Oral Answers to Questions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Monday 9th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There is an obligation on social landlords, given the source of income through universal credit, to work constructively with tenants. If a tenant has a reasonable expectation of receiving housing costs as part of their universal credit payment but has not yet received them, the landlord should not take action and the tenant should not face risk of eviction.

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

As we have heard, universal credit is causing debt, rent arrears, and even homelessness up and down the country, with many claimants already in work. Given that housing associations are saying that over 80% of rent arrears are down to UC, and that the Mayor of Greater Manchester is predicting that rough sleeping will double as a result of UC roll-out, how many more families does the Minister estimate will be made homeless this winter as a result of the Government’s refusal to pause UC roll-out?

[Mr Gauke]

Let us be clear: no one needs to go six weeks without financial support when there is a system of advances in place. I make the point to all right hon. and hon. Members that if they are aware of constituents who have not received an advance, they can make it clear to them. Let us be realistic: the fact is that we are now moving towards a welfare system that does not put in place barriers to work and does enable people to make progress. It is no good Labour Members saying they are in favour of the principles, but then trying to obstruct the delivery of a reform that will give 250,000 more people a job.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

One of the changes that we have recently made with both providers is that before they turn to the healthcare evidence and the other things that have traditionally formed part of the assessment, they talk with the individual about the impact of the condition on their day-to-day life. That, I think, has improved the assessment dramatically.

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

PIP is causing misery for thousands of disabled people. Two disabled people who were in my surgery this Saturday are threatened with destitution because the money that they got as part of their lifetime award under the disability living allowance was stopped following their PIP assessment. The conditions they have had since birth have not and will not change. Why will the Government not exempt people with lifelong or progressive conditions from ongoing PIP assessments, as they are doing with the work capability assessments?

[Penny Mordaunt]

The hon. Lady is right that we have made that change in employment and support allowance. I give her one example: about 84% of people with motor neurone disease are on the highest rates for PIP, but 16% are not. It is therefore perfectly possible that someone will not be receiving the maximum amount of support but that as their condition progresses, they will need additional support. As I said earlier, we are trying to reduce the burden on individuals going through assessments, but some people will still need to have assessments for PIP because their need becomes greater.

Pensions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for arranging to let me have sight of it 30 minutes ago.

Yesterday, the renowned expert on life expectancy, Professor Sir Michael Marmot, described how a century-long rise in life expectancy was

“pretty close to having ground to a halt”

since 2010, when this Government began their failing austerity programme. Last week, evidence from Public Health England showed how deep inequalities in healthy life expectancy remain, both regionally and between different groups in our society, including women, disabled people and black and minority ethnic groups. It is therefore astonishing that today this Government choose to implement their plans to speed up the state pension age increase to 68.

Most pensioners will now spend their retirement battling a toxic cocktail of ill health, with men expecting to drift into ill health at 63, five years earlier than this proposed quickened state pension age of 68, and women expecting to see signs of ill health at 64. This national picture masks even worse regional inequalities. Men who live in Nottingham are likely to suffer ill health from the age of 57, a full 11 years earlier, under this Government’s shortened plans, than a state pension age of 68. The Government talk about making Britain fairer, but their pensions policy, whether on the injustice that 1950s-born women are facing or on today’s proposal to increase the state pension age to 68, is anything but fair.

The Government claim that it is young people who will have to bear the burden of the state pension, but in fact it is the young who have to bear the burden of the cuts that they are facing already—cuts to education, housing and working age social security—as well as the Government’s endless extensions of the state pension age. Sadly, like much of the Conservatives’ policy platform, their approach to this matter appears to have changed little since their election manifesto. At that time, they promised to

“ensure that the state pension age reflects increases in life expectancy, while protecting each generation fairly.”

How does today’s statement meet the promise made in the manifesto, given the evidence on life expectancy that we have seen in the past week? What conversations has the Minister had with his new friends in the Democratic Unionist party, whose manifesto promised advocating

“for the interests of our older people”?

Perhaps, as the Pensions Minister astonishingly suggested in a debate earlier this month, the Government will force people in their mid-60s to seek out an apprenticeship. A constituent of mine, hearing that suggestion, visited our local jobcentre in Oldham, only to find that the adviser had no idea of any apprenticeship support or Government employment support available to a woman of her age. The Pensions Minister’s position was not one shared by Mr Cridland, who suggested that the social security system must be able to support those who find themselves unable to work. Perhaps Mr Cridland was unaware of the seven years of slash-and-burn policy on our social security system; the so-called “safety net” is increasingly inadequate, driving up pensioner poverty by 300,000.

Labour wants a different approach. In our manifesto, we committed to leaving the state pension age at 66 while we undertake a review into healthy life expectancy, arduous work and the potential of a flexible state pension age. We want an evidence-based approach to build a state pensions system that brings security for the many, not just the privileged few, so that we can all enjoy a healthy retirement.

[Mr Gauke]

Even by the standards of the Labour party, its approach to the state pension age is reckless, short-sighted and irresponsible. When the evidence in front of us shows that life expectancy will continue to increase by a little over one year every eight years that pass, fixing the state pension age at 66, as advocated by the Labour party, demonstrates a complete failure to appreciate the situation in front of us. Compared with the timetable set out by this Government, Labour’s approach will add £250 billion to national debt. Let us put that in context: it is almost twice as much as was disbursed into the financial sector following the financial crisis. Let us put it another way: spending in 2040 on the state pension would be £20 billion a year higher under Labour’s plans than under the plans we are setting out—that is almost twice the Home Office budget. Where on earth is this money coming from? Even the—[Interruption.]

Housing and Social Security

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Commons Chamber

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

It is lovely to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I welcome the new Secretary of State to his place.

This has been an extensive debate. There were 24 speakers, and I want to thank them all. I congratulate all the new Members who made their maiden speeches, including the hon. Members for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) and for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), but I particularly pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad), who spoke so movingly about the devastating effect of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. I know that she will go from strength to strength, and will continue to represent her constituents in the fantastic way she has during the past week.

I, too, extend my condolences to everyone affected by the fire, and to all those affected by the terror attacks in Manchester and at London bridge and Finsbury Park. It seems to be a sign of our times that, in the space of just a few weeks, we should have faced these horrific events.

