: to incentivise behaviours; to encourage people to work and to reduce long-term dependency on benefits; and to introduce greater fairness in the welfare system between those receiving out-of-work benefits and those in work, by putting in place a reasonable limit on the amount a household can receive in welfare benefits. For context, let me say that about four in 10 households earn less than the annual benefit cap’s limits of £23,000 in London and about £20,000 in the rest of Great Britain. The final aim is to make the system more affordable, better balancing the burden on taxpayers. Let us not forget that households can still receive benefits up to the equivalent salary of £24,000—or £28,000 in London.

We continue to protect vulnerable claimants for whom work may not currently be a viable option. In recognition of the additional costs related to a disability, households are exempt from the cap if someone is receiving disability living allowance or a personal independence payment. UC claimants who receive the limited capability for work-related activity element—that phrase is a bit of a mouthful—or employment and support allowance claimants in receipt of the support component are also exempt from the cap.

The Government recognise and appreciate the vital contribution made by carers, which is why there are exemptions for those entitled to carer’s allowance, the carer’s element in UC and guardian’s allowance. Households in receipt of UC are exempt from the cap if their earnings reach just £617 a month, to help encourage people into work. Those who still receive housing benefit are also exempt if they are entitled to working tax credits. Eligible childcare costs that are repaid through UC payments are exempt from the cap. That also supports people getting into work and progressing in employment.

I also want to support those with a strong recent work history who find themselves without work or whose earnings reduce. As a result, the benefit cap is not applied for nine months for those receiving UC where the claimant, their partner or ex-partner has received at least the benefit cap earnings threshold of £617 in each of the previous 12 consecutive months.

I should also remind the House that the proportion of capped households remains low in comparison with the overall working-age benefit case load, at 2.7% across Great Britain. In Scotland, the proportion is even lower, at 1.1%. In the last quarter, to August 2021, on average 710 households every week moved off the cap through increasing their earnings or starting work. There is a statutory duty to review the benefit cap levels once in each Parliament; the country has been through very challenging times, which has delayed that statutory review, but it will happen at the appropriate time in this Parliament, to be determined by the Secretary of State. When the Secretary of State decides to undertake that review, which must currently happen by December 2024, she will consider the national economic situation and any other matters she deems vital at that time.

[Chris Stephens]

rose—

[David Rutley]

I will give way to the esteemed member of the Work and Pensions Committee.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister is being very generous. Can he tell us then, with the assessments the Department is doing of the benefit cap, whether it will do further assessments alongside its much-awaited review on the drivers of food bank use and food aid provision, which the House has waited 18 months for the Department to place in the Commons Library?

[David Rutley]

That report will come forward—I think there have been exchanges between the Committee and the Secretary of State’s office—but we are talking here about a statutory requirement, which certainly will happen during the course of this Parliament. As the hon. Gentleman, a well-respected member of the Committee, will be aware, we have gone through very uncertain times; we must ensure that review is done when we have the proper body of evidence and at the right time. I am sure he will seek to hold the Secretary of State to account during that process, as he rightly should as a member of the Select Committee.

There is clear evidence that work, particularly full-time work, substantially reduces the likelihood of being in poverty. Children living in workless households were around six times more likely to be in absolute poverty before housing costs in 2019-20 than those where all adults worked. At a time of record vacancies, we are not only focusing on getting people into jobs, but taking action to boost the take-home pay of lower-income working households by giving nearly 2 million families an extra £1,000 a year through our cut—

Draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 Draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd February 2022 General Committees

[Chloe Smith]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Huq. Congratulations on joining the Panel of Chairs.

Important improvements in health and safety have restricted the use of asbestos and provided a much safer environment for those handling it. However, the legacy of its widespread use is of course still with us, with people starting to suffer many years—normally, decades—after exposure, when they can develop serious and often fatal diseases, such as diffuse mesothelioma. That long latency period can make it difficult for those affected, or their families, to bring a successful claim for civil damages—for example, because their former employer may simply no longer exist. They can, however, still claim compensation, through two schemes that aim, where possible, to ensure that people with diseases prescribed in regulations receive compensation in their lifetime, without having to wait for the outcome of civil litigation, which can take a long time.

