Social Security Support for Children

David Linden Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Ms Qaisar]

It is as if the hon. Member has seen my speech; I will come to that point later.

Of course, it is not only the Trussell Trust; there are a number of independent and locally run food poverty groups. In my constituency, for example, we have Paul’s Parcels, which serves Shotts and the surrounding villages. We are living in food bank Britain, where almost 1 million children receive some sort of help from food banks. The Food Foundation also found that around 4 million children have experienced food insecurity in the past month. Some people will argue that there has been an increase in food bank use due to wider awareness, but I would argue that consecutive Conservative Governments are the reason for that increase. It is their financial mismanagement of the economy, and now austerity 2.0, as set out in the Chancellor’s autumn statement, that are pushing people further and further into poverty.

We face the reality that there are more food banks than McDonald’s in the UK. The richest MP in the House of Commons double-jobs as the Prime Minister. Rather than extending a lifeline to the average punter in the street, the Government are handing out bankers’ bonuses. Who benefits and, crucially, who are the losers? Many groups are victims of the financial mismanagement of the three Prime Ministers and four Chancellors just this year. My concern is for children and young people. They are largely voiceless and are rarely actively involved in the decision-making process.

In Scotland, we have a completely different approach to target help for children. It starts from the basic notion of referring to benefits as social security. In 2021, the SNP Scottish Government introduced the Scottish child payment, which is a groundbreaking piece of policy. Since then, the payment has doubled in value to £20, and on 14 November 2022 it automatically increased to £25 per week for those already in receipt of it. Based on March 2022 modelling, that increased payment is estimated to lift 50,000 children out of poverty and reduce relative child poverty by 5 percentage points.

That is a phenomenal piece of legislation, and I am so proud of it. Many Members here might argue, “Anum, you’re biased; you’re an SNP MP, and that’s the SNP Scottish Government.” However, that is not just my belief. Chris Birt, associate director of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, said:

“The full rollout of the Scottish Child Payment is a watershed moment for tackling poverty in Scotland, and the rest of the UK should take notice.”

Will the UK Government do so? In fact, would the Minister care to intervene and announce that they are following the Scottish Government’s lead? No, he is furiously writing away. When he replies, I hope he will announce that the Scottish child payment is being implemented across the UK.

That is where the issue lies: the SNP Scottish Government consider social security as an investment in people that is key to their national mission to tackle child poverty. We do that with the limited economic levers that the Scottish Parliament holds.

The Scottish Government have implemented a number of other policies. I will go through them and ask whether the UK Government will commit to follow suit. The Scottish Government are offering free school lunches in term time to all 281,865 pupils in primary 1 to 5 and in additional support needs schools. That saves families an average of £400 per child per year. That will be extended to primary 6 and 7 during the Parliament. Will the UK Government follow suit?

The Scottish Government are massively expanding the provision of fully funded high-quality early learning in childcare. They are providing 1,140 hours per year for eligible children aged two, three and four. In fact, if eligible families were to purchase the funded childcare provided by the Scottish Government, it would cost them about £5,000 per eligible child per year. Again, will the UK Government follow suit?

The Scottish Government have increased the school clothing grant to at least £128 for every eligible primary school pupil and £150 for every eligible secondary school pupil from the start of the 2021-22 academic year. Again, will the UK Government follow suit?

The Scottish Government are bringing forward those policies with the limited economic levers that they hold.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I declare an interest as a massive fan of my hon. Friend’s constituency—if not the Shotts part, then certainly the Airdrie part. I commend her for securing the debate, and I want to back up the point she is making. Although the Scottish Government are doing a huge amount of incredibly ambitious things to tackle the scourge of child poverty, 85% of welfare spending remains under the control of this institution. Does she, like me, believe that it is absolutely abhorrent that, under the devolution settlement, the Scottish Government have to use their devolved budget, which would normally be used on things such as trying to reduce class sizes, to try to plug the gaps in an inadequate state support system that is the result of a Conservative Government—something that people in Scotland have not voted for since the 1950s?

[Ms Qaisar]

My hon. Friend’s point is incredibly valid. The Scottish Government hold limited economic levers, but they often have to use their budget to mitigate Tory austerity.

In debating topics such as social security for children, it is essential to reaffirm that a societal approach must be considered when formulating policy. Social security for children is about so much more than targeted support. We must consider what support is in place for parents. This week, I had the pleasure of meeting Lauren from Pregnant Then Screwed, which has revealed some harrowing statistics. Out of 1,630 women it interviewed who had had an abortion in the past five years, 60.5% said that the cost of childcare influenced their decision, and 17.4% said that childcare costs were the main reason for their decision. A separate survey found that 48% of pregnant mothers have to cut their maternity leave short due to financial hardship. Those are not simply statistics; that is the reality for many women.

In Scotland, childcare and policies relating to children are seen as lifelong investments for society. It has been said before that an investment in our children is an investment in our future, and I wholeheartedly stand by that. It is crucial that the UK Government take a societal approach to social security for children. The wider economic implications of child poverty are significant, with a 2021 study estimating the cost of child poverty in the UK at £38 billion a year.

There is a cost to not addressing child poverty, and I am not just talking about the direct financial implications. We face the harsh reality of children who are upset and anxious as a result of their parents worrying about household finances. That is not the type of society that I wish to live in.

In Scotland, different policies have been introduced. For example, before a baby is born, the Scottish Government provide expectant families with a baby box. Baby boxes include essentials for bringing up a child, such as clothing and digital thermometers. That not only provides essentials at a time that can, in any case, be physically, emotionally and financially challenging; it sends a clear message to families that the state cares about them. Some 93% of Scots who are eligible have taken up the scheme. Ireland has a pilot scheme, and the baby box has been hailed internationally. The UK Government would do well to mirror that approach, and if the Minister cannot commit today to introducing the baby box, I hope he will take the information on board and give it serious consideration.

We know that parents are having to make unimaginable financial decisions—to return to work early or to leave their jobs altogether if they cannot afford the cost of childcare. We know, too, that the cost of child poverty can disproportionately impact women. Typically, women assume the main role as caregiver and are the first to give up their jobs when childcare becomes unaffordable. The Scottish Government are massively expanding the provision of fully funded, high-quality early learning and childcare, providing 1,140 hours a year for eligible children aged two, three and four. In Scotland, we have we have taken a different path—one that puts children and families first, with lifeline policies providing help to those who need it most.

Over the past 12 years, the Tories have systematically dismantled the social security system. It is clear that the Tory-run system is not designed to help those in need. Rather, it pushes a poverty-inducing austerity agenda. I have described what the Scottish Government are doing to reduce the harmful impact of Tory austerity-driven Government, but the reality is that 85% of social security expenditure remains reserved to Westminster, so the change that is desperately needed must start here.

We are at a point at which meaningful and tangible policy can be implemented to make a difference to millions of children and families, and it is an active policy decision not to make those changes. That is costing all of society financially and socially. The limitations imposed on social security by the Tory Government are sickening. The freezing of the benefit cap since 2016 has disproportionately impacted lone-parent families, the majority of whom are women, as well as larger families and ethnic minority families. Official Department for Work and Pensions statistics have shown that more than 100,000 households have had their benefits capped since May 2022. Of that number, 87% are households that include children.

There is much that we could do to help families that are struggling. The Tory Government could start by looking at social security as an investment in society and future generations, rather than something that needs to be cut and limited. There are many clear ways to do that. First, the Minister could commit to removing the abhorrent two-child limit on universal credit and legacy benefits, as well as ending the benefit cap, which would lift 300,000 children out of poverty. My SNP colleagues and I have been campaigning tirelessly to eradicate that regressive measure, and we will continue to push for it to be removed.

The Government could do more than simply remove the cap. Following the Chancellor’s recent fiscal statement, the Child Poverty Action Group has reported that, even with the uprating of benefits in line with inflation, families will be worse off in 2023-24 than they were after universal credit was cut last year. That weak attempt to reverse 12 years of austerity will have a marginal impact on children, as the entire UK Government’s social security system is in desperate need of an overhaul.

Other fundamental issues with universal credit impact children. Policies such as a five-week wait for first payments, the bedroom tax and the cruel sanctions regime all push families on universal credit towards destitution. If we reversed the policies introduced by the Tory Government since 2015, we would lift 30,000 children in Scotland out of poverty by 2024.

It is not the job of food banks and charities to uphold a crumbling social security system. I am honoured to represent the constituency of Airdrie and Shotts, which has dedicated community organisations. Since my election last year, I have worked tirelessly and closely with many organisations to support them in delivering an essential lifeline to constituents who face destitution as a result of Tory-made austerity.

The cost of living crisis is disproportionately impacting children, with families having to cut back on both essential and luxury items. In this festive period I am working alongside four constituency-based organisations: Paul’s Parcels, Diamonds in the Community, Airdrie food bank and Airdrie community school uniform bank. We are asking people to donate advent calendars for the four organisations to deliver across the constituency. A simple item such as an advent calendar is unaffordable. Sadly, many children will not enjoy the typical Christmas festivities, because their parents or carers cannot afford simple luxuries.

In my contribution I have outlined a number of asks, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. I imagine that there will not be much in the way of concessions, but I hope he will sincerely take on board the approach of the SNP Scottish Government and consider following suit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As always, it is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar) for securing it, and congratulate her on her first Westminster Hall debate—I am convinced that it will not be her last, and we look forward to her future contributions.

I was very impressed by the hon. Lady’s contribution today, which laid out the strategy of the Scottish Government and the work they have done outside this place for their own people. One cannot fail to be impressed by the clear commitment that the Scottish Government have to supporting children. The summary that the hon. Lady gave was illuminating and helpful; it is a guide for us in other regions across the United Kingdom to take note of, as I often do. I am a great believer in noting things that are done well in one region and taking them on board in my own region, and if we do something well, I like to share that. I know the Minister is of the same opinion.

I am very pleased to see the Minister in his place, as he knows—I have said so to my colleagues this morning. I always look forward to his contributions and his answers; I think he understands the points that we are trying to put forward, and hopefully from that understanding will come the answers that we seek. I am sure the Minister will tell us what has been done for children and social security across the United Kingdom. I want to replicate the contribution of the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts from a Northern Ireland perspective; many of the things that she mentioned are happening in my constituency as well, as I will illustrate.

The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts is right that the cost of living crisis is having a knock-on effect on children’s development. With the rising cost of electricity, oil, foodstuffs and school items such as uniforms and school meals, parents are struggling to make ends meet each month. That is greatly impacting parents and children. Social security services across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have a role to play in ensuring that children are given the best start in life. It is great to be able to discuss those matters.

We all recognise that families are struggling. I do; I see it in my office every day. I find it distressing to see a family in need, or to see a mother distressed over her children and how to make ends meet. For me, the question is how we help. I know that that is also how the Minister will respond: how can we help? What can we do?