On behalf of the more than 50% of people who voted against austerity in the general election just two weeks ago, I want to express my profound disappointment at the content of the Gracious Speech. After delivering Brexit and building a stronger economy, it refers to making our country fairer, echoing the Prime Minister’s warm words on the steps of Downing Street about building a country for everyone. Frankly, this just does not stack up. As a result of seven years of austerity under this Government, we have escalating levels of poverty, including 7.4 million people who are in working households, 4 million children and 4.2 million disabled people, while one in seven of our pensioners are living in poverty, which is an increase of 300,000 since 2010. At the same time, there have been excesses in boardroom pay, with Britain’s top bosses being paid, on average, 312 times more than a care worker, 165 times more than a nurse, 140 times more than a teacher and 132 times more than a police officer. It is all right to praise the work of the emergency services, but let us give them a decent pay rise.

The richest 1,000 people own more wealth than the poorest 40%, and this Government’s tax and spending policies have reinforced, rather than addressed, such inequalities. The Conservative manifesto promised more of the same—carrying on regardless of the pain and suffering that so many people have endured and are still enduring. The Conservatives have broken promise after promise: there was no mention in the manifesto of raising living standards, in spite of real wages being at 2007 levels in real terms, and there was no reference to raising the national living wage, in spite of one in five workers being in low-paid jobs. Instead, it boasted that corporation tax will continue to be cut in spite of the fact that it is already the lowest in the G7. Shockingly, it pledged to erode further the social security safety net for older people by removing the winter fuel allowance for 10 million pensioners and the state pension triple lock, while promising a dementia tax that people, if they could not afford it and were unfortunate enough to need home care, would have to pay by selling their home. The Queen’s Speech mentioned none of those Tory manifesto promises, so I would be grateful to the Secretary of State if he confirmed that, given the position of their coalition partners on these issues, they will not now be delivered.

Given that the Government are currently in breach of their own Pensions Act 2014, will the Secretary of State confirm when they will respond to the Cridland report and guarantee that there will be no further increase in the state pension age? Further to that, there was no mention in the Queen’s Speech of the plight of the 2.6 million WASPI women, including the 4,000 in my constituency, who have been affected by the accelerated increase in their state pension age, many of whom had no notice of the increase and many of whom have been left destitute. I have heard cases of women in their 60s who have had to sell up everything and who are sofa-surfing. What will the Government do to address their plight? We are the fifth richest country in the world. Those women have contributed to society and it is scandalous that they are being treated in this way. The Government must act urgently to address the WASPI issue, reflect on the desperate circumstances that many WASPI women are in and put in place mitigation.

The Government seem oblivious to the escalation in child poverty over the past seven years, with 1 million more children expected to fall into poverty by 2020. They seem unconcerned by the direct and immediate effect that that is having on those children’s health and wellbeing, let alone their long-term life chances. The Tory manifesto pledged to cut free school meals. While I am pleased that that has been dropped, will the Secretary of State confirm what specific measures are in place to address the rise in child poverty and to ameliorate its effects? Will the Government agree to exempt lone parents with children under two from the benefit cap, given today’s High Court judgment? Where is the legislation or other measures to deal immediately with low-paid work and to ensure that work always pays, given that low pay is a key driver of worker and child poverty?

Universal credit, as we have heard in this debate, is failing, from its shambolic roll-out to the escalating costs and ludicrous design flaws, including the so-called “digital by default” and the six-week “long hello” before people get their first payment. During the election, I spoke to a constituent who was told she would have to wait six weeks and then had another four weeks added on top. That is not good enough. Of course, there is also the mess around having four-weekly as opposed to monthly payments. Some people have two payments in one month and then have to reapply because they reach the amount they are allowed.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Universal credit is being rolled out to all new claimants in my constituency from next month. Does the shadow Secretary of State share my worry about the interminable delays that are causing such problems in the claiming of universal credit?

[Debbie Abrahams]

As I say, it is an absolute mess and we have pledged to address it when we are in a position to do so.

The cuts to universal credit work allowances mean that 2.5 million families will be more than £2,000 a year worse off. Delays in UC and other social security support were a major cause of more than 1 million people relying on food banks last year. That problem is worse in UC areas. People are falling into debt, with eight out of 10 tenants being in rent arrears and homelessness rising. Again, why was this issue not in the manifesto or the Queen’s Speech and what will the Government do about it?

The treatment of disabled people by this Government over the past seven years has been nothing short of scandalous. The scale and range of cuts in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 alone is huge, with £28 billion of support cut for 3.7 million disabled people. Of course, it did not stop there. Disabled people are now feeling the impact of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, with cuts of £1,500 a year for half a million sick and disabled people in the employment and support allowance work-related activity group. The new work capability assessment, the introduction of the personal independence payment and its associated flawed assessment, and the new sanctions regime have all had profound detrimental impacts on disabled people. Even a United Nations inquiry found the Tories guilty of “grave” and “systematic violations” of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, yet there was still nothing in the manifesto and there is nothing in the Queen’s Speech. Why do disabled people not count in this Government’s so-called quest for a fairer society?

Why, when the Government affirmed their commitment to parity of esteem for people with mental health conditions, did the Prime Minister not extend that to PIP support? Her Government overturned the independent tribunal rulings and introduced PIP regulations in March without a vote or even a debate, which deprived people with mental health conditions of the higher rate of PIP. Why does parity of esteem not extend to ESA? According to the Government’s own figures this week, 200,000 people with mental health conditions will lose £345 million in ESA WRAG support.

The Government’s warm words about making our country fairer ring hollow. The Labour party made different choices in our manifesto, and we would most certainly have made different choices in an alternative Queen’s Speech. We would introduce a new social security Bill that would repeal the personal independence payment regulations, reverse the cuts for those in ESA WRAG and transform universal credit to make sure that work always pays. Fundamentally, we would transform our social security system. Like the NHS, it is there for every single one of us in our time of need, providing security, dignity and the basics in life should we become sick or disabled or fall on hard times.

We would not stop there, but I will move on, because I know the Secretary of State wants to respond. Specifically on pensions, in addition to committing to the triple lock and maintaining the winter fuel allowance, we would extend pension credit to WASPI women and affected men and define new additional transitional protections. We would also commission a review to report on options for a flexible retirement age policy and much more. The Government are in chaos—saying one thing and doing another. We have the policies, we have the commitment and we are ready to deliver for the many, not the few.