There is the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 scheme, which provides a lump sum to people who have one of five dust-related respiratory diseases, including diffuse mesothelioma, and who cannot claim damages from an employer because they have gone out of business. Rates are based on the level of the disablement assessment and the age of the person at diagnosis. There is also the 2008 mesothelioma lump sum payments scheme, established by the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008. That scheme was introduced to provide compensation to people with diffuse mesothelioma who could not claim compensation under the 1979 Act—for example, because they were self-employed or their asbestos exposure was not due to their work. Again, payments for mesothelioma are made at the 100% disablement rate and based on age, with the highest payments going to the youngest people with the disease. Under each scheme, a claim can be made by a dependant if the person with the disease has passed away. Overall, 2,670 awards were made across both schemes in 2020-21, with the awards totalling £42.4 million.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

The Minister mentioned dependants. Consistently, both Opposition parties have raised the issue of the big disparities in compensation payments between sufferers and dependants, and we got a commitment from the Minister’s predecessor last year that the Government would look at that issue and look at providing an equality impact assessment on these benefits. Can this Minister please update us on that and what progress has been made to address the disparities between sufferers and dependants?

[Chloe Smith]

I can provide a very brief update. In the context of these regulations, that matter is not included, so it is not directly a matter for the Committee, but I am very much aware of the argument about equalisation. I am equally aware of the commitments that my predecessor gave, so with the Committee’s leave I will write to the hon. Gentleman to give him a little more detail, which goes beyond the scope of the regulations that we have here today.

The regulations increase the value of the lump sum awards payable under both schemes, which stand apart from the main social security benefits uprating procedure. Although there is no statutory requirement to increase the rates of these compensation schemes, I am maintaining the approach taken by my predecessors and increasing lump sum awards by the consumer prices index— 3.1%, as of September 2021. That is in line with the rate increase to the industrial injuries disablement benefit and the other disability benefits made as part of the main benefit operating provisions. The new levels will be paid to those who meet all the conditions for entitlement for the first time on or after 1 April this year.

I want to briefly mention further rule changes that we will make to support the end of life—sometimes known as the special rules for terminal illness. The Department certainly recognises the challenges that an individual, their friends and family face when they receive a terminal diagnosis. Supporting people in that difficult situation is, of course, crucial: that is why we have special rules for the end of life—to ensure that financial support can be provided as quickly as possible. These rules provide simple and fast access to benefits.

In July last year, we announced the intention to replace the current six-month rule for determining who could claim under those special rules with a 12-month end of life approach. That eligibility would then be consistent with current NHS end of life practice. Shortly, the Department plans to amend legislation to implement that change across five benefits, beginning with universal credit, alongside employment and support allowance. That will be followed, as soon as parliamentary time allows, by changes to the attendance allowance, the disability living allowance and the personal independence payment.

I will now touch on other support provided by the NHS for people with respiratory disease. As well as ensuring that financial compensation for the schemes is available, the Government are also focusing on and investing in support, protection, diagnosis, treatment and research. We also entirely acknowledge that the last two years have been a particularly challenging and worrying time for people with chronic respiratory conditions, which is why we prioritised people with such conditions and other vulnerable groups for the initial covid vaccination and booster programmes. We will offer a further fourth jab in the spring. It is also why the Department for Work and Pensions put in place temporary measures to protect the most vulnerable, including the suspension of face-to-face assessments at the start of the pandemic.

To qualify for an award under the 1979 scheme, people must have an entitlement to industrial injuries disablement benefit. We have continued these claims for people with diffuse mesothelioma and other illnesses as they can be assessed by paper. Other respiratory disease claims that could not be assessed by paper—those requiring lung function tests, for example—have now resumed, with extra safety measures in place.

We have introduced one-off special payments so that nobody loses out financially if their age goes up while waiting for an assessment, which would otherwise prevent them from getting the correct rate. It is important to be clear that all eligible awards for IIDB will be backdated to the date of claim. Of course, those awaiting IIDB assessment are still able to apply for other benefits if they find themselves in financial hardship or have care or mobility needs.