Society is often marked, and should be marked, by its attitude to those in need. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts referred to being a “voice of the voiceless”. That is what I want to be as well: a voice for the voiceless—for those who do not have the opportunity to come to Westminster but expect their MP to come for them. I am happy to do that.

Increasing numbers of families are truly struggling through this winter. In my office, I have seen large numbers of families seeking assistance from food banks. I am always encouraged—I say this respectfully—that the first food bank in Northern Ireland was in Newtownards, in my constituency of Strangford: the Thriving Life Church food bank. We do between 20 and 25 referrals to the food bank every week, so we get a fair perspective on who is coming to the office.

The manager of the food bank tells me that he foresees that this winter will be the hardest ever, and that is after 10 or 12 years of the food bank being in my constituency. It is not just the working class—I use that terminology to describe, rather than anything else—who come to the food bank. The working class will probably always be there, but the manager tells me that he now sees the middle class coming. I see that all the time. I see those who are squeezed by their mortgages and car repayments, who are living on a fine budget. They do not live in luxury, but they have a standard of living that they wish to have. They are being impacted, and I see that more than ever.

Almost all the families who come to my office have young children of school age. People want to do the best for their children. That is what a father and mum do, and it is what we have done all our lives. Reports have shown that Northern Ireland has the worst poverty rates, including for child poverty, in the United Kingdom. One in four children—24%, or around 95,000—are growing up in poverty in Northern Ireland. A massive two thirds of that group are growing up in families where parents are working. Some 12% are in absolute poverty, which means exactly that: absolute. People face situations that they never thought they would face. They need help from food banks, churches and their families: mums and dads, grannies and grandas, and probably uncles and aunts will step in to help out as well.

That highlights how dire the situation is. Belfast, Londonderry and Strabane are among the places with the highest volumes of child poverty in Northern Ireland at over 26%. The average for Northern Ireland is 17%, so in those areas it is even worse. Social security plays a crucial part in assisting people in Northern Ireland, especially families. Child maintenance is proven to help children’s wellbeing and the quality of family relationships. The parent who is not responsible for day-to-day care—the paying parent—pays child maintenance to the parent or the person who does: the receiving parent. Single parenting is a major factor in explaining why families are suffering. Looking after children as a single parent can be quite a challenge when one’s income has not increased along with inflation.

In addition, universal credit is a widely used benefit that assists in living costs for those on low incomes. One of the girls in my office deals with nothing but benefit issues, because of the magnitude of the issue. That is a five-day week on universal credit, employment and support allowance, personal independence payments, disability living allowance, income support and even housing benefit.

[David Linden]

I know, having visited the hon. Gentleman in his constituency office in Newtownards last Easter, just how hard the staff in his office work. Does he agree with me that, even though we are in a crisis moment, now is quite a good time for a fundamental root-and-branch review of the social security system? Universal credit sometimes gets a bad rap. The concept in itself is not necessarily bad, but we need to look at how we can reform it to make it work. Churches do the right thing in terms of scripture—they look after our children and feed people—but that is not necessarily the role of churches. We should do a fundamental review of the social security system to ensure that churches can get on with their work rather than having to fill the void that has been created by the state.

[Jim Shannon]

As always, the hon. Gentleman brings knowledge to these debates, which is helpful. That is a knowledge that he has gained through practical and physical work on the ground. That can probably be said of everyone present, in fairness, but it is an illustration of that work. What do I think about the universal credit system? It was designed, by its very nature, to help. From what the lady in my office who deals with benefits issues tells me, I often find we have to advise that it might be better for people to stay on what they have at the moment. They should not necessarily transfer to universal credit because that, in theory, could disadvantage them.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether there is a need to look at universal credit, and I think that the answer is yes, with respect. It should not be a disadvantage to go on to universal credit. It should not hurt people’s benefits. We must remember that the benefits are there for a purpose: they are there to help the person because they have a disablement. They may have care or mobility issues—serious issues. To make the change and lose out financially just does not make sense. I, the hon. Gentleman and probably all Members in the Chamber would be happy to give illustrations of that.

Sometimes our advice has to be that what is available is not necessarily the best thing to go on to. That is the issue, unfortunately. I know that universal credit is there for a purpose, but it may not suit everybody. In addition, it is a widely popular benefit to assist with living costs for those on low incomes. The issue with universal credit is that it is a combination of many benefits and often families will receive less money. That is making it increasingly hard to cope with the rise in the cost of living. The Government, through the autumn statement, indicated that they wish to give people in the benefits system more opportunities to work. I welcome that, but that will not work in every case. It cannot work in every case because people have disability issues that mean they cannot work. In theory, it may help people, as they can gain universal credit and have a job at the same time. There are opportunities, but it does not suit all.

The rise in the cost of living is also having a detrimental impact on people’s mental health. Any parent’s main priorities for their children are good health, housing and education. There has also been an increase in free school meals and uniform grant applications as parents are struggling to cope with the cost of school payments. This year has been horrendous. I have seen more and more people apply for the grants for free school meals and for uniform. A total of 97,000 children in Northern Ireland are on free school meals. There are consistent delays in processing the claims. The Minister is always keen to assist, so I ask, please, for some urgency when the applications are being processed. Let me give him an example. In September, one of my constituents applied for a school uniform grant. Eight weeks later—about two weeks ago—that money eventually came through. Again, at the time that it was needed, it was not there. It was not that it was not coming; that was not the issue. The issue is the processing of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I thank you, Sir Christopher, for chairing the debate today. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar) on bringing forward the debate and I thank all hon. Members for taking part.

My hon. Friend made some points about individual organisations in her constituency. I absolutely agree that we should thank those organisations for all the hard work they do, because they are absolutely necessary, but we can do that at the same time as saying they should absolutely not be necessary. It was good to hear about Paul’s Parcels and the work that my colleague is doing to support those organisations and the eradication of poverty in her constituency. I hope that all hon. Members are doing what they can in their constituencies, as well as putting pressure on the UK Government to try and ensure a sufficiency of social security.

Social security is about security; it is about having a secure situation where people can have positive mental health—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about people’s mental health—rather than spending every moment worrying about whether they are going to be able to feed their children tomorrow, next week or next month, and whether they will be able to afford food. We need the social security system to work and provide the safety net that it is supposed to. After a decade of Tory Government, it continues to fail and it is not getting better.

I have less optimism now for the futures of my constituents than I have ever had at any point in this job and in my previous job as a city councillor. In about 15 years in an elected role, I have never seen the levels of hardship that I see coming through the door in my constituency office, on the news and in our communities. This has not happened before.

The problem is that there is no light at the end of the tunnel right now, no matter what the Government have announced in terms of inflationary upgrades, for example. As the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) mentioned, that is a temporary measure; it is not permanent and does not provide the level of structural reform people need to afford to live. What could be more important than ensuring that kids are fed and warm? There is nothing more important.

Our Scottish Government are now into their second child poverty action plan. We had “Every child, every chance”, which ran from 2018 to 2022; we now have “Best start, bright futures” from ’22 to ’26. These plans are about putting tackling child poverty at the heart of the decision-making processes of the Scottish Government. I do not think it is too much to ask that the UK Government replicate that, and say that they care about eradicating child poverty, and therefore will have a strategy to do that and make it a central aim of their plans.

[David Linden]

More fundamental to that, though, would be if the UK Government could even start measuring child poverty, which is part of the issue. Yes, it would be great if they had a strategy to deal with it—that would be absolutely fantastic—but does my hon. Friend agree that it is alarming that the Government do not even measure child poverty? They do not realise the scale of it, other than by measuring it anecdotally, as I am sure the Minister does in his Hexham constituency when people come through the doors at his surgery on a Friday morning.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I agree. The fact that the Government are unwilling to even measure child poverty shows the lack of importance they give to this issue. If they cared as much about it as they should, they should be willing to explain, “This is what the current situation is. This is the measurement. This is how bad it is. This is how many people are suffering and how many children are in poverty in the UK in 2022”—in the UK in 2022! How can we be saying this? The UK Government need to stand up, hold up their hands and say, “This is the current situation and this is how we are going to improve it.”

I want to set out a few specific asks, some of which have been made already. As my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts mentioned, 87% of those affected by the benefit cap are families with children. The benefit cap would need to increase by £942 to reverse the loss since 2013. Despite the fact that the Government are looking to increase it, this is only the fourth time that social security payments have risen with inflation in 10 years. If we in Scotland can find an extra £25 a week in order to provide the Scottish child payment, the UK Government, with their far vaster budget and flexibility in dealing with their fiscal situation, can surely afford to do the same. They can afford it, but they choose not to match the payments we are making in Scotland.

There is the issue of the sufficiency of social security. One in four people on social security skipped meals this summer. That was in the summer—before the additional price cap increase on electricity and gas; before the upcoming winter months when people will need to put their heating on; before people had to buy school uniforms for their children when school started again in August or September. That situation is set only to get worse, and the promise of a temporary increase in universal credit will not fix it. There is currently no way out of this. We have no certainty that there is not going to be a cost of living crisis next year. Certainly none of my constituents has that level of certainty.

Let me turn to the issue of debt repayment deductions that are made from universal credit and other benefits. We have a situation where the UK Government can take 25% off the standard allowance to reclaim debts. Sometimes, those debts are caused by overpayments that are no fault of the person, but entirely the fault of poor decision making in the DWP or job centres. To be fair, that does not happen all the time; I am just saying that sometimes it is an issue.

If the UK Government have done an assessment of social security payments and believe them to be sufficient—that people can afford to live on them—how can they justify putting in place a benefit cap or taking 25% off the standard allowance? They are saying, “This is what we believe is sufficient for people to live on, but we are just going to take a quarter of it away.” It does not make any sense. People already cannot afford to live on the social security payments they are receiving. When the amount people are getting each month is reduced because of those reductions or the benefit cap, it is even less sufficient. Again, the conditionality and sanctions in place reduce that basic minimum level of payment that people should be entitled to.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am glad that the hon. Member has managed that on behalf of his constituents. That is actually not the preferred route that I would take. I would prefer to look at whether people can afford payments rather than coming up with an arbitrary percentage, which is the UK Government’s preferred choice. I would look at affordability. How much are their outgoings and incomings? Can they afford to make the debt repayments? That is what we do, and when organisations like StepChange are managing debt, they look at whether people can afford it.

[David Linden]

In my time working for Glasgow Credit Union before I was a politician, one of the things we regularly had to do when determining whether someone was eligible to borrow loans was calculate their debt ratio. Although that is required by the Financial Conduct Authority and imposed on things like credit unions, part of the problem is that the DWP does not routinely look at people’s income and expenditure. Does the hon. Member agree that the Minister should look at a debt ratio when making these decisions?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely agree. That is the way this should be taken forward, rather than setting an arbitrary percentage—whether it is 25%, 10% or whatever level. It should be done on the basis of affordability, and a debt ratio would be the preferred method; it would make sense.