Employment and Support Allowance

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

Yes. I will come to that point shortly. I also briefly mention the social fund, which can help with non-work-related costs.

We looked at several ways of potentially ring-fencing funds to this group, but in all cases we felt that it would be subject to legal challenge, so this is by far the simplest thing to do. We can monitor how this is being used and see where the money is going. The flexible support fund and the social fund are the only real route to be able supply additional funding to help people, whether that funding is cost-related to work and moving closer towards getting into work, or whether it is other costs associated with the cost of living.

We have also looked at what we can do to reduce a person’s outgoings. I thank my officials, who have done a huge amount of work with telecoms and energy suppliers to establish what support is on offer, and to encourage new offers and some low tariffs. That work has concluded and the Department for Work and Pensions will signpost claimants—not just WRAG claimants, but others—to services that help to reduce those costs. For example, tariffs are available, particularly to those on ESA, that package up broadband, phone and other costs at a low tariff of £10 a month.

When work coaches meet claimants, they will be able to offer signposting to services that help claimants with budgeting and saving money on household bills. That will be supported by a fact sheet that can be given to claimants. The fact sheet is already in operation and has been distributed through our operations arm. It is a one-stop shop that has all the information in one place, as well as signposting to local services. That is a big step forward. The leaflet, “ESA40”, which is sent to all ESA claimants at the beginning of their claim journey now includes a link to the Money Advice Service and its free support on saving money and household bills. This links into the work that the Department has been doing to follow on from the Extra Costs Commission, and it is a big step forward for the Department.

When ESA was introduced by Labour in 2008 as “a radical reform package”, the work-related activity component was intended to act as an incentive to encourage people to participate in work-related activity and, therefore, return to work quicker.

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

I do not want to get the Minister up and down on her feet, but I refer her back to what she said about the additional support that will now be available. The Government’s own impact analysis estimated that half a million people would have £30 a week less—£1,500 a year less. What proportion of those 500,000 people will be in receipt of the additional support that her Department is making available, and to what extent?

[Penny Mordaunt]

That very much depends on an individual’s circumstances. We have looked at a range of circumstances that someone might find themselves in—for example, someone who might need also to apply for PIP. We have looked at the time lag between someone, for example, coming on to being a new claimant for ESA and their actually being able to access that benefit. We have looked at a range of scenarios that someone might find themselves in. However, this support is available to anyone in that circumstance. Indeed, some of it is available to all claimants—for example, the social tariffs, which is a big step forward for the Department.

Personal Independence Payment: Regulations

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered changes to Personal Independence Payment Regulations.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this vital debate on the new personal independence payment regulations. Although I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue, it is highly regrettable that the Government have had to be dragged to the House to be held to account for this nasty piece of secondary legislation.

As the House will know, the Government have ignored two urgent questions on this matter, an early-day motion signed by 179 Members calling for these punitive regulations to be annulled, and a 38 Degrees petition, signed by more than 185,000 people, asking them not to make the changes. When pushed at business questions on Thursday, the Leader of the House said there would be a debate, but could not say when. Only late last night did it become clear that the debate has now been hastily scheduled for 19 April. What particular kind of arrogance or disregard for democracy are the Government revealing? This does not bode well for their accountability to this place in the future negotiations.

For the record, we should note that today’s debate does not allow for a substantive vote on the regulations. As the Government have failed to allow a debate before the EDM praying-against period comes to an end on 3 April, the regulations will not be automatically revoked, should the House vote against them on 19 April. I would be grateful to the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work if she explained why, given that we have risen early twice this week, the Government have been incapable of finding time for such a debate before the Easter recess. The Government are hoping that because they have delayed the debate, the objection to the regulations will be kicked into the long grass, but it will not be.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

On behalf of many of my constituents, I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Does she agree that the very least we owe to people who find themselves, through no fault of their own, in the most difficult of circumstances is to tell them whether we have voted for decisions made in Parliament that are having an appalling impact on their incomes?

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is what we have been trying to do since the emergency regulations were laid before Parliament.

Let us remind ourselves how the emergency regulations were introduced and what they have changed. The regulations, which were laid before the House on 23 February and came into force two weeks ago, amended the legislation under which disabled people or people with a chronic condition are assessed for eligibility for personal independence payments. The new regulations followed two upper tribunal rulings. The first judgment on 28 November 2016 held that needing support to take medication and monitor a health condition should be scored in the same way as needing support to manage therapy, such as dialysis, undertaken at home. The second, also on 28 November, ruled that people who find it difficult to leave their house because of severe psychological distress should receive the enhanced rate of support under the mobility component of PIP.

In a letter to me last week, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said that he became aware of the rulings on 8 December. Two and a half months later, the Government laid their emergency legislation before Parliament. I am sure that the irony of something taking two and a half months in an “emergency” has not been lost on you, Mr Speaker. During those two and a half months, not only were the Government unable to bring the regulations before the House, but they also bypassed their own Social Security Advisory Committee. They have ignored SSAC’s recommendations on wider engagement, testing or piloting changes, and the analysis of impacts.

[Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

I note what the hon. Lady says about legal cases, but is not the point that those legal cases broadened the provisions, and that the regulations will simply restore the policy to what it has been and should be, which is one of targeting support at those who need it most?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I will come on to that in a moment, because I think Members have unfortunately been hoodwinked, and I will absolutely expose what the Government have said.

This move undermines and subverts not just our democracy, but independent tribunal judgments. It is unprecedented, and we should be concerned about future actions that the Government may take in relation to court cases that they lose. It is also highly unusual for such a fundamental change to be introduced by a statutory instrument under the negative procedure, bypassing debate and scrutiny in this House.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

It is clear to me, from the huge number of cases that I have dealt with, that the entire PIP system is fundamentally flawed. It results in the most appalling decisions and causes distress to thousands of disabled people and their families. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be an independent review of how PIP assessments are carried out, given the obvious failings in the system?

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are long-term issues with the PIP assessment process as a whole. I will address that later. It is interesting that the Government let out yesterday that they will make an announcement, following a recent review, tomorrow, just as we rise for recess.

On Monday, the other place debated and passed a regret motion tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Sherlock, asking the Government to reconsider the regulations urgently, but the elected House of Commons has been denied that opportunity during the vital praying-against period. As I have said, that is very worrying behaviour by the Government.