Looking to wider lung health, the NHS is also doing much to support the clinical priority of respiratory disease—within the cancer service recovery plan, for example. We expect the number of people diagnosed with mesothelioma to begin to fall in the coming years, but sadly many people will still develop it or other debilitating respiratory diseases. That is why we are working with the NHS to improve those people’s lives and why we recognise the continued importance of the financial compensation offered by the two schemes that we are discussing today. I commend the increase in the payment schemes to the Committee.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I believe that this is the first time I have appeared before you in the Chair, Dr Huq, so I will do my best to make sure that it is a memorable occasion for us both.

I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations. As she set out, the mesothelioma regulations amend the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 and the pneumoconiosis regulations amend the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979. As we heard, both Acts make provision for lump compensation payments to be made to people suffering from specific dust-related diseases or their dependants, provided that they meet the conditions of entitlement. I note that as of 1.30 pm today both statutory instruments had still not been assigned numbers and the explanatory memorandums appeared in draft form on the Government website. I hope that that can be addressed.

As we have heard, today’s regulations uprate the amount of compensation paid to disease sufferers or their dependants by 3.1%. I note that the Government have reviewed the rates to maintain their value in line with inflation, as measured by the September 2021 consumer prices index, and in line with disability benefits. Although we recognise that the Government are under no obligation to do any uprating under either Act, we believe that it is vital to continue to support people affected by these awful diseases and their families and that annual uprating is necessary. Having said that, it is worth noting that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) has already stated, uprating in line with inflation last September does not really reflect the true position that we are now in, given that inflation is likely to be around 6% for much of the course of the year according to the Bank of England. The uprating therefore reflects a real-terms cut.

The cost of living crisis has been debated in this place many times already this year and will no doubt be discussed again. As the regulations are not amendable, we cannot substitute the figure of 3.1% for something more akin to reality, but I believe it shows how once again the Government have struggled to recognise the very real financial pressures people face.

As we have heard this afternoon, mesothelioma is an invasive type of cancer caused by prior exposure to asbestos and for which there is currently no cure. It grows in the pleural membrane that lines the outside of the lung and the inside of the chest. Less commonly, it can also affect a similar lining around the abdomen or heart. It can take a long time to develop, as we have heard, with the first symptoms sometimes appearing 30 to 40 years after exposure. Patients experience complex debilitating symptoms and often have a short life expectancy. Of course, that presents real difficulties for those who develop the disease in being able to pursue a legal remedy.

The Health and Safety Executive reports that the UK has the highest rate of mesothelioma in the world and mortality rates have more than quadrupled in the past 30 years, with the disease being more common in certain parts of the country, reflecting the location of industries such as shipbuilding where asbestos was frequently used. Sadly, it is estimated that about 2,500 people die of the disease every year. Over the next 30 years, some 60,000 people will die of mesothelioma in the UK unless new treatments are found.

Pneumoconiosis refers to a group of lung diseases caused by inhaling dust. Common types include asbestosis; coal workers’ pneumoconiosis, caused by breathing in coal mine dust; and silicosis, caused by breathing in respirable silica and typically affecting industries such as quarrying, foundries and potteries. As with mesothelioma, there is a long delay between exposure and the onset of the disease. The Health and Safety Executive estimates that overall 12,000 deaths each year are linked to occupational lung disease.

I pay tribute to organisations such as Mesothelioma UK, the British Lung Foundation and Macmillan Cancer Support, which raise awareness and provide ongoing support for individuals and their families who are affected by these terrible diseases.

We know that before the dangers of asbestos were known it was frequently used for insulation, roofing and flooring in commercial buildings and homes. Indeed, it has been used in this very building and I recall my grandfather telling me how they used to use it as a snowball when he was at work. It was clearly very commonly used and we are still reaping the consequences today, but it was not banned until the Asbestos (Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 1999. That means that buildings constructed up until the turn of the century might still have asbestos in them. Many colleagues will be aware that unfortunately those who worked in industries such as building and construction from the 1970s to the 1990s may still experience the consequences of exposure to asbestos, but those consequences are not limited to people who worked in those industries. For example, the National Education Union found that at least 319 teachers have died from mesothelioma since 1980, 205 of whom died after 2001. That is a staggering statistic and highlights the pervasiveness of asbestos in many of our buildings.