One thing that I do not think has been mentioned yet is those people with no recourse to public funds. They are not in receipt of social security payments or the vast majority of payments that are available to others. We are seeing the most drastic and extreme levels of poverty experienced by some of those families, particularly refugee and asylum-seeking families. We are seeing children and families who literally cannot afford any food, and I just cannot believe that the UK Government are unwilling to make any change to the system of no recourse to public funds, because what people are going through is horrendous.

The UK Government stand up and say, “Oh well, it’s fine. They can just go home to whatever country they came from.” Generally, people who are here having made an asylum or human rights claim are here because it is worse in the country they came from and because their children are in danger if they go back. In fact, no recourse to public funds sometimes applies to people who are stateless—they have no country to go back to. It is a horrendous situation, and the UK Government need to fix it.

Draft Pensions Dashboards Regulations 2022

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2022 General Committees

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to welcome the Minister to her new post. I know she will do a great job.

I place on the record the SNP’s support for this statutory instrument and will just develop a couple of thoughts on pensions policy. Previously I was the spokesperson for work and pensions and getting dragged into debates like this does feel a bit like “Hotel California” sometimes. One thing I was quite struck by when I was shadowing that post was the complete lack of pensions literacy that exists not just across the country, but sometimes even in the House of Commons.

The pensions dashboard is incredibly welcome; we all want to see it, notwithstanding some of the shadow Minister’s points about the delivery of the IT. If it is to be successful, however, we need to look, in a twin-track way, at things such as making Pension Wise a lot more freely available to folk. Far too many people in their mid-50s are making decisions on pensions without adequate advice and guidance. Frankly, they are making decisions that are financially disadvantageous to them.

I also want a bit more reform of automatic enrolment. I would like the age for automatic enrolment moved from 22 to 16. I left school at 16 and started working, and it would be right and proper for automatic enrolment to be rolled out to those who start in the labour market straight away. I would also like to see it rolled out from the first pound, rather than an arbitrary threshold, but I appreciate that is not the purpose of today’s debate.

When the Pension Schemes Act 2021 was being taken through Parliament, the SNP expressed some concerns about commercial organisations having access to the pensions dashboards. It is on that basis that we would prefer that MaPS be allowed to run it for the first year before we have the extra commercial interest come into play, just as a way of consumer protection.

The instrument is to be welcomed, notwithstanding some of the wider concerns that I have outlined. I very much hope that my constituents, whether in Fullarton Park or right across the east end of Glasgow, can have both dignity and prosperity in retirement. Pensions dashboards will ultimately allow them to do that and will give them a much more informed view of pensions, which everybody across the country must have.

State Pension Triple Lock

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I welcome the question from the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee. As a former Pensions Minister, he will know that, in the situation we are in at the moment, right hard up against a major fiscal event that is about to set out major tax and spending decisions, it would simply not be right, as I have said on countless occasions, for any member of the Government to prejudge and pre-empt the measures that the Chancellor will be coming forward with.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State talks about prejudging, pre-empting and following due process, but he knows that, if the Department was intending to suspend the triple lock, his officials would already be preparing the relevant legislation, as was brought forward by then Pensions Minister, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), when the triple lock was last suspended. In the interests of being transparent and following process, can the Secretary of State see whether those officials have been instructed to draft that legislation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

In a moment. That is a difficult situation, largely visited upon us through a major pandemic that shut down a substantial proportion of the economy, followed by a war between Ukraine and Russia. That, of course, has had a huge impact in terms of inflation, the cost of energy and people’s bills. It is only right that we are honest with the public and honest in the House about the ramifications of that situation. On 17 November, we will see some difficult choices brought forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on both tax and spending. We have to understand why that is. They will be brought forward because the country must demonstrate that it will live within its means and act fiscally responsibly. As a consequence, we see bond yields and interest rates softening, which will be good for mortgage holders, good for businesses who are borrowing and good for the servicing costs of the Government and their national debt.

Those hard choices must be made, but within them the Government have a core mission to look after the most vulnerable. Those who say that we do not do that are simply wrong. The evidence bears out my statement. The £650 cost of living payment that we have discussed is there for pensioners through pension credit and is there more widely for 8 million low-income households up and down the country. There is the £300 payment to all pensioner households. There is the £400 reduction in fuel bills, which comes through the bills themselves. There is a £150 reduction for those living in houses in council tax bands A to D—many of them will be pensioners—and a £150 payment to those who are disabled. That is on top of the household support fund administered by local authorities, who perhaps have a better grip of local need than those at the centre, which was recently expanded by £500 million to over £1 billion. Of course, there is also the energy price guarantee holding average fuel bills for the average family at £2,500, saving £700 across the winter. All those measures and more are clearly indicative that the Government care about those who have the least and are there to protect them at every turn.

[David Linden]

Going back to what the Secretary of State said earlier, one would think that before covid and the war in Ukraine everything was hunky-dory and there were no problems at all. The reality is that the cost of living crisis is not recent but a result of 12 years of Conservative austerity. [Interruption.] If only Conservative Members got so outraged about pensioner poverty. When he talks about the hard fiscal decisions that will have to be made on 17 November, does he understand that my pensioners in Belvidere are shocked that the Government are not doing enough while lifting the cap on bankers’ bonuses?

[Mel Stride]

I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. When a pandemic comes along and contracts the economy by a greater level than at any time since about 1709—the year of the great frost—and a war breaks out that has a huge impact on energy costs in electricity, oil and gas, very few of our constituents up and down the country would not accept that those have been major contributors to the inflation and other challenges that we face. Only yesterday, the International Monetary Fund stated that about a third of economies in the world will be going into recession. We are not an outlier; we are right in the middle of the pack of nations who are suffering the consequences of the events that I described.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. The £100 payment to those off gas grid is almost an insult, because it does nothing to help them fill their oil tanks.

In a similar vein on inflation, petrol prices are still massively up compared with recent years. I drive an Insignia, which is not a huge car, but last week it still cost me over £100 to fill the petrol tank. That is clearly unaffordable for those on a fixed income, and it would account for 55% of one week’s full pension.

When we look at the UK in the round, we see that it is one of the most unequal countries in the world. Unfortunately, that inequality continues during retirement. The Gini coefficient shows that the UK is 14th out of 14 north-west European countries. It is the same for the S80:S20 quintile share ratio; when we compare the ratio of the poorest to the richest, the UK has by far the worst ratio and is again 14th out of 14. Scandinavian countries—all small, independent countries—lead the way on these measures.

Poorer pay and lower incomes for those struggling also means that later on in life they are less likely to have private pensions and so are reliant on the UK state pension. Again, the UK state pension fails in comparison with those of other countries. When we look at the proportion of earnings derived from state pensions, the UK sits 30th out of 37 OECD countries. I understand that there is an argument that it can be good to move away from dependence on state pensions, but the UK is clearly among outlier countries near the bottom of the pile, and way below the OECD average. Many people are using occupational pensions and capital as sources of income, but that increases inequality in pension age for those without access to such means.

If we look at the UK’s flat pension rate and compare it with other countries that pay a flat rate—Ireland, Denmark and the Netherlands—we see that the UK rate is again lower and fails in comparison. If we look at state pension expenditure compared to a country’s GDP, we see that the UK is again way below the OECD average and is ranked 28th out of 38 countries. Ministers might say that those measures can be somewhat subjective, but the UK trails in each one, so there is a common theme. One other measure is the replacement rate that compares all sources of pension income versus previous earnings. On this measure, the UK, with an average over 10% less than those of the EU27 and the OECD, is ranked 19th out of 37, so still in the bottom half of the table.

As I have stated, this means that inequality in the UK continues into retirement and the UK has the 12th highest pensioner poverty rate out of 35 countries measured by the OECD. What that means, if we turn that around, is that in terms of disposable income to support a standard of living for those aged 66-plus, the UK is ranked 24th out of 35 countries, while Iceland, Denmark and Norway occupy the top spots. Ireland is in eighth place. And those statistics are based on comparisons before the UK broke the triple lock and the link to earnings last year. It is absolutely critical that the triple lock is restored. Independent Age emphasises that:

“With more than 2 million pensioners already living in poverty and the cost-of-living crisis hitting hard, we know people are being forced to make impossible choices on how to cut back to be able to afford heating, electricity and food”.

One additional income support measure is pension credit, but we know that take-up levels are still too low—the Secretary of State acknowledged that. Previous research commissioned by Independent Age estimated that full take-up of pension credit could lift 440,000 older people out of poverty. So when will that be tackled by the Government? The unclaimed £4 billion in pension credit could make the lives of hundreds of thousands of pensioners more bearable. It is also money that would then be recirculated within local economies as it is spent on vital household needs.

[David Linden]

Does my hon. Friend think that banks have a role to play? Given that the vast majority of pensioners receive their pension payments from the Department for Work and Pensions into their bank accounts, banks have the ability to identify where payments are coming from and the amount. Does he agree that there is an opportunity for banks to play a role in promoting pension credit?

[Alan Brown]

That is a very good point. I agree with my hon. Friend that that is an ideal way of managing that. I urge the Secretary of State to take heed of that intervention and work with banks and other organisations to try to increase pension credit take-up.

In terms of pension policies, of course I have to refer to the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—scandal and the fact that the Government are still not moving forward on fast and fair compensation, given that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman found there was maladministration. The PHSO made it clear that the Government do not have to wait for the end of its investigation to take action to remedy this injustice.

There is also the frozen pensions scandal, whereby whether your pension gets uprated or not is arbitrary, depending on which country you reside in. It is also scandalous that the UK Government have yet again rejected offers from the Canadian Government to enter into reciprocal arrangements. I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider that and engage in meaningful talks with the Canadian Government.

All those aspects show that the state pension in the UK is not the safety net we are told it is. It shows clearly that the Better Together mantra of staying in the UK to protect pensions in Scotland was a cruelly false premise. Indeed, with private pensions nearly collapsing after the Tory mini-Budget, that claim looks even more ridiculous. It also shows that when Gordon Brown, at a Better Together event, said:

“Our UK welfare state offers better protection for pensioners, disabled and the unemployed”,

he was, frankly, lying.

No-fault Benefit Debts

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am very grateful to have secured this debate, particularly as the last item of business before we rise for the summer recess. Before moving on to the substance of the debate, I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone in the House, especially the staff, a very happy, peaceful and restful break.

A number of organisations have been incredibly helpful in briefing me for this debate, including StepChange, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Salvation Army and my local citizens advice bureaux in Easterhouse, Parkhead and Bridgeton.

Other than housing and asylum, benefits and social security issues make up the largest cohort of my constituency casework. In the five years that I have served in this House, I have seen endless problems with the social security system, which too often is found wanting when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable in our communities.

The issue I want to hone in on today is no-fault benefit debts. That is not to say that there are not other aspects of our social security system that could do with repair, but in the interests of time I will confine my remarks solely to no-fault benefit debts. I am particularly appreciative of my colleagues in the Child Poverty Action Group, whose early warning system flagged this matter up.