The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work claims that the changes restore PIP to its original policy intentions, but that does not hold water. During the PIP consultation in 2012, Ministers were quoted on numerous occasions saying that mental health conditions would be given parity with physical health conditions as part of the PIP assessment. For example, Esther McVey said that the PIP

“assessment is being designed to consider…physical, sensory, mental, intellectual and cognitive impairments.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 147W.]

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

The Samaritans produced a report earlier this year that points to a significant association between socioeconomic disadvantage and suicidal behaviour. The report cites Gunnell and Chang, who wrote:

“Those who are already vulnerable, such as individuals who are supported by social welfare or who have preexisting mental health problems are at greatest risk.”Is not it shocking that the Government have not looked at the risk of suicide among those who will be denied financial support for their mental health needs?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) has given a very moving account of how one of her constituents was affected and, unfortunately, took their own life last week.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government seem to be in a place where the NHS is catching up with the need to treat mental health conditions properly, but other public services, whether they be the Department for Work and Pensions or the Prison Service, are simply stuck in the past, and that this must change?

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The situation makes an absolute mockery of the claim that there is parity of esteem. She rightly mentions what the NHS is trying to do, but sadly there are still issues with treatment for mental health conditions.

[Mr Jayawardena]

rose—

[Debbie Abrahams]

I will make some progress, and then I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.

The Government’s response to the PIP consultation reiterated that psychological distress would be included in the PIP assessment, as did the Government’s argument in the 2015 upper tribunal case of HL v. the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Ministers have also said that people with mental health disorders who suffer psychological distress would not lose out on PIP. However, the new guidelines for PIP assessors, issued on 16 March, state:

“Descriptors c, d and f under new mobility activity 1 are amended”,

and the

“effects of psychological distress are not relevant”.

The assessment cannot take into account the psychological distress that someone experiences. They cannot score the 12 points needed to get the enhanced PIP mobility rate, so instead of £57 a week, they will be able to get only £22 a week.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

In recent months, I have had 44 PIP cases in my constituency, with dozens going to appeal. Eight have already gone to appeal, and in every single one of those cases, the decision has been overturned. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a massive and inexcusable waste of time, money and resources?

[Debbie Abrahams]

Absolutely. It is very important to note the association between ill health and disability in former industrial areas, and as my hon. Friend rightly says, the impact of assessments that cannot be done right first time. Why is that? Why have the Government not been able to get assessments right first time?

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Debbie Abrahams]

If the hon. Gentleman will give me just two minutes, I will make a little bit more progress and come back to him.

Someone who experiences psychological distress because of a mental health condition can score a maximum of 10 points under “planning and following a journey”, unless they also have a cognitive, sensory or physical impairment. That falls short of the 12 points needed to qualify for the higher rate of the mobility component. In the 2016 case of MH v. the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the upper tribunal ruled that psychological distress by itself cannot satisfy descriptors under activity two unless the psychological distress causes a change in someone’s physical condition. It is therefore the regulations, not the tribunal rulings, that undermine the intention of the primary legislation by restricting the number of people whose mobility is severely limited by their mental health condition who are able to qualify for the enhanced mobility rate of PIP.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. It is very important that we get the regulations right, but does the shadow Minister accept that more people with mental health conditions qualify for support under PIP than under the old disability living allowance regulations?

[Debbie Abrahams]

No, I certainly do not agree with that at all. I will come on to this in a moment, but the mental health charity Mind has produced data, based on the Government’s own statistics, that show that 55% of DLA claimants with a mental health condition will receive either nothing or a reduced amount when they transfer to PIP. I am afraid this is another fallacy from the Government.

[Mr Jayawardena]

The hon. Lady might have suggested that Government Members are being hoodwinked, but I am sure that she was not suggesting that the Minister plays with anything other than a straight bat. The fact is that over a quarter of those on PIP receive the highest level of support, which is much more than the 15% of DLA working-age claimants who did so. Are the regulations not doing exactly what was originally intended: targeting resources at those who need them most?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am sorry, but I do not see the hon. Gentleman’s logic. [Interruption.] Well, it does not make sense. I will come on to that in a bit more detail, because we must dispel the fallacies that the Government have come out with in the past few weeks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I advise my hon. Friend not to put much credence in planted Whips’ questions from Tory Back Benchers. Another element of concern relates to people whose mental health condition worsens when they have a failed assessment. In some cases, they end up going into hospital, which is another cost for the NHS.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That is such a relevant point, which, again, has not been factored into the Government’s silo approach.

The third justification the Government have used for bringing in the new regulations is that PIP is much more generous to people with mental health conditions—we have just been talking about that. The mental health charity Mind completely refutes that. Its data, based on Department for Work and Pensions statistics, reveal that 55% of people with mental health conditions previously supported by DLA get either reduced or no awards when they transfer to PIP. Indeed, the Government’s own data, when appropriately weighted, show that only 12% of people with a mental health disorder and another condition are on the enhanced mobility award.

These new regulations are nothing more than a shameful cut. Once again, this Government are trying to balance the books on the backs of the sick and disabled. The Government’s own analysis estimates that the new regulations will affect more than 160,000 people by 2023, the majority of whom will have mental health conditions. Many of these will be newer applicants, but the regulations will also affect those who are being reassessed, who will not be eligible for the full support to which they would have been entitled under the rulings of tribunals—an effective cut of £3.7 billion.

PIP helps disabled people to fund their living costs and, in particular, the additional costs that they face because of their condition. The disability charity Scope has estimated that these additional costs amount to approximately £550 a month, and are the key reason why disabled people are twice as likely to live in poverty as non-disabled people. For someone who might not be able to leave their home on their own, PIP would help with extra heating costs, or might pay for someone to assist them when they have to travel to medical appointments, for example. PIP is a vital source of income to prevent real hardship, yet to the shame of this Government, people are being denied this support.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Debbie Abrahams]

Yes, but for the last time.

[Rachael Maskell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the ability to receive PIP funding can often be part of someone’s rehabilitation, helping them from their homes back into the workplace?

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

Absolutely, and I know that my hon. Friend has first-hand experience of that in a professional capacity.