As we have noted, the Government are not under any obligation to uprate the payments, but it is clear that Members have asked on many occasions whether future increases could be made automatically rather than at the discretion of Parliament. One of the Minister’s predecessors agreed to consider that proposal, and I wonder the Minister can update us on that point. We have been told previously that automatic uprating would not be sensible because it would prevent debate, but when the yearly debate consists of very much the same issues being raised again and again, that argument appears a little artificial. Members are more than capable of raising issues in several ways through debates and in other forums. I hope that the Government will address the issue of automatic uprating, because it would not reduce Members’ ability to raise specific issues. It would also send a powerful message that, while no amount of money will compensate for the suffering and loss caused by the diseases, the Government are committed as a matter of course to ensuring that support is provided to those entitled to it.

It would also provide security to those affected if they knew that the uprating would apply each year without fail. That is especially important when those in receipt of payments may already have experienced a long and stressful wait for their assessment and gone through what can sometimes be a challenging and distressing assessment process. Members will be aware from experiences with their constituents that the process is not necessarily adapted to individuals’ needs, and the one size fits all approach can sometimes ignore irrefutable medical evidence. The Minister has set out some of the changes that have been made, but security for individuals from having their payments automatically uprated would be an important step forward, and the least that they deserve.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West raised the issue of equalisation of lump sum payments to victims’ dependants. According to the Asbestos Victims Support Group Forum, figures from 2019-20 showed that a 77-year-old with mesothelioma would receive £14,334 if they claimed themselves, but if they died before claiming —as we know can happen with such aggressive and difficult to diagnose cancers—their surviving partner or dependant would receive just £7,949, which is just over half. That issue has been raised by Members year after year in these debates.

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is my good friend, for raising this important issue. I remind the Committee that the Government committed in 2010 to look at the disparity and to equalise the situation. Twelve years is too long and we need action now.

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which highlights the point that we have these debates every year and the same issues continue to be raised. The Government are sympathetic, as indicated by previous commitments, but action is missing. The Minister has said that she will write to the hon. Gentleman after the debate, and I hope that she will share that correspondence with the rest of the Committee, because this is an important issue that needs addressing. It will not go away; we will continue to raise it on an annual basis.

When the Minister responds to this debate, will she comment on a response given to a written question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) on this matter? He was told:

“It is right that available funding is prioritised where it is needed most, that is to people living with these diseases.”

Will the Minister explain whether she agrees with that assessment; when she will be able to give us a timetable for when any change in the Government’s position on the matter can be expected; and what recent estimates have been made of the cost of providing equal payments to sufferers and their dependants? I feel that that may well be what is behind the inertia on the Government Benches. Furthermore, given that the difference in payments often affects women whose husbands were directly exposed to asbestos, will the Minister tell us whether there has been any equality impact assessments in respect of the lack of parity in payments?

I conclude by urging the Minister to reflect on the issues that hon. Members have raised and to address them, so that we do not have to come back next year and debate them all over again.

[Chris Stephens]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq—it is good to see a good friend of the worker chairing the Committee on these particular regulations.

I have become an annual attender of the proceedings on the regulations, and I will start today, as I always do, by remembering my good Unison comrade and friend Tom Begley, who died as a result of asbestos-related cancer. This is an opportunity to remember him and others who have succumbed to these pernicious industrial diseases. I also pay tribute to the campaigners, trade unions and charities, such as Clydeside Action on Asbestos, that continue to highlight the devastating impact that these industrial diseases have on victims and on families. This is not just about workers who have worked in factories and buildings; it is also about individuals who have contracted these diseases as a result of washing clothes with asbestos on them. We have to remember that as well.

I want to take this opportunity to remind the Committee that it was SNP and Plaid Cymru MPs in the 1970s who were the first Members of Parliament to highlight the dangers of asbestos and industrial diseases. Those Members were dismissed at the time and accused of scaremongering, but thankfully we have come a long way in recognising the dangers of asbestos and the impact that it has on people’s health.

I want to make three main points, but I first want to stress the issue of the disparity. The Government made a commitment in 2010 that they would look at the disparity between payments for dependants and sufferers. That was 12 years ago. I think we have waited far too long for that disparity to be addressed. There really should be an equality impact assessment along with these regulations, so that we can have a look at that.