Let us look at a particular case study that brings a human angle to the issue, rather than focusing on dry regulations, as can often be the case. Jess and Mark have a benefit debt of £600 because they were accidentally paid too much universal credit. The Department for Work and Pensions has acknowledged that it made a mistake when it worked out their entitlement, but it is asking for the money back, and Jess and Mark are legally obliged to pay it. Since they do not have the £600—they thought it was theirs, so they have spent it on essentials for themselves and their two children—the DWP is recovering the debt by taking £80 a month off their universal credit. Jess’s and Mark’s income was already low, and now they simply do not have enough to live on.

Unfortunately, this issue is becoming a more common concern. There are a few more case studies I would like to draw the House’s attention to. One claimant with a mental health condition has been left with an overpayment because he was accidentally given too much help towards his rent—that is, the wrong local housing allowance rate was applied; he had his young son staying with him but only the minority of the time. He could not have been expected to spot that pretty technical error.

A lone parent of a 10-year-old with disabilities was overpaid UC through no fault of her own—she received the severely disabled child element of UC when she should have received the disabled child element only. Again, she could not have been expected to spot that; but again, she is liable to repay the difference. A bereaved claimant with diabetes and osteoarthritis was overpaid UC when the DWP failed to act on information that she herself had given them about a private pension she had inherited from her late husband. She is now paying back the overpayment at £48 a month. As of April this year, she still had another 17 months of that left to go.

No matter how an overpayment of universal credit happened, the Department for Work and Pensions can ask for it back, even when somebody has done nothing wrong and indeed has done everything that could reasonably have been expected of them.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this important issue forward. He has outlined some cases; I had a similar case, and I commiserate with his constituents. Does he not agree that when someone has done all they can to be open and honest and there is clearly no fault for which they can be responsible, the stress of debt repayments on a household can be crippling? There must be a compassionate clause that can be used to override the computer systems. I think that is what the hon. Gentleman is asking for; it is certainly what I would ask for.

[David Linden]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. When I and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) visited his constituency office on holiday during the Easter break, I saw at first hand how hard he works for his constituents; there were piles of casework all around him that day. His intervention is born of the fact that he is a hard-working constituency MP and can see the reality of this issue. He is right to call for that special clause.

Speaking about the rule before the introduction of universal credit, the then Employment Minister, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), said:

“The practical reality is that we do not have to recover money from people where official error has been made, and we do not intend, in many cases, to recover money where official error has been made.”––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 19 May 2011; c. 1019.]

Yet the DWP almost always asks for the money back now. Overpaid claimants can ask the DWP to waive recovery, but only about 10 waiver requests were successful in 2020-21, set against 337,000 new overpayments caused by DWP mistakes in the same period. The DWP openly asserts that it will abandon recovery only in “exceptional” cases.

When the DWP insists on recovering a no-fault debt, it has the power to make large deductions from somebody’s future universal credit payments—up to 15% of their standard allowance. To be clear for those watching today’s proceedings at home, I should say that the standard allowance is the amount that the Government believe a person needs to live on, so reducing it by 15% certainly causes hardship. The Government have already suspended energy companies from that, so why on earth are they doing it?

All this is out of line with basic ideas about fairness and fault. The rules about recovering overpayments are very different from what they were for the legacy benefits and tax credits that the universal credit system replaces.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. There is another issue here—this goes back to fairness—about the case law on the overpayment of wages, where there is an error in law and an error in fact. Perhaps that is something the Department should reconsider.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who not only has a close interest in this issue from a constituency point of view but serves on the Work and Pensions Committee and has seen it at first hand. He makes a valid point, and it is on the record.

The new system is leading to financial hardship and debt, and it is likely to have long-term consequences for the health and wellbeing of adult claimants and their children.

One less obvious consequence of the rules is the potential for a decline in the quality of DWP decision making. Now that overpayments can be claimed back, it is possible that decision makers will not feel the same pressure to get decisions right first time. If that is the case, it will have consequences for DWP debt figures.

I have a number of recommendations to put to the Minister, who I have enormous respect for, and who I know to be somebody who listens, especially to those of us who have a significant constituency case load of DWP matters. First, I would like to see the Government change the rules so that no-fault universal credit debts are non-recoverable. That was the position for legacy benefits, for a good reason.

Secondly, the Department should ensure that decision makers are trained on the updated “Benefit overpayment recovery guide” and that recovery decisions truly take into account the list of factors in paragraph 8.4, including the circumstances of a debt and the conduct of the individual. Although that guidance changed in February 2022, we have not seen any changes in actual decision making.

Thirdly, I would like to see the Minister change DWP policy so that no deductions are made while someone is waiting for the outcome of a waiver request or appeal. Again, much of this was standard practice for the older benefits and tax credits.

Lastly, the Minister should set a 5%—not 15%—maximum for Government debt deductions, bringing them in line with deductions for other kinds of debt.

I have outlined how these issues are adversely impacting my constituents, and indeed people right across these islands. Not only that; I have also outlined some practical solutions that I think could alleviate the immense difficulty that the state is unnecessarily inflicting on those we represent. It is clear that these issues are occurring more and more, and it would be an abdication of responsibility for me, as a legislator, not to flag them up to the Government as a concern. But it would be even more of an abdication of responsibility on the part of the Government not to act to resolve them. I look forward to giving the floor to the Minister, who I am sure will be keen to work with me and our constituents to help resolve these issues.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) on securing the debate. It is always a pleasure to follow the Deputy Leader of the House, who was responding to the Sir David Amess summer Adjournment debate—even the fact that the debate has been named after him is very moving.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow East on his tenacity and assiduous approach to these issues and many others in this space. Of course, today he has been rewarded with the last Adjournment debate before the summer recess, which shows not only his keen interest but his dedication. I have always valued our exchanges, because he raises important issues and I try to respond as best I can. I do not doubt his sincerity in these matters.

The Department for Work and Pensions plays a pivotal role every day, including through paying benefits to millions of households in a timely and accurate way, providing the vital welfare safety net that people need. In addition, where people are able to work, work coaches in our jobcentre network help our claimants into sustainable employment all across the United Kingdom.

The universal credit system rose to the challenge of the pandemic admirably. The DWP redeployed staff, harnessing the agility of the system to process benefit claims remotely, and paid over 3 million households. Incredibly and crucially, we kept payment timeliness at very high levels during that time of genuinely global disruption. To illustrate the strength of our welfare system, despite the challenges I have laid out, the statistics from the 2022 financial year show that universal credit official error overpayments were at their lowest recorded level of just 0.7%, having fallen for the third year in a row. Despite the record low levels of official error, which I am proud to be able to set out, I want to assure the hon. Gentleman and other Members that we are absolutely committed to improving further on that record. The good news is that as a percentage, we are on a downward trajectory and we want to go even further. Not only do we run extensive checks to rule out fraud, but we also have a series of internal checks in place that allow us to correct errors pre payment and to learn from any errors we do make to minimise the risk of reoccurrence.

As Members may be aware, under section 105 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, any overpayment of universal credit, new style jobseeker’s allowance or employment and support allowance in excess of entitlement is recoverable. This includes overpayments arising as a result of official error. The approach ensures fairness for the taxpayer and that claimants receive the appropriate amount of support given their circumstances. The Department seeks to recover benefit overpayments as quickly and efficiently as possible, including prescribed official error debt, but it is committed to doing so without causing undue financial hardship. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who also deserves a medal today for his assiduousness and tenacity, should be cognisant of that fact. He used the word compassion. We try to lean into that important word through the process we embark on. We do not abandon people in financial difficulty, and we will always work with and support any individual who deserves our help.

We understand the difficulties claimants can face, which is why we have taken action and lowered the standard cap on deductions from universal credit twice in recent years, from 40% to 30% in October 2019, and then to 25% in April 2021. I am sure Members, particularly those who follow these matters, will appreciate that in April this year a temporary change was introduced, so that for 12 months only benefit claimants themselves can ask the DWP to pay their ongoing energy bills directly from their benefit or alter any existing arrangement. This ensures that claimants have greater autonomy over their benefit award at a time when energy prices are at a record high. Deductions are taken in priority order, which means that higher priority deductions such as utility payments are taken first, with debt only taking up the remainder of the overall cap. Where a person feels they cannot afford the proposed rate of recovery and the debt has not arisen as a result of fraud, they are encouraged to contact us.

[David Linden]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. One issue, which came up in a call I had yesterday with StepChange and a number of other advice lines and organisations, is that when people try to get through to the Department to that specific team, it is incredibly difficult to do so. I am not asking for a miracle at the Dispatch Box, but can he go back to the Department and consider whether it could be made easier for people to get in touch with the Department when they face such financial hardship?

[David Rutley]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I will take it away for sure and follow it up. I have replied to StepChange recently in its correspondence with me, or I am about to do so, on those very same issues. He makes a good point and I will genuinely follow up on that.

The Department is then able to work with individuals, reviewing their financial circumstances and, in most instances, agreeing a temporary reduction in their rate of repayment. We have recently extended the time period, from 12 months to 18 months, before any reduced debt repayments are reviewed. To ensure people can get in touch, we are automating processes, freeing up debt management staff time to respond to customer calls and provide timely support. Again, I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s point and will follow up on it. We also have a rapid response team in place to help manage calls at peak times.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the specific recommendations he made. He mentioned the distinction between legacy benefit official error debt and universal credit official error debt. Because of existing legislation, he is right in saying that the Department writes off legacy benefit official error debt, but, as hon. Members will know, Parliament voted to end legacy benefits and to make universal credit the welfare system of the future. The intention is that the vast majority of working age claimants will move to universal credit by 2024, and a long-standing part of the universal credit system is that official error debt is recoverable. The 2012 welfare reform changes were designed to ensure that claimants took ownership of all aspects of their claim, including the accuracy of their payments. I reassure the hon. Member that I understand the points that he has raised and that, as a Department, we recognise that official error can cause disruption to our claimants, which is why minimising these occurrences is a major focus.

The Department maintains vigorous control of the official error via its quality assurance framework, which provides an assurance that the necessary quality controls are in place. Additionally, an independent quality and assurance team checks transactions conducted within DWP benefits, and this insight informs training requirements, infrastructure improvements and risk management processes. A senior stakeholder group, comprising directors, oversees the quality agenda. I am confident about the approach that our Department is taking. We are minimising the occurrence of official error, and also recovering payments where this unfortunately does occur. We need to balance our duty to the taxpayer with the need to deal with customers sensitively and appropriately. In that context, we do not think it is unreasonable that all overpayments are repayable.