I have been contacted by so many people telling me their stories of living with a severe mental health problem and how it affects them, including men and women from the armed and emergency services, so I would like to share Bob’s story. Bob started off in the police service in Liverpool, and then went into the Prison Service. After 20 years or so, he said he started to experience the need to escape from the cells and inmates by locking himself in the rest room for a few minutes. Over the years, this graduated to cluster headaches and then full-blown anxiety and panic attacks.

After a period of sick leave, Bob left the service, but the attacks continued and he eventually sought psychiatric treatment; he was then declared disabled by virtue of his debilitating anxiety attacks. The degree of disability fluctuated, but it was so severe at times that he would literally run from a shopping centre into his car, just to feel safe. Bob said that he wanted to work, but when he went for a job interview, he had an attack in the car, and by the time he got home, he could barely function at all: he was hyperventilating and completely unable to move. It is people such as Bob who will be denied support through these new regulations.

These changes to PIP have come on top of significant cuts to our social security system, with support for disabled people being particularly targeted. Scope has estimated that the Welfare Reform Act 2012 alone will have meant nearly £30 billion in cuts to support for 3.7 million disabled people. Next week, as we have heard, another £30 a week will be cut from disabled people who are found not fit for work in the employment and support allowance work-related activity group, and for those on universal credit’s limited capability for work component.

The disabled community are tired of this Government’s rhetoric; they want and need to be treated with dignity, not plunged further into poverty, yet plenty of new evidence shows that that is exactly what has happened since 2010. Will the Minister publish a cumulative impact assessment of all tax and social security changes, showing the impacts that they have had, and will continue to have, on disabled people?

For some time now, there has been growing concern about the way in which PIP is working. Wider systemic issues with PIP mean that 65% of those who appeal to a tribunal succeed. Over a quarter of all PIP assessments are challenged and referred for mandatory reconsideration, with the majority of the decisions being changed. Why can we not get these assessments right first time? More than 750 people a week are losing their Motability cars because of changes to entitlement when they move on to PIP. This is so counterproductive, because it makes it nigh-on impossible for so many disabled people to work, let alone live independently.

We should never forget that nine out of 10 disabilities are acquired; this could happen to any one of us. That is what our social security system is for—to provide support to any one of us in our time of need. Labour will stand with disabled people, who have already borne the brunt of seven years of austerity, in fighting this injustice. I do not believe that, given the choice, the British public would chose cuts in corporation tax over preventing disabled people from being pushed into destitution or worse.

It is exactly a week since the horrendous attack in Westminster, when four people, including our colleague PC Keith Palmer, were murdered, and 50 were injured. The following day, the Prime Minister rightly said that she was looking

“at what further support can be made available for victims in a wider sense, because there will be people who were not physically injured in the attack…but…for whom there may be other scars. It is important to provide that support.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2017; Vol. 623, c. 942.]

However, because of the new regulations, support for people suffering psychological distress is being restricted. Warm words need to be backed up by action. Let there be no more cuts in support for disabled people. Enough is enough.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 29th March 2017 Commons Chamber

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

As we know, the passage of the Bill was interrupted this time last week as a result of the horrendous attack that took place just metres from this place. I echo the Minister’s remarks, and express my condolences to everyone who is grieving for a loved one, or who is recovering from their injuries. I also express my gratitude to the emergency services, and especially to the incredible support team working in and around this amazing place. I want to say how treasured they all are.

On to the Bill. I want to put on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) for his unstinting work on this Bill, to our colleagues in the other place, who, as has already been mentioned, kicked this whole process off, and to all our teams for all the hard work they put in to try to ensure that the Bill, which is about closing the gaps in the regulatory framework for master trusts and increasing protections for their savers, is as effective as possible.

It will come as no surprise to the Minister to hear that I regret that he has been a little intransigent in failing to accept our amendments. He might have been constrained, but I wish we could have done more, as it would have strengthened the Bill and protected savers further. However, the Bill as it stands goes some way to increasing protections for master trust savers, the vast majority of whom were automatically enrolled through their sponsoring employer.

This has not been the easiest Bill to scrutinise. The content is, of course, technical, and an unusual amount of legislation is left to secondary regulations, which is a concern. That is becoming a hallmark of this Government and is entirely regrettable. It has not only brought criticism to the Government from the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, which has suggested that the Government are writing legislation in lieu of policy, but has made it difficult for this House to get a full picture of how the legislation will operate in practice.

Nevertheless, we are about to point out a number of significant gaps in the Government’s approach to the legislation, as well as some parts that we believe require further thought. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North mentioned last week, we tried to table amendments in Committee to enact our commitment to the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality—women to extend pension credit to those worst affected, ensuring that hundreds of thousands of those women became eligible for up to £156 a week. Sadly, the amendments were not selected. It is a real disappointment that the Government did not use the Bill to address the plight of these women. Labour has a clear, costed plan targeted towards the most vulnerable women, and we are exploring further options to help as many as we can.

Given that we understand that this will be the only pensions Bill in this Parliament—the Pensions Minister can put me right on that—there are many other pensions issues that should have been included in a more comprehensive Bill. As we have said before, this was a wasted opportunity.

Let me move on to the specifics of the Bill. It is a shame that the Government did not heed the advice of our noble Friends in the other place and provide for a funder of last resort. Our amendment would have ensured that scheme members were protected in the event of a master trust becoming insolvent, and would have offered them a clear route for the drawdown of their savings. The Minister believes that the new regulatory framework provides sufficient protection to make this provision unnecessary, yet he seemed unwilling to give a guarantee that no future master trust would go bust. I am glad that he has such faith in the regulatory regime, and I genuinely hope, for the sake of scheme members, that his faith is justified.

We hope to improve the clauses relating to pause orders. Under the legislation, the regulator can step in following a triggering event to halt accumulation and decumulation from a failing master trust. The Government have made an exception for people getting divorced to allow them to access funds held under a pause order, but they did not see fit to offer the same opportunity to, for example, disabled people or those in ill health. This is likely to cause distress to those who desperately need to draw down their savings. The Government did little to consider what would happen to savers affected by a pause order who wished to continue putting aside contributions from their salary and their sponsoring employer for retirement. Our amendment suggested that the employer take responsibility for holding on to these savings until the pause order ended or a new master trust was found. The Government again unfortunately rejected this practical suggestion.