Some of the figures for the differences in payments were given by my colleague on the Labour Front Bench, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. The one that I have been given is that someone who was a qualifying individual and aged 60 at the time of diagnosis would receive in the region of £44,000, whereas the dependant would receive £19,000. That is quite a big gap, I would argue, between the amounts of compensation for those individuals. I hope that the Government really do look at the issue very seriously. They are on borrowed time now; 12 years is far too long to wait. The Government gave us a commitment that they would look at the disparity.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Just to emphasise that point, the sum of the compensation declines as the claimant gets older. That is because it is based on potential earnings should the person not have acquired the industrial disease. There is a fundamental injustice here. Someone who is 61 gets less than someone who is 60, when the condition is entirely the same and probably as dangerous.

[Chris Stephens]

I agree with my hon. Friend. He makes a valid point, and I hope that it has registered with the Government. It is important. I do not want to oppose the regulations today, but I hope the Minister has listened very carefully to the points that have been made about the disparity.

The Minister appeared before us at the Work and Pensions Committee to talk about the work of the Health and Safety Executive. Perhaps the Minister could provide an update on what work the Government are doing with HSE to make sure that all workplaces in the UK are asbestos-free. She knows that we have heard from campaigners and international experts.

I praise hon. Members across the House who have raised the issues of industrial diseases. I thank the Minister. Tonight I have to go and visit the Boundary Commission because of legislation that she put forward, I think last year. In all seriousness, we do not want to oppose these measures, but there is still a lot that the Government have to get right here and there are still injustices to be tackled.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2021 Commons Chamber

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

Jobcentres work directly with local employers using programmes such as SWAPs to fill those vacancies and gaps. We are providing training and work experience, and a guaranteed interview. The Chancellor has announced £1.3 million investment in new technology to better match claimants and vacancies with a new job-matching tool. I can confirm that that is out to tender and we will update the House shortly.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

T2. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. DWP staff report that Serco telephony services are causing excessive call times because the private sector staff are poorly trained. How much is this outsourcing obsession costing the taxpayer, and is it fair on claimants who face hours hanging on the phone only to receive often questionable advice?

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

If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me I will try to get a more detailed answer, but the bottom line is this: he will be aware that there is a regular review of all contracts put out by the DWP, and in respect of Serco the latest data was published on 24 September 2021 and is available on the gov.uk website.

Universal Credit and Working Tax Credits

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. However, it is also important to say that there are 1.7 million people this will affect who cannot work, owing to disability, illness or caring responsibilities. I have not heard a single mention of them from the Government, or the offer of any help coming their way to mitigate this cut.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

The Government said at the time they increased the universal credit payment that it was to pay for essentials during the pandemic. I take that to be food and fuel. Does the shadow Secretary of State believe that food and fuel prices have fallen since the pandemic, and if not, does that not just do away with the Government’s argument altogether?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

I thank the people who work in the DWP down here in London and in Thorne in my constituency. I have spent quite a lot of time there and they are doing some fantastic work.

I am proud of many of the schemes that the Government have brought in through the pandemic, including furlough, the self-employed income support scheme and the temporary £20 uplift—and it was temporary, to help people through the pandemic, and it was on universal credit, which is a transient benefit in that people are not meant not to stay on it for a long time; this Government are trying to get people off universal credit and into work.

I know that many people want to keep the £20 uplift, including many of my hon. Friends, but that would cost us £6 billion. I have not shied away from this issue. I have knocked on doors in my constituency and spoken to many groups. I have put myself in the mix with people who really pushed for keeping the uplift, but the question that I have always asked them is, “Where do we get the £6 billion from?” I have asked and asked, and no one is able to come back with an answer. There are places that we can get it from. We can get it from increasing taxes, which affects the people we would end up giving it to anyway. We could end up with further borrowing, but if interest rates go up, we would end up with even more problems. We can take it from another Department. I have asked, “Which Department do you want us to take it from? Do you want to take it from education? Do you want to take it from the police? Do you want to take it from the council?” Nobody comes up with an answer. They want to shake the magic money tree and they never, ever want to give us a proper answer.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Member talks about a magic money tree, but does he not think that some of the money could be found if this Government were more aggressive on tax evasion, which they estimate at £70 billion?

[Nick Fletcher]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. I will come to other issues regarding similar things towards the end of my speech.