The hon. Member also asked that we ensure that decision makers are involved in determining whether overpayments should be repaid. We are trained to take account of the factors listed in the benefit overpayment recovery guide. I can give the hon. Member a very clear assurance that this is the case, and also that regular refresher sessions are undertaken. The guidance to which the hon. Member refers was updated to give further clarity on some of the factors that have always been considered relevant when deciding whether to grant a waiver, as well as the evidence that should be provided to support an application. I am confident that this guide will make it clearer from the outset what evidence should be supplied in support of a request for waiver. We, of course, recognise the importance of doing all that we can to safeguard the welfare of claimants who have incurred debt. Our debt management agents are trained how to recognise signs of vulnerability, which is a critical point, and how best to support those customers.

My Department also has a network of advanced customer support leads to provide additional support to our most vulnerable customers. We are working in partnership with the Money Adviser Network, which offers free, independent and impartial money and debt advice, to routinely refer indebted customers to their service. In addition, the guidance to all universal credit agents is being reviewed to ensure that cases that may be appropriate for consideration of waiver are duly identified and referred to the waiver team for consideration.

Recovery of benefit debt must be balanced against the claimant’s social obligation to repay the money they owe to the Exchequer or the taxpayer. In April 2021, we reduced the cap on standard deductions to 25%, as I have explained, and at the same time we doubled the new claim advance award period to 24 months. This provided all new universal credit claimants with greater flexibility over how they received their advance. Such changes have helped hundreds of thousands of UC claimants retain more of their award in any given month. Some people have advocated for a reduction of the maximum deduction rate for the Government debt, as the hon. Member has done today. However, the limits that we currently have in place strike the right balance between managing the social obligations while supporting claimants with debt. To be clear, reducing the threshold further would risk key payments, including child maintenance, not being fulfilled. I think that those points need to be considered, notwithstanding the concerns that he has raised.

In addition, through the universal credit system, the recovery of universal credit and tax credit overpayments can be taken up to a maximum of 15% of the standard universal credit allowance, although this can be higher where a claimant has earnings. As I have said already, we understand and take seriously the impact that the recovery of overpayments can cause. However, reducing the 15% cap would extend the length of time until claimants return to their full UC award, and there is already a significant amount of support that is available for claimants repaying these overpayments.

Claimants can already contact the debt management to agree an affordable rate of repayment. There is no minimum amount that a person is expected to repay; they can pay an amount less than 5% if that is all they are able to afford. That is an important consideration.

Moving on to the last of the hon. Gentleman’s points—I have taken them in a slightly different order—the Department can waive benefit debt in exceptional circumstances, but waivers are generally granted only in truly exceptional circumstances where it can be clearly demonstrated that a person’s circumstances will improve only by waiving the debt. Such requests are rare, and there would normally need to be specific and compelling grounds for a waiver, such as when the recovery of the debt was causing either long-standing financial hardship or welfare issues for the debtor and their family. Waivers are granted at the discretion of the Secretary of State.

As a number of requests is low, we do not normally feel it is necessary to stop recovery during the waiver process. When a request is received, it usually follows a discussion with the claimant regarding recovery of the debt, and that discussion often already results in a reduction or could involve a suspension in recovery, so there are other factors we can consider in the journey of the individual claimant. Further along in the process, we do not suspend recovery of an overpayment during the appeal process because, in legislation, anything paid in excess of entitlement is recoverable, and there is no right of appeal against the recoverability of the overpayment. The Department is responsible for ensuring fairness to the taxpayer because, as I stated earlier, overpayment is effectively debt that is owed to the taxpayer.

It is also worth highlighting that other measures are in place to support people struggling with debt, such as the breathing space scheme, which I think we may have mentioned in previous debates. The hon. Gentleman knows about it, so I will not prolong this point. Let us use all the tools that are available. In Scotland, the debt arrangement scheme provides similar support to that available in England.

We recognise that people are facing serious challenges in Glasgow, in Scotland and across the United Kingdom and much of the world, and I think even the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that we have put a significant package on the table. We have had similar debates, so I know he feels that it is not quite enough, but it is substantial none the less, now totalling £37 billion. We as Members have a duty to communicate and reassure people that a package of support is being made available to them. The £326 means-tested cost of living payment has gone out to nearly all eligible benefit claimants, but others will receive the first of those instalments by the end of the month. Claimants will get a second payment to get up to £650 well before Christmas, which will be vital for their budgeting at that time of year. The £150 disability cost of living payment will be made available in September. The energy bills support scheme will also provide £400 for all who have a domestic electricity contract. Of course, pensioners will receive—I know the hon. Gentleman has strong views on the support available—£300 on top of their winter fuel payment.

Whatever our views on the different approaches to supporting people in poverty and those facing financial challenges, a significant amount of support is available. I will be doing all I can to help to communicate that, and I am sure he will do the same with his constituents. I want to put it on the record that, through the programme of support that will be put in place, 8 million low-income households in the United Kingdom will receive a package of support of around £1,200, which will be of significant help in these challenging times.

Of course, additional funds will be made available through the household support fund in England. There is similar support in Scotland; I have learned from previous debates that it does not total £79 billion in Scotland—that is for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales—but it is £41 million in Scotland. I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has taught me that lesson in previous debates. None the less, further funds have been put in place to help people with the cost of essentials.

To conclude, I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the Government are taking a considered and balanced approach to the recovery of debt. We are not overlooking, and will not overlook, anyone who needs our help and is struggling during these times of financial uncertainty. Equally, we will always strive to be both fair and equitable to people who are paying back the debts that they owe. We will continue to recover debt where the law allows, but we will also try to set recovery plans that are sustainable for the individual. If people are concerned about their benefit debt, I encourage them to contact the Department to discuss the help and support that might be available to them.

I thank the staff for their amazing work this year and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your support throughout the year and in similar debates. I wish the hon. Gentleman and other Members present a good recess. I wish to pass on my huge thanks to the officials at DWP who have provided me with a huge amount of support over recent months. It is much appreciated and they do sterling work.

Cost of Living

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), and I agree with all the points he made, as I did with those raised by the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms). I want to focus on a few key things and pick up on the point that my right hon. Friend made about the context of the revised estimates for the Department for Work and Pensions.

We need to recognise—many Opposition Members certainly do—that the cuts associated with the two major reforms to the social security system in the last 12 years have shrunk the contributions that are being made, particularly to working-age people. We know from the Resolution Foundation’s work that by 2022, the spending cuts in the Department for Work and Pensions had reduced support to working-age people by up to 17%, compared with 2010. That is the equivalent of £33 billion.

We know from the data that by 2018, UK social security spending as a percentage of GDP was below both the EU27 and OECD averages. I think my right hon. Friend mentioned that out-of-work support in 1948 was about 25% of average earnings; it is currently less than half that. Even during the pandemic, with the £20-a-week uplift to universal credit, our support was the least generous in the OECD. We like to think that we are a generous country that looks after those who need support, but our support has been the least generous, and that shames us all. The amount of support available to somebody who is out of work is only slightly more than what is recognised as destitution.

In other analysis, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed that social security and tax changes mean that the poorest 10% of households have lost 11% of their income, equivalent to £1,200 a year. For families with children, it is even worse, with a 20% loss of income amounting to £4,000 a year. The Equality and Human Rights Commission confirmed the IFS’s analysis and exposed the impact of the reforms and cuts on disabled people. For households with at least one disabled adult and a disabled child, average annual cash losses since 2010 are just over £6,500, which is more than 13% of average net income. Disabled lone parents with at least one disabled child have fared even worse, losing almost £3 out of every £10 of income. In cash terms, their average losses are almost £10,000 a year.

The all-party parliamentary group on health in all policies, which I chair, looked at the impact of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 on children and disabled people and found strong evidence of an association with poverty, inequality, homelessness, food security, poor health and premature death directly as a consequence of those welfare reforms and cuts.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady hits the nail on the head. She has rightly put the scale of the cuts into context, and there is a point for the Government to reflect on here. They will think, after making cuts, “Well, that’s no longer a problem for DWP,” but in many respects local authorities such as Glasgow City Council have to pick up the burden of the resulting destitution. My local social work office in Easterhouse has to deal with the homelessness, the debt, and all the other issues that ensue from Government policies.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I recognise what the hon. Member says. I visited Glasgow last week—the constituency of my friend the hon. Member for Glasgow South West is there—and it was interesting to see the reforms being introduced there, particularly those for disabled people.

Many hon. Members will not be aware of yesterday’s report from Deaths by Welfare, which provided even more evidence of the impact of the so-called reforms on premature deaths and suicides. It had a timeline that showed when there had been reforms and further cuts, and what they meant in terms of deaths of vulnerable social security claimants. Another recent report shows a detrimental impact on social cohesion. The University of Newcastle quantified that, between 2013 and 2015, for every £100 lost in income per working age adult, motivated hate crimes increased by about 6%. The effects are much wider than the Government recognise.

My second point is about the pandemic. We know that people on the lowest incomes, and particularly those reliant on social security support, were disproportionately and negatively affected by covid. They were more likely to be exposed to the virus and to be infected, and they were more likely to be seriously ill and die. Within that group are disabled people. After adjusting for a range of factors including health, the Office for National Statistics has estimated that disabled people were between 1.3 and 1.6 times more at risk of death from covid. The reasons for those disproportionate deaths must be investigated in the covid public inquiry, but given the context that I have just described—the inadequacy of our social security system—the contribution of the cuts in social security support cannot be ignored.

On the cost of living package and its impact on the DWP spending estimates, of course I welcome the package, but I have just spent the past few minutes describing the context and, much though the Government congratulate themselves on what they are doing, it just about scratches the surface of the cuts that they have made. I must, as others have done, highlight some of the gaps in the package. As support is on a household basis, larger families will not get the same support as smaller families. As the Resolution Foundation suggested, in the light of inflation, a 9.5% uplift to all social security support would have been more progressive than the 3.1% awarded at the beginning of the year, and would have taken us beyond the Chancellor’s stop-start, ad hoc approach.

My concern is that the cost of living will not just be an issue this year; it will carry on—and what will the Government do then? We need principles that ensure that all social security support is uplifted to account for inflation.

As my friend the hon. Member for Glasgow South West mentioned, there are huge issues with deductions. We asked the Secretary of State about that last week. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, StepChange and many other charities have pointed out that 4.6 million households are in arrears on at least one bill, so what is handed out with one hand will be clawed back by another. I join those charities and hon. Members in their calls to reduce the amount that can be deducted from the universal credit standard allowance; it is now 25%. I would like it to be less than 15%. When the deductions are for debts to Government—figures indicate that the Government are the largest debt collector—it would only be reasonable to reduce it to 5%.

My final point is that given the cuts in spending and the culture in the Department, our social security system does not provide the safety net that everybody thinks it does. I really like the approach being introduced in Scotland, which is not about people proving that they are entitled to support; there is trust. We should try to make that the basis of the culture in England as well.

Carer’s Allowance

David Linden Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell]

I fully agree. There is a sense of urgency about this issue now, because what came out of the discussions that I have had with the carers group that I brought together is the stress that carers are under, and the mental health implications not only for themselves as individuals but for their whole family. We know that there are examples in the past of how such stress has caused a mental health problem that has led to suicide.