The lack of transparency of costs and charges is a scandal of the pensions industry, and there have been Government promises to tackle it for years. I remember, several years ago, as a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, one of the Treasury Ministers in the last Parliament promising that this would be done, but we are still waiting. It is one of those issues that we are taking far too long to tackle. I appreciate that a review will be published at the end of the year, but that will be too late for legislation. Again, it will be up to the industry to determine what, how and when it will publish its costs.

The matter of charges is a real scandal. I wonder whether anybody here knows the charges on their pension scheme. The charges affecting all savers have been estimated at up to £120 billion a year. We need to decide whose side we are on. Are we going to look after savers or prop up the pensions industry? We tried to raise the issue of opaque costs and charges being applied to members’ savings pots by investment managers and brokers, but again, the Government failed to respond. For too long, people have been encouraged to put their faith and, more importantly, their money in a distant savings pot, with very little information about where that money is invested, the performance of their savings and, importantly, the costs and charges incurred on the investment. In short, neither the scheme trustees nor the scheme members have been able adequately to ascertain whether they are getting value for money on their investments. In almost every other market, people looking to purchase goods or services are provided with basic information about performance and cost in advance of their purchase. This is a necessary requirement to ensure that they are getting value for money, yet this basic principle is not operating in our pensions system.

Part 2 of the Bill makes a small step towards greater transparency regarding the charges applied for those hoping to make the most of pension freedoms and to remove their savings from a master trust, but we maintain that it is not enough. Much more could have been done to shine a light on transaction costs applied to investment returns. The Minister committed the Government to implementing the recommendations of the Financial Conduct Authority’s report on the asset management market. Surely this would have been a great opportunity for the Government to make a start.

There is a lot of work to be done to tackle the problem of opaque and excessive costs and charges being extracted from workers’ savings by investment managers. This Bill merely scratches the surface. The question of governance also remains unanswered by the Government, despite the Opposition’s attempts to clarify. We believe that the Bill should have increased member representation on trustee boards. Their money is being invested, and they should be involved. The Pensions Act 1995 introduced the requirement for company pension schemes to have member-nominated trustees. If the scheme’s sole trustee is a company including the employer, rather than an individual, scheme members will have the right to nominate directors to that company.

The Pensions Act 2004 enshrined the right to have at least a third of the trustees of a trust-based scheme nominated by scheme members. That stems from the basic democratic principle that those for whom decisions are being taken should have a say in those decisions. The Pensions Regulator agrees that master trusts are covered by that legislation, which is why some already have member-nominated trustees.

The regulator has, however, turned a blind eye to this matter, on the basis that having multiple sponsoring employers presents a barrier. That is not acceptable, and we have urged the Government to clarify and apply the law in this regard. Scheme members should be represented among the trustees of master trust funds—it is, as I said, their money, and they have a direct interest in ensuring there is a sound and sustainable investment strategy that delivers good value. It is disappointing that the Government did not take up this matter, which requires urgent action. Nor was a convincing argument given as to why master trusts should not have to meet their statutory requirements, especially in the light of the increased risk being borne by scheme members.

It is also disappointing that the Bill does nothing to build on the success of Labour’s policy on auto-enrolment by ensuring that saving into master trusts is accessible and encouraged for a number of groups that were excluded from auto-enrolment by the Government’s changes to the eligibility criteria. Throughout these debates, we have recognised that the Government have announced a review of auto-enrolment, but we have not yet heard an explanation of why it comes after the Bill. The self-employed, women, those working multiple jobs, carers and people on low incomes could all benefit hugely from an enhanced opportunity to save towards their retirement. Although the Government did not feel they could commit to a proper statutory basis for their review, we shall hold them to account in the review itself to ensure it properly serves excluded groups.

To conclude, we of course welcome legislation to strengthen the regulatory footing of master trusts. We have, however, tried throughout these debates to address a number of serious issues through pragmatic engagement with the Bill, and by highlighting its many gaps. One would think that the Government would have had time to include much more detail on this piece of primary legislation to allow for proper scrutiny in both Houses. It seems, however, that they were unable to get their act together on this aspect of pensions. [Interruption.] There is some chuntering from the Government Benches—I think there is dissent there. However, we hope that, through these debates, we have at least drawn attention to these important issues, and to the need to create further security and dignity in retirement for working families across the UK.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I do, and the Government, of course, support that more widely. We are looking all the time at regulations that might hinder the growth of entrepreneurship and self-employment. The actions taken by my Department—for instance, the new enterprise allowance—actively encourage people into self-employment. Some 96,000 new businesses have been set up as a result of the NEA.

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

The Government’s proposed increase to national insurance contributions for self-employed workers in this month’s Budget showed a scandalous detachment from the reality of the majority of self-employed workers’ lives, a failure to understand the boom in self-employment and a lack of the will to address the issues self-employed workers face, including the fact that one in three is concerned about becoming sick or being injured during their work. What discussions did the Secretary of State have with the Chancellor on this before the Budget, and is he concerned about the reliability of the minimum income floor calculation, given the Office for Budget Responsibility’s comment?

[Damian Green]

I am confident in the minimum income floor calculation. As the hon. Lady would expect, we have discussions all the time with the Treasury on a wide range of matters. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in his letter subsequent to the Budget:

“It is very important…that we are compliant not just with the letter, but also the spirit, of the commitments that were made.”

That is why he decided not to proceed with the class 4 NIC measures set out in the Budget. Also—this is important—all the spending measures set out in the Budget, including on social care, technical education and new schools, will be delivered in full.

--- Later in debate ---

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

We heard earlier about the cuts to PIP support for people with mental health conditions that were brought in 10 days ago. The Government estimate that they will affect 160,000 people. This time next week, half a million sick or disabled people who have been found not fit for work and have been placed in the employment and support allowance work-related activity group will start to see a cut in support of £1,500 a year. Given that disabled people are twice as likely to live in poverty as non-disabled people and the recent analysis showing that that has increased significantly, how does the Secretary of State justify the cumulative cuts to disabled people?

[Damian Green]

First, when the hon. Lady talks about cuts to 160,000 people, she is of course wrong. Nobody’s original DWP award will receive a cut. She also asked me how I justify the changes to ESA, but disabled people and people with health conditions deserve better than the current system, under which only one in 100 ESA WRAG claimants leave benefit each month. I hope that the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), who is cheering from a sedentary position, agrees with me that we need to change the system. That is why we are proposing a huge number of different types of help across the board, including financial help and advice, which will help them into work.