This Government are trying to help people to get back to work and get into work. I cannot stress how important it is that people work. This debate is about the money, but it is also about the value that it gives an individual when they go to work. We need to take down the barriers to get to work that have been put in people’s way over the years. We need to incentivise people to get to work, which is what the Government are doing with the kickstart scheme, the restart scheme and JETS—job entry targeted support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

If this debate was a boxing match, those opposing the motion would have thrown in the towel a long time ago, but I do want to praise all those supporting the motion today including on the Government side. I am, however, sad that some on the Government side treated us to their usual Marie Antoinette routine, saying that somehow people are not trying hard enough and have got themselves into these difficulties.

Some of the contributors from the Government side have said “Let’s talk about jobs.” Yes, let’s talk about the public sector jobs this Government have cut in the last 10 years. They praise DWP staff and I agree, but in the next breath they say, “Let’s talk about pay.” Yes, let’s talk about the pay freeze for public sector workers in the last 10 years and pay restraint, and how many, and why, people working in the public sector are having to get support from the UC system because their wages are too low and the Government have taken that position. Let’s talk, too, about tax avoidance. If the same number of people employed by the Government to tackle social security fraud were tackling tax avoidance and evasion we might get more money in tax and perhaps we would get that £6 billion that we keep hearing about. I believe that the social cost of cutting £20 a week from claimants is far more important, and there will be an explosion in food insecurity in this country. When asked, every food aid provider will explain how nervous they are if the cut goes ahead and what that will mean to the people they support.

The uplift was set by the Government to pay for essentials such as food, energy and fuel. Those essentials have not suddenly disappeared, and claimants were never told this was to be temporary: those who applied for UC during the pandemic were never told at any time, “By the way, some of the money we’re giving you is only a temporary payment.” It is very concerning that those of us on the Select Committee were told by claimants that they had not yet been informed that the £20 was to be removed. If that is the case, I think the parliamentary ombudsman is going to be very busy. This might be WASPI 2. We talk about putting people in jobs; the ombudsman may have to employ many people to deal with all the complaints from universal credit claimants who have not been told that this money is being cut. I will be proud to support the motion and to support my constituents.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Lady is wrong to suggest that our Government have not supported the people of Luton throughout this difficult time. The furlough scheme was unique; it was not introduced when many hundreds of thousands of people were made redundant after Labour’s financial crisis. We stepped in, putting more than £400 billion into Government spending overall to support the country during this time. I am conscious of that fact that some people will be concerned about the impact on aviation travel, which is why we have invested in various job schemes, including encouraging people to switch sectors, recognising that the skills they have are transferable.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Will the Secretary of State tell us what work is being undertaken to prevent future maladministration in the communication of major policy changes? I am thinking about not only 1950s-born women, but, as we heard at the Select Committee last week, the many claimants who are still to be told of the imminent cut to UC. Is the ombudsman going to be kept very busy because of the structural failings of this Department?

[Dr Coffey]

Communications have already been issued to every UC claimant, through the journal messages, and further communications are continuing to go out.

Draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Administration, Investment, Charges and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 General Committees

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I know that we want to be quick, but I have a couple of general comments and questions. As someone with a trade union background who has been on a picket line and taken industrial action to preserve occupational pension schemes, it is a topic close to my heart. I know that the Minister appreciates that and the work of those of us who serve on the Work and Pensions Committee on that issue, and indeed the impact of the Carillion inquiry, which raised key questions about pensions.

The proposed regulations are fair, but the Minister will recognise the ongoing issues associated with smaller pension pots, which can become uneconomic for both the providers and the members. Just how is he going to ensure that members’ interests in those smaller schemes are protected? Is he looking to enhance the auto-enrolments? There are still too many people excluded. How will the Government also ensure that there is not a sizeable gender pay gap? Will he also consider lowering the age of the threshold for ongoing auto-enrolment membership?

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Monday 8th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend is right to praise the work coaches at his Jobcentre Plus, who are exactly the people who will help prepare people to get those opportunities as and when they arise. I was particularly pleased with the initiative of freeports, recognising not only the one that will help people in his constituency but the one—freeport east—that will benefit people in mine.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) [V]]

As in the constituencies of many Members of the House, there are constituents in Glasgow South West who are potential victims of furlough fraud. There are obviously people who will now have to claim universal credit in order to get money, so can Ministers assure the House that the cases of those who are caught up in this predicament will be dealt with sympathetically?

[Dr Coffey]

Yes.