There is a need for urgent action now. We have gone beyond intellectual debates about this issue; we just need some action rapidly, given the fact that carers face these massive increases in prices, particularly around energy. And then effectively they face a cut—a 3.1% increase, as against inflation now, which ranges between 7% and 10%. That level of inflation comes in like a whirlwind for these particular families and we need urgent action now. Perhaps that action has not been considered effectively in the past, but it certainly needs to be considered now.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving way. Does he also believe that it is incumbent on the state to view this matter through the prism of preventive spending? If we pile so much pressure on these carers, who are caring for some of the most vulnerable people, and then the carers themselves end up in mental health predicaments or poor health, the costs of that will be borne by the state anyway. So it is a false economy not to support them.

[John McDonnell]

That is exactly the final point that I was going to make, because most of the people who I have talked to are at a tipping point, where they and their whole family can no longer survive on the level of income they have, given the pressure they are under.

What comes across time and again is that carers have to struggle: first of all for recognition; then for assessment of the person they are caring for; then for support services; and then for just a respite every now and again. For some of them, that struggle is becoming insurmountable. Then what happens? The person they are caring for is taken into care and the costs escalate beyond anything that we have seen so far. So there is a desperate need to resolve this matter.

I will just throw in one other point as well. The benefit that carers get is not an access benefit to other benefits. With regard to energy costs in particular, a small step would be access to winter fuel allowance and—to be frank—a doubling of that winter fuel allowance.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is always a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I realise that, being in the Chair, you are constrained in what you can say. You probably want to take part in the debate, and I am sure you would want to put on record your thanks to the carers of West Lothian for the work they do to support your constituents, but I will not seek to bend the rules further.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) on bringing the debate. I am acutely aware that the situation with P&O Ferries is also taking up a huge amount of his time. It is testament to the care he has for all his constituents that he is able to spin all those plates. With the indulgence of the Chair, I would also like to recognise Ian Dick, who is down from Glasgow and in the Public Gallery. I know that hon. Members will want to welcome him to Westminster.

Far too often, carers are invisible to those in positions of responsibility and authority. They are overwhelmingly women; 72% of them are women, and often unpaid. They are normal working people, put in the position of taking care of a loved one. The huge pressures that they face in taking on that responsibility for the care of a sick or elderly family member can be monumental. Today is a good reminder of that.

Carers in Glasgow’s east end find themselves performing a precarious balancing act, having to balance work, school and family alongside the intensive act of caring. Not only does caring often dominate people’s lives, as they have to work around meal times, medication and doctor’s appointments, but caring also leaves very little personal time for the carer. As several hon. Members have referenced, the survey by Carers UK found that 72% of carers have not had any breaks from caring and 74% are exhausted and worn out. I think we would all agree that the situation has only been exacerbated by the pandemic and the associated lockdowns.

The role of a carer is so often underappreciated and I want to take a moment to recognise the hard work and dedication of carers right across these islands. I thank Glasgow North East Carers, led by Jean McInaw, and East End Community Carers, which I ran for in the 2018 London Marathon.

Last week, I met representatives of Carers UK to discuss the pressures that carers are feeling in the cost of living crisis. As a group, carers are particularly vulnerable to rising costs, due to the additional costs that come with caring. It is right that a number of hon. Members have put on the record that the shameful decision by the Government not to extend the £20 uplift to legacy benefits very much impacted on carers as well. Let us not forget that 2.5 million disabled people were literally left out in the cold by a Government who clearly do not care enough about them. For carers, food bills may be higher because of nutritional requirements, transport costs may be higher because of mobility issues, and all these additional expenses will only increase in the cost of living crisis.

I must say that it somewhat sticks in my craw to hear Members of this House talk about a cost of living crisis, because what we are actually talking about is 12 years of Tory austerity that just happen to be exacerbated by recent economic turbulence. Let us not kid ourselves: the cost of living crisis is not a result of what is happening in Ukraine or global energy prices. The pressures that our constituents and the most vulnerable in our society face are a direct consequence of decisions taken by Conservative Ministers in Whitehall, none of whom were elected in Scotland.

Those in receipt of carer’s allowance or the carer element of universal credit will still struggle financially in the cost of living crisis. That is deeply concerning. Carers UK has already reported that a quarter of those claiming those benefits have to use food banks to make ends meet. The UK Government like to talk about a big society, but they do not want to talk about a broken society. The very fact that people who are out there working and caring—saving the state money—are having to be fed by food banks is an absolute abomination.

The increase in costs is not helped by the fact that many carers have been forced to reduce their hours or leave employment entirely in order to care for loved ones. As a result, many carers face a precarious financial situation. Some 1.2 million carers are living in poverty. The rising cost of living will undoubtedly increase the strain on those families who already face financial pressures.

As a number of hon. Members have mentioned, the Scottish Government recognise the invaluable work of carers and their families. The carer’s allowance supplement, which increased carer’s allowance by 13%, was the first payment to be paid by Social Security Scotland. Is that increase enough? No, it is not, but it is a step in the right direction for my constituents in Easterhouse, Barrowfield and Tollcross.

Over the past two years, the Scottish Government have invested a further £40 million to provide two extra payments to support carers through the impacts of the pandemic. Together with the additional coronavirus carer’s allowance supplement, eligible carers received an extra £690.30 last year compared with carers south of the border. In recognition of rising cost of living pressures, the Scottish Government have now decided to further increase the eight Scottish benefits by 6%—a change from the previous plan to uprate by 3.1%. I challenge the Minister to explain why, if the Scottish Government, with a fixed budget and without borrowing powers, can uprate benefits by 6%, the UK Government think it is in any way appropriate to have a real-terms cut of just 3.1%.

I want to say a word about young carers, who are supported so well by Glasgow North East Carers in the Easthall area of my constituency. The SNP’s young carer grant started in October 2019 and supports more than 3,680 young carers in Scotland. We cannot have this debate in a vacuum and lose sight of the fact that young carers are playing a crucial role, saving money for the state, yet many do not even realise that they are in fact carers.

Many people never imagined that they would be put in the position of becoming a carer for a loved one. It is difficult, and often upsetting, to think that one day a loved one would need such intensive care and support. However, that is why we should all increase support for carers, because it truly could happen to anyone whom we represent, and indeed to any one of us in this Chamber—a point that was highlighted by the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi).

Becoming a carer can be difficult, expensive and a scary labour of love. It can dominate families for years on end, putting untold stress and anxiety on people who were, in many cases, absolutely unprepared to become full-time carers. It is therefore vital that there is proper support for carers and their families, from adequate carer’s allowance to funded short breaks to counselling. Carers across these islands should be appreciated and valued for their hard work and dedication.

I think it was the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) who made the point that warm words are all well and good, but they are not enough. I am sick and fed up of standing up in these debates and paying tribute to people. My constituents who are carers right across the east end of Glasgow do not just need warm words; they need proper uprating. That is something that we are providing in Scotland, but this debate is not an opportunity for whataboutery and for me to come here and talk about how wonderful things are north of the border—they could be better—but I have to say to the Minister that warm words will not cut it. We need proper support for carers and that is the message that we all look to hear from her today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

I will turn to the other detailed points raised in the debate shortly, but like other hon. Members who have spoken, I also want to pay tribute to the millions of unpaid carers in this country. The Government certainly recognise and value the vital contributions made by carers every single day in providing care and continuity of support to family and friends, including pensioners and those with disabilities. More than six out of 10 of us may become a carer at some point during our lives and as many as 13 million people may be doing some unpaid care. That has never been more important than during the covid-19 pandemic, when unpaid carers played a vital role in supporting the most vulnerable in our society. I will come to some of the points made in respect of that in a moment.

Like other hon. Members, I see so much of the work that carers do through my own constituency post bag, such as the experiences that a Mr W recently shared with me, as well as through disabled people’s networks. Carers are fortunate enough to have some wonderful advocates, including their MPs and organisations such as Carers UK, which has been mentioned a number of times today. When I met Carers UK earlier this month, I was able to talk about some of the help that the Government provide to unpaid carers.

We recognise that people, including carers, are facing pressures with the cost of living, including higher fuel bills. That is why we are providing support with the cost of living worth £22 billion across this financial year and next. We have also promised to legislate so that employees will be entitled to five days of unpaid care leave per year, and, as hon. Members will know, we are reforming health and adult social care. I am working closely with the Minister for Care and Mental Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), on that.

[David Linden]

The Minister mentioned the five-day paid care leave, which I presume will come in the form of an employment Bill. Will she give a cast-iron guarantee that there will be an employment Bill in the Gracious Speech that we expect in May, or are we going to have to wait yet more years for an employment Bill? People cannot wait any longer.

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me down paths that I am afraid I am unable to go down in this debate, but I look forward very much to working with him and others to make that goal a reality.

We are spending record amounts to support unpaid carers. Real-terms expenditure on carer’s allowance is forecast to be £3.1 billion in 2021-22 and to increase by two fifths by 2026-27, when the Government are expected to spend just under £4.4 billion a year on it.

Patterns of care have changed significantly over the last few decades. People are providing vital unpaid care for relatives and friends in a whole range of circumstances. Nearly 1 million people are now receiving carer’s allowance and the weekly rate will increase to £69.70 in April. Since 2010, it will have increased from £53.90 to £69.70 a week, providing an additional £800 a year in cash for carers through the carer’s allowance. There are additional amounts for carers in universal credit and other benefits.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Linden Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I agree with my hon. Friend that we should be doing and want to do more on child maintenance. There are a number of reasons why sometimes parents are not so keen on that process. However, that specific power was created in primary legislation, and it is my intention later this year to bring the curfew order into effect. I will be working carefully across Government to make sure that we get the appropriate consultation and clearance for regulations.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The Government speak about their plan for jobs. I think many of us were quite shocked that a plan for jobs meant butchering back-office jobs in the Secretary of State’s own Department; I suspect that she might want to reflect on that. Given that her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a multimillionaire who has no idea what it is like to get by on poverty, as many of my constituents and those on these Opposition Benches do, has she suggested that he should follow the Scottish Government’s approach of uprating benefits by 6% with a fixed budget? Is that something she is planning to ask him to do on Wednesday, or is it going to be more of the same from her Department—no action?

[Dr Coffey]

The House has just recently voted through the uprating order, recognising the traditional way in which the inflation index is used. We will continue to strive to get more people working than ever before. We have seen that certainly on payrolls. I am conscious that the surveys on self-employment may differ in that regard. That is why we will keep working in different ways to try to make sure that we try to lift as many people out of poverty as we can, and we will do that the best way we know: through our work coaches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

As was explained at the time of the emergency legislation, the increase in earnings was a statistical anomaly due to the impacts of covid. That is why the Opposition supported the Bill right through this House on its very first day—

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

No we didn’t.