Personal Independence Payments

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to make a statement regarding the recommendations of the Social Security Advisory Committee on the new Personal Independence Payment (Amendment) Regulations 2017, which are due to come into force tomorrow.

[Damian Green]

(The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions): Recent legal judgments have interpreted the assessment criteria for personal independence payments in ways that are different from what was originally intended. The Department presented regulations, which clarify the original policy intent, to the Social Security Advisory Committee. I welcome the SSAC’s careful consideration and we are looking closely at its suggestions.

Let me be clear. The SSAC decided that it did not require the regulations to be formally referred to it and would therefore not consult publicly on them. I believe it was right to move quickly to clarify the criteria, and it is clear that the SSAC is not challenging that decision.

I want to make it clear again that this is not a policy change and nor is it intended to make new savings. This is about restoring the original intention of the benefit, which has been expanded by the legal judgments, and providing clarity and certainty for claimants. I reiterate my commitment that there will be no further welfare savings beyond those already legislated for. This will not result in any claimants seeing a reduction in the amount of PIP previously awarded by the Department for Work and Pensions.

[Debbie Abrahams]

You will recall, Mr Speaker, that on 23 February the Government issued these new regulations by which disabled people or people with a chronic mental health condition would be assessed for eligibility to personal independence payments. These regulations were laid down without any consultation with the Social Security Advisory Committee and without any debate.

As the Secretary of State said, the Committee examined this issue on 8 March and sent a letter with its recommendations to the Secretary of State, which was published yesterday. The Committee made a number of recommendations, including the need to consult more widely on the proposed changes and to test or pilot them before they come into force, so will the Secretary of State commit to implementing these recommendations in full before the regulations come into force?

Parliament has had no opportunity to debate the regulations fully, or to vote on them. When will it be able to do so? The Committee found that

“it is possible that some claimants may have been awarded the mobility component or a higher rate of mobility component…following earlier decisions by the Upper Tribunal on this issue.”

That directly contradicts statements by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work that no one would see a reduction in their PIP award. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to correct the record? Will he guarantee that that will not be the case when claimants are reassessed?

The Government’s decision to change the law on PIP is a clear demonstration of the fact that people with mental health conditions are not given equal treatment. Does the Secretary of State agree with his Department’s new guidance, issued yesterday, which states that mobility impairments caused by psychological issues are “not relevant”? An analysis published today by Scope shows that 89% of PIP cases resulted in successful decisions for claimants following either mandatory reconsideration or appeal. Will the Secretary of State now review the flawed PIP process as a matter of urgency?

We have argued for some time in favour of parity of esteem for mental and physical health. The Prime Minister famously said that there needed to be more support for people with mental health conditions. Will not the Government finally honour that pledge?

[Damian Green]

Let me deal with the hon. Lady’s questions in turn.

We will of course respond to the letter from the Social Security Advisory Committee. Obviously, we take everything that it has said very seriously. We will also maintain the practice—in which the Government have always engaged—of continuous improvement in the PIP guidance. The assessment guidance is freely available, and can be viewed on gov.uk. We are constantly changing it, and the way to do that is to make parliamentary regulations, which is precisely what we are doing in this case. I am conscious that the hon. Lady has personally prayed against these regulations, which gives Parliament a chance to scrutinise them. That process will go through the normal channels, as it always does.

The hon. Lady asked a number of other detailed questions. I can only repeat what I have said before, and what has been said by my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work: no claimants will see a reduction in the amount of benefit that they were previously awarded by the DWP. The Committee says that a tribunal may have lifted the awards of some people, and it is indeed possible that that has happened. We will not claim back money that those people have received during the period before the new regulations come into force, and no one will receive less than they were awarded by the DWP. That is what I have said all along. [Interruption.] As the hon. Lady knows, reassessment happens regularly in the case of PIP and other benefits.

Let me now respond to a very serious point made by the hon. Lady. I want to clear up the position and reassure people, because I think that millions would be put into a state of unnecessary distress if they thought that PIP was not fair to those with mental health conditions. The truth is that PIP is a much better benefit for people with such conditions than its predecessor, disability living allowance. Under the regulations, people with a cognitive impairment alone can receive the highest rate of the mobility component of PIP. It is simply not the case that people with mental health conditions will not be able to do so. If the hon. Lady reads the regulations, she will see why that has happened.

Even if the hon. Lady and other Opposition Members are not willing to accept what I have said, may I please ask them to go away and look at the facts? The facts are these: 65% of PIP recipients with a mental health condition received the enhanced-rate daily living component, whereas 22% used to receive it under DLA. As for the specific mobility aspect, to which the hon. Lady referred. 27% of PIP recipients with a mental health condition receive the enhanced-rate mobility component, whereas 9% received it under DLA. It is perfectly clear from the facts that the regulations restore PIP to its original policy intent, and that that policy intent is better for people with mental health conditions than earlier benefits were.

Personal Independence Payments

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend, who obviously has huge expertise in this area, that we need clarity. In particular, the vulnerable people receiving PIP deserve clarity. I reassure them and the House that all the regulations will do is to restore us to the situation that everyone knew they were in late last year, and in which they have been ever since PIP was introduced.

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

As we have heard, on Thursday the Government issued the new regulations by which disabled people or people with a chronic condition will be assessed for eligibility for personal independence payments. PIP helps disabled people to fund their living costs and, in particular, the additional costs that they face because of their condition. The regulations will come into force in just over two weeks’ time, but they were issued without any consultation with the Social Security Advisory Committee. The Government have said that this is because of the urgency of the issue.

The Government are in effect overturning two tribunal rulings that allow chronic “psychological distress” to be included in the PIP assessment. However, if the Secretary of State was so unhappy with the tribunal rulings, why did he not use his powers under sections 25 and 26 of the Social Security Act 1998 and regulations 21 and 22 of the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999 to challenge those rulings in the courts?