[Dr Coffey]

I said the Opposition; the SNP might be the second Opposition party. The Labour Opposition did support the Bill until it came back from the Lords. There was a lot of support at the time, recognising the statistical anomaly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Would anyone like to ask a topical question? [Laughter.]

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am very grateful, Mr Speaker. Although the Secretary of State might be used to dishing out sanctions to people in our constituencies, I gently suggest that it is inappropriate for her to try to do that to you in the Chair.

In-work Poverty

David Linden Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on securing the debate.

In the course of the last few weeks, we have been speaking about issues such as the cost of living crisis and in-work poverty almost as if they are new concepts. However, it would be remiss of any of us in this House to allow that to pass without saying that the cost of living crisis and in-work poverty are not new; they are the result of 12 years of Conservative government and austerity.

Many of my constituents, particularly those in Wellhouse, raise three main points with me regularly, and I will come them in a minute. First, I want to discuss the issue of the national insurance hike, which a number of other hon. Members have mentioned. I must be one of the many people in this House who find it a bit bizarre to be told that we need to hike national insurance on the youngest and lowest earners in society, when only in 2016 a bus was going around the UK that said that if people voted for Brexit, there would be £350 million a week extra for the national health service. I find it a little bit odd that, having committed the act of economic madness that is Brexit, we now find ourselves being told that national insurance has to be hiked to pay for changes in the health system.

The national insurance hike will disproportionately hit the youngest and the lowest income earners in our society. To put that in context, particularly for my constituents back home in Scotland, that means that 20% of the pay increase for a band 5 nurse will go on the national insurance hike. We can all stand there and talk about clapping for carers and that kind of thing, but the very people who we are seeking to reward and recognise for their work during the pandemic will be clobbered by this national insurance hike.

I will raise three other issues today. First, I want to see proper statutory sick pay. If the pandemic has highlighted anything, it is that making people choose between adhering to public health guidance and having enough money to heat their homes and put food in the fridge is a nonsense. The Government will say that now is not the time to look at statutory sick pay, but I would turn that on its head: the pandemic has magnified why statutory sick pay needs to be reformed. Statutory sick pay in these islands is the equivalent of about 17% of average weekly earnings, according to the Office for National Statistics. The Government must revisit the issue.

Secondly, let me turn to the idea of removing age discrimination. The hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) talked about the living wage. Let us be clear that the living wage is a con trick. The Government talk about the living wage, but it is not a real living wage that is set in line with the recommendations of the Living Wage Foundation, and age discrimination is baked in.

We celebrated Scottish Apprenticeship Week just last week. I do not know whether Conservative MPs are aware that an apprentice in the UK can be paid as little as £4.30 an hour. Indeed, the UK Government website states:

“An apprentice aged 21 in the first year of their apprenticeship is entitled to a minimum hourly rate of £4.30.”

I served alongside many apprentices when I was an apprentice at Glasgow City Council. Apprentices do not get a discount on their fuel when they go to the pumps, they do not get a discount on their energy bills, and they do not get a discount when they go to Asda or Aldi for their food. If the UK Government want to talk about equality and making sure that work pays, let us start by ensuring that everybody gets a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.

Finally, I want to talk briefly about the importance of childcare. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) made a thoughtful speech. He is right to say that we can by all means provide childcare, but the universal credit childcare offer is not enough. The Government must do so much more to help people with in-work poverty, which is a stain on this society.

Draft Scotland Act 2016 (Social Security) (Adult Disability Payment and Child Disability Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

David Linden Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2022 General Committees

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Hollobone.

I thank the Minister for presenting the statutory instrument. It is not a controversial one for Labour, but I do have a few quick questions. The purpose of the SI is to ensure that attendance allowance, disability living allowance, personal independence payment and armed forces independence payment cannot be paid if adult disability payment or child disability payment is also in payment. It will also ensure that if individuals move from Scotland to another part of the UK, they will not be considered as satisfying the residence requirements for AA, DLA and PIP while they are in receipt of the 13-week ADP or CDP run-on payment. It is therefore crucial that the roll-out of ADP and CDP happens as quickly and smoothly as possible.

Disabled people have been hit hard by the pandemic and are now facing huge increases in the cost of living. It is no exaggeration to say that any disruption to their income could leave many in dire straits. Will the Minister therefore please confirm what discussions she has had with the Scottish Government to ensure that her Department works closely with Scottish colleagues to prevent delays or disruption? In theory, the 13-week ADP or CDP run-on payment will allow those who move away from Scotland time to make a claim for other relevant benefits before their ADP or CDP is stopped. What assurances can the Minister give that this will be sufficient in absolutely all cases, and what contingencies are in place should the new claim be delayed? Has she had any discussions with Scottish Ministers about why it has taken so long for the Scottish Government to use their devolved benefits powers?

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Which of the powers that the Scottish Government recently acquired and are using does the hon. Lady have a dispute about? Is it the doubling of the game-changing Scottish child payment to £20 a week when charities were originally calling for £5 a week? Is that the kind of delay she is talking about?

[Vicky Foxcroft]

I thank the hon. Member for his point. He will be aware that the Scottish Government have a number of benefits powers that they really have not used in a timely fashion.

Given that political disputes have inhibited joint working between the UK and Scottish Governments in the past, is the Minister confident that the two can now work together effectively to administer this process and ensure that all necessary data has been shared? I appreciate the Minister laying this SI before Parliament. As I said at the start, it is one that we support, in the hope that adult disability payment and child disability payment can be rolled out in a timely and efficient manner to those who need it.

Benefit Cap

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith). In opening this debate, I place on record my sincere thanks to Mr Speaker and his team for granting tonight’s debate and particularly for being so kind as to reschedule it after I contracted covid-19.

The Minister and I, by virtue of he being a Tory and me not, will disagree on virtually everything about social security policy. However, there is a serious point: in the light of what is happening in Ukraine at the moment, we should reflect on the fact that as much as we can disagree on things, we live in a democracy. I know that he will join me tonight in paying tribute to all our friends in Ukraine and in standing very much in solidarity with them.

I rise tonight to make the case for scrapping the cap, and in particular to pay tribute to the Poverty Alliance for the campaign it has been leading on this. Its campaign has emphasised the impact of the benefit cap as it pushes families into poverty and hardship, having a disproportionate effect on single mothers and ethnic minority families in particular. In speaking tonight, I want to set out why the SNP, as well as countless others in civic society, want to see an end to the unfair and disastrous benefit cap.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

[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 Linden]

Absolutely. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who I know is a trustee of Feeding Britain and has the Threehills Community trust in his constituency. He is right, and he sees at first hand the food poverty that exists in our communities needlessly as a result of the poor social security policy emanating from Whitehall. The Feeding Britain charity, which he is on, and local organisations in his constituency are very much at the sharp end of that, and I hope that the Minister will reflect on that.

It should be noted that benefit capped households in receipt of universal credit have also largely not benefited from the £20 increase to universal credit during the pandemic. The benefit cap remained in place, which meant that universal credit claimants who had already reached the cap saw no increase in the support they received, and even more households were affected by the cap as the universal credit increase pushed them to the cap’s limit. On top of all that, and very much to add insult to injury, the cap does not increase to reflect increasing costs of living.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I fully support what he has been saying. Does he not agree that in the current economic climate the power of the pound is so massively reduced that, while benefits may once have helped pay substantially for additional costs, the same amount goes nowhere near to meeting needs today? If that is the case, the hon. Gentleman is correct that there is clearly a need to reassess the cap entirely, and for that reason I fully support what he is proposing.

[David Linden]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. It is almost as though he had seen my speech, but that may not be the case. I like to think that he is the Mystic Meg of Strangford. But he is absolutely right and makes a serious point, which, in the context of the cost of living crisis, is a massive issue. He has very much put that on record for his constituents in Strangford, who I know will be incredibly proud of him.

The problem with the benefit cap is that it is in effect a cut in real terms each year. As we face the cost of living crisis that the hon. Member spoke about, benefit claimants will see their costs go up while their incomes continue to be capped. The benefit cap has profound impacts on the people affected by it. For many families it means insecurity and anxiety, poor mental health, an inability to afford essentials such as food and heating, and reliance on food banks. It has also forced many of the constituents of SNP Members into problem debt.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[David Linden]

I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady).

[Patrick Grady]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Is it not exactly the point that if people cannot afford basic necessities—food, heating their homes—because of the benefit cap, that stores up greater costs for the state in the longer term because of the health costs and the other social difficulties that may arise, even later in life, such as for the 173 children in the Glasgow North constituency who are hit by the benefit cap?

[David Linden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to put that on record, because he is right to identify the point that destitution ultimately comes at a cost to the state. I am incredibly proud that the Scottish Government have a focus on a preventive spending agenda. The Government should realise that if we push people into debt and financial insecurity, we end up with a situation, as my hon. Friend will have seen in Glasgow, where people are essentially made homeless because they do not have enough money, and that then results in a section 5 referral to the local authority and the state still has to pick up the costs as a result. My hon. Friend is exactly right to make that point, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) will be just as eloquent.

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend has been talking about the impact that people face from the benefit cap across the piece, but there is an even greater impact for those who live in rural areas—particularly those off the gas grid—where, for example, petrol costs are higher, travel costs are higher and incomes are often lower across the piece, so families will struggle together. The benefit cap is punishing those people even more than those in cities with lower costs.

[David Linden]

Absolutely, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend on that, because he presented a 10-minute rule Bill on this issue in the Chamber last week. I know it affects his constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara). In a lot of these rural constituencies, people are off-grid, and it means they will have increased energy costs. Having some sort of arbitrary benefit cap in place will not help them, so I ask those on the Treasury Bench to reflect on the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey and to bring forward the opportunity for it to get its Second Reading and for him to give his constituents a voice.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making a very strong case. He is absolutely right to focus on the benefit cap and the impact that has on 180,000-odd households. Does he agree that it needs to be looked at in the context of the £34 billion a year that has been taken out of support for working-age families? Do we also need to be considering the adequacy overall of social security support?

[David Linden]

Yes, my fundamental position is that we need a root-and-branch review of the social security system. That safety net that is supposed to exist for some of the most marginalised and vulnerable people in our communities is a safety net that has more holes than a clarinet at the moment. I gently make a point to the hon. Member and her party. Yes, we need that real reform of social security—not the reform that we have from the Government, where basically the lion is in charge of the abattoir—where we look at ensuring that we give as much support to people as possible. That is why I would like to see the next Labour manifesto commit to abolishing the welfare cap. I was disappointed that Labour MPs were not able to join us in the Lobby on that, but I am sure that the hon. Member will be making that point to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer).

With the cost of living crisis already impacting on thousands of families in Glasgow East, alongside the continuing financial effect of the pandemic, Brexit and now the regressive hike in national insurance, I have to ask the Minister: when will this Tory Government realise that all they are doing is pushing more and more people into poverty? The benefit cap disproportionately impacts single parents, placing an additional burden on families who already face challenges. Based on the latest Department for Work and Pensions figures for August 2021, across the UK six in 10 households that have had their benefit capped are single-parent families.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that the disproportionate impact of the benefit cap on larger families is also particularly problematic, given the comments he has just made about the cost of living crisis and the increasingly difficult situations that many families are facing?

[David Linden]

Absolutely. That is an issue I will perhaps touch on a little later in my speech. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to challenge the Government on that point, because I sometimes wonder how a policy like this could have got through the Government’s so-called family test. I am sure she will not hesitate in challenging her constituency MSP, the Conservative MSP Jackson Carlaw, to stand up for his constituents, many of whom have larger families.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

On that point, is it not key that we are talking about families and children? Whatever the Tories’ ideological views on people having too many children, the reality is that the benefit cap is affecting children who have no say in the matter, and it is evil.

[David Linden]

Absolutely; my hon. Friend makes that point eloquently. The issue is that the Government are making policy in their ivory towers in Whitehall without any understanding of the real-life impact that it has on many families, including in Kilmarnock.

Some nine out of 10 single parents with children are women, which adds another layer of discrimination to an already incredibly cruel policy. We have heard testimonies from women who have left relationships due to domestic abuse only to find their benefits capped and the threat of financial hardship looming. That is the reality of the policy. Every effort should be made to ensure that those women, who are often fleeing desperate situations, are supported. Instead, the heartless British Government have capped the benefits that they can receive.

On top of that clear discrimination against single parents, specifically single mothers, a 2018 report by the excellent charities One Parent Families Scotland and CPAG in Scotland revealed that most families whose benefits had been capped were unable to seek or undertake work. The report highlighted that almost four in five lone parent households affected by the cap were claiming income support because they had young children and were not expected to seek work. Some one in six were claiming employment and support allowance, which suggests that they had been assessed as not fit for work. Families across Scotland are being pushed into financial hardship when they are not expected, and indeed are not deemed fit, to find work.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that the benefit cap also disproportionately affects minority ethnic households. In England, eight in 20 households affected by the cap are minority ethnic, while minority ethnic households represent only three in 20 of the total. The Poverty Alliance has shown that the benefit cap discriminates against larger families as well, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) said. In Scotland, 96% of capped households have children and of that number, 75% have three or more children.

According to a recent Resolution Foundation report, the low level of core social security benefits, which were affected by the various real-terms cuts to benefit levels in the 2010s, has been exacerbated in the past decade by policy changes such as the benefit cap and the two-child limit and associated rape clause that have undermined the idea that those with extra needs should be supported. That has resulted in rising poverty, particularly among families with three or more children.

The SNP has put forward clear policies to tackle poverty across Scotland. For example, my colleagues, SNP Ministers in Holyrood, have doubled the game-changing Scottish child payment, rolled out 11 new benefits and extended free school meals, and are working to actively reduce poverty and inequality. All the while, this place—Westminster—undermines those efforts.

With limited tax-raising powers, no serious borrowing powers and 85% of welfare spending still controlled in London, however, those policies can only go so far. They are being continually undermined by a Tory Government that Scotland did not elect; indeed, we have not elected a Tory Government since the 1950s. The benefit cap is just another cruel policy implemented by the Tories that leads to the extreme austerity and poverty that blight the lives of far too many of our constituents.

In addition to the benefit cap, the British Government must also scrap other poverty-inducing Tory policies such as the two-child limit and the bedroom tax. We face a perverse situation where the Scottish Government have to use between £60 million and £80 million of their budget every year to mitigate the bedroom tax. Again, devolution is almost being used as a sticking plaster for bad social security policy. Quite simply, I am sick and tired of standing up in this Chamber and making endless pleas to intransigent Tory Ministers while trying to demonstrate how my constituents in Wellhouse, Easthall and Cranhill are suffering from their cruel social security squeeze.

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend is being generous with his time. He is about to make a point about people suffering. Does he agree that either there is no recognition from the Government Benches of the hardship and suffering that people are going through and facing more of, or they are willing to let it happen by not taking the actions that they need to take?

[David Linden]

It is a question on which I find myself reflecting an awful lot. We all come into politics for different reasons. As I outlined at the beginning of this debate, the Minister and I have very different ideological views on the merits of the social security system and perhaps, even in his case, on what role the state should have in people’s lives. We are all constituency MPs, and on Friday morning we will go back to our constituencies and sit in those cold, draughty community centres and talk to people who are impacted by these policies. I find it very difficult to believe that the Minister, who represents Macclesfield, does not have constituents coming to him and saying that the benefit cap is putting them in a very difficult position. This may be a case of Ministers focusing too much on policy, but in this instance I think it is a case of Ministers, and indeed the Government, not focusing enough on their day job or on the correspondence that they receive from their constituents, which overwhelmingly says that the benefit cap must go.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case as to why the benefit cap must go. One thing that we have not discussed is the pandemic, which has affected so many families in Scotland and right across the UK. I think that it is 88% of households in Renfrewshire that have been affected by the benefit cap. Does that very fact not highlight the callousness of this policy and the fact that it needs to go?

[David Linden]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend is a doughty champion of the children of Renfrewshire. This is a topic that we discuss regularly in our policy teams. He is right to place on record the extreme challenges that that poses to his constituents. I am sure that his constituents will reflect on the fact that the only way of ensuring that we do not have things like the benefit cap is to secure the powers of Scottish independence.

I was saying how often it feels like groundhog day in Westminster. While we on these Benches are focused on the people of Scotland, the Tories are far too focused on naval gazing and internal party politics. Indeed, the Chancellor seems more interested in preparing his suite of Instagram graphics for his next leadership bid than resourcing appropriately our social security system.

The fact of the matter is that the entire system is in desperate need of reform—reform that the Tories will not implement because it does not fit their political game of pitting people against each other in our community. While 85% of welfare policy remains reserved to the Westminster Government, we should only expect further policies that encourage poverty and austerity. From where I am standing, it is clearer than ever that the only way to protect Scotland’s interests and to build that fair and equal society that we all want to see is for Scotland to become a normal independent country. I am absolutely clear that we are on that path and that we will get there, but there is recognition, even on these Benches, that it will not happen overnight. That is why Ministers must act now, and that is why Ministers must scrap the cap.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) on securing the debate. I know that he has strong views on this issue— that is very clear from the debate. This was second time lucky for him in terms of having this debate, which is thanks to the Chair and the Speaker. I am really pleased that he was able to get through his coronavirus unscathed, hopefully, and is now able to participate. I am also grateful to him for mentioning how important these democratic processes are, however much we might disagree—as he and I do on a lot. None the less, this is the way to express our differences—through debate and through the democratic processes. This stands in marked contrast to the unacceptable and abhorrent actions of President Putin, which both he and I roundly condemn, along with the whole House. Our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Ukraine and for peace.

The Government remain committed to providing a financial safety net for those who need it, with support available for those on low incomes or who are unable to work at all. We will, this year, spend more than £250 billion through the welfare system, including £41 billion on universal credit and more than £110 billion on working age benefits. The Government have focused on making sure that more money gets to those vulnerable people who need it most, with over £58 billion of welfare support going to people with disabilities and health conditions this year alone.

The pandemic has been a very challenging time for many, and universal credit has stood up to the challenge of covid-19, providing a vital safety net for 6 million people. I know that the hon. Gentleman has concerns about universal credit, but the system stood up well; it was resilient and it was able to pay people on time.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Yes, like everybody on these Benches, I welcome the fact that the universal credit payment was uplifted by £20 a week, but does he not accept that that was a clear concession and recognition that social security in its current form was inadequate before the pandemic, and if it was inadequate then, what has changed since?

[David Rutley]

As the Chancellor spelled out clearly during the pandemic, this was a response to the worst parts of the pandemic and the shock it would provide to people. The hard-working staff in the Department for Work and Pensions, including thousands of work coaches, worked tirelessly to ensure that the benefits system did its job.

Since the start of the pandemic, we have spent more than £400 billion protecting people’s lives and livelihoods, and supporting businesses and public services. As well as providing support where it is needed, the Government have a responsibility to taxpayers. We must ensure that we use our resources in the most effective and efficient way possible, and the benefit cap is a vital part of that.

The hon. Gentleman and I probably disagree on this, but let me set it out and we will see how it takes the debate further forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

[David Linden]

Cut to universal credit.

[David Rutley]

Through our cut to the universal credit taper rate, if I may finish, and the increase in work allowances. The hon. Gentleman is being incredibly cheeky, but we will let him get away with it once. In addition, the national living wage will increase to £9.50 from April, meaning an extra £1,000 a year for full-time workers.

Getting claimants back into work remains the primary focus of the Secretary of State and the whole ministerial team, myself included. We know that having a job has many benefits, including a routine, a sense of purpose and increased confidence. We would also like as many people as possible to feel those positive effects—not forgetting, of course, that people on UC securing employment will significantly decrease the likelihood of their household’s being affected by the cap.

There are nearly 1.3 million vacancies across the United Kingdom, 43,000 more than last month and 513,000 more than at the start of the pandemic. Those vacancies provide opportunities for people to move into and progress in work, as well as to increase their earnings. To help people to take advantage of that record number of vacancies, our plan for jobs is supporting people at any age and any stage of their career. People currently affected by the benefit cap can access support provided by the “Plan for Jobs”, and since the start of the pandemic we have recruited 13,500 new work coaches to ensure that, no matter where they live across the country, claimants can access support and opportunities to get a job, to progress and to realise their potential.

[David Linden]

The point I want to pick the Minister up on is that, if the Government have put in place all those work coaches—I pay tribute to the work they do—and they all have contracts that go on longer because there is anticipation that the unemployment figures will be higher, why did they cut universal credit when they understood that people were going to be relying on the social security system?

[David Rutley]

I know the hon. Gentleman likes to put the word “cut” into a sentence, but we withdrew a temporary increase in universal credit that was put in place for a specific reason during the pandemic. We have now got into a stage in the economic cycle where there are more vacancies and we want to get people into work so they can stand on their own two feet and be less dependent on benefits. I know we have different views, but I am sure even he would want to get more people standing on their own two feet and given the opportunity to have their own work.

Another way we are doing that is by working with a specific group of 500,000 benefit claimants, helping them into work by the end of June through the way to work initiative, which will increase communication between employers and claimants to help get people into work faster, so that they can experience the positive benefits associated with it. There is a range of other support available to help those people who may be affected by the cap through the flexible support fund, ensuring they have access to higher support for childcare—up to 85% of the cost of which is available on universal credit—and through the discretionary housing payments and, of course, the household support fund.

It is not just helping people into work; we have also provided support. The Chancellor set out just recently the additional support that would be available to tackle to cost of energy through the three-part plan, involving a £200 rebate for households that is delivered through their energy bill. We have covered at lot in this debate; we are very keen to help people into work and we are providing support for those who face challenges. I thank Mr Speaker for the opportunity to address this debate.

Question put and agreed to.