The Secretary of State’s actions not only undermine the judicial process, but reduce eligibility to PIP support for over 164,000 people with debilitating mental health conditions, including those not able to go outside their own homes. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with disabled people’s organisations ahead of bringing forward these regulations? What is his assessment of the effects on the health and wellbeing of the people affected by the cuts? Given that disabled people are twice as likely to live in poverty as non-disabled people as a result of the extra costs they face, how many disabled people will be driven into debt or face poverty as a result of these cuts? What is the cumulative effect of these cuts along with the employment and support allowance work-related activity group cuts that are due to come into effect in April, which will affect 500,000 disabled people? Finally, why are the Government contradicting their earlier argument in the 2015 upper tribunal case of HL v. the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in which they argued that “psychological distress” should be included in PIP assessments?

We have been arguing for parity of esteem for mental health with physical health for some time now. Indeed, the Prime Minister famously said that people with mental health conditions need more support. Why will the Government not honour that?

[Damian Green]

Let me deal with some of the detailed points raised by the hon. Lady. Incidentally, we are appealing the judgments, but because of the lack of clarity that would be caused by leaving the current regulations in limbo following the upper tribunal’s decisions, it is better to move quickly. I should also say that the tribunal has itself said that the assessment criteria are not clear. If the tribunal believes that, I am more than happy to accept it—indeed, I am grateful to it for telling us that the criteria are not clear—so I am now taking the opportunity to clarify the existing regulations.

The hon. Lady talked about the effect on disabled people. I absolutely agree with her that that is the central core of what we are trying to do. I point out to her that over two thirds of PIP recipients with a mental health condition get the enhanced rate daily living component, compared with just 22% who used to receive the highest rate of DLA care. That is why PIP is a better benefit than DLA. That happened previously under the existing regulations, and I am now restoring that situation.

The hon. Lady’s questions were predicated on this being a cut. It is simply not a cut; it is not entirely honest of her to say that it is a cut. If she looks at the facts of the case, she will recognise that people claiming PIP—specifically those with mental health conditions—have been and are better off with PIP. We are making the benefit clear. We are making the change so that the benefit is paid as it has been since it was first introduced, which is better for people, particularly those with mental health conditions.

Intergenerational Fairness

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate on behalf of the Opposition. I need to extend the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), who I believe is doing media rounds following the news about BHS that we heard this afternoon.

I am a baby boomer, too. My girls are millennials. Many of the things that have been discussed today have been described up and down the country. How lucky I was to be able to go to university without the debt that my girls—and many other young people—are experiencing, and to be able to afford a mortgage in my late 20s, before we had our first daughter. My daughters simply do not have that opportunity. Their debt will be around their necks for a long while, and they are not in a position to buy their own homes, although they both work incredibly hard.

I absolutely agree with the premise of the Select Committee’s report—we do need to address the inter- generational inequality that is being experienced throughout the country—but I differ with it on the solutions. The report suggests that the state pension triple lock should be targeted for expenditure savings. According to the OECD, the basic state pension was one of the world’s lowest after the Thatcher Government broke the link between earnings and uprating in 1980. That led to a long decline in the value of pensions, which the last Labour Government strove to restore.

Although there have been positive efforts to ensure that the new single-tier state pension is fairer and of wider benefit to members of the current generation, there are problems with it. Over the course of their retirement, those in their 40s will be £13,000 worse off than otherwise, those in their 30s will be £17,000 worse off, and those in their 20s will be £20,000 worse off. A continued above-inflation rise will not only benefit those who are retiring now, but will be enjoyed by generations who are to retire. That is one of the central reasons for Labour’s commitment to maintaining the triple lock beyond 2020. I know that we differ from the Government in that regard, but underpinning our decision is the issue of inequalities within generations. We must not trade off the inequality of one generation against the poverty of another.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not. I am incredibly pressed for time and I have already had to cut my speech considerably.

The Select Committee recognised that those who look solely at the intergenerational picture can lose sight of important inequalities within generations. It is important to protect the triple lock and universal pensioner benefits while making different choices to support other generations. The Labour Government made great strides—about 1 million pensioners were lifted out of poverty—but one in seven have remained in poverty since 2010. That level is still much too high, and it should worry us. That is not acceptable in one of the richest countries in the world, and we must do all that we can to ensure that the trend does not rise again. That extends to our commitment to the triple lock and universal pensioner benefits, and our commitment to act immediately on the fate of the 1950s WASPI campaigners. We are committed to ensuring that every older person has dignity and security in retirement.

What are the other choices that we believe should be made? Three specific policies could immediately help to address intergenerational imbalances in a way that would not deprive one generation while supporting another. First, we want to introduce a real living wage, based on what people actually need. After evaluating the effects of the national living wage that has been introduced, the Living Wage Commission said that it failed to meet the basic needs of low-income households. Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that without significant policy change, real wages are likely to remain lower in 2021 than they were after the recession. Seven years of austerity have consistently failed to deliver pre-recession wages. The decline in the value of wages has been driven by what the Office for National Statistics has described as an unprecedented decline in productivity —unprecedented since world war two. At the same time, prices of basic household goods and services have risen dramatically.

That long squeeze has been coupled with repeated attacks by this Government and the coalition Government on income support provided through the social security system. Many Members have mentioned the issue of in-work poverty: 7.4 million people—one in eight—are living in poverty, including children. I beg to differ with the point that work is the route out of poverty. Four out of five people in low-paid work will still be in low-paid work 10 years later. Taken together, those dynamics have really impacted on standards of living.

Labour has therefore committed to intervene. At our party conference last year, the shadow Chancellor announced that he would introduce a real living wage of £10 an hour. That is what is anticipated will be needed in 2020. The second step is to invest in social and affordable housing. I mentioned my own experience and that of my daughters. It barely needs repeating that the rapid acceleration in house and rental prices, which is a direct result of the failure of all Governments, but especially this Government, to build social and affordable housing, is a key driver of the declining standard of living among those of working age. It might indeed be the fundamental dynamic driving intergenerational disparities.

The consensus is that we need to be delivering 200,000 homes a year, 80,000 of which should be at affordable social rent levels, if we are to keep up with household formation and address poverty levels. Last year, unfortunately, the Government got nowhere near that. Rather than raiding the state pension, the Government should invest in socially rented housing, or allow councils to replace stock sold under the right to buy. That would have a huge impact on intergenerational unfairness, as the Work and Pensions Committee recognises.

The third policy intervention to address the inter- generational imbalance is widening access to auto-enrolment saving. It is a testament to the previous Labour Government that 10 million additional workers are estimated to be newly saving or saving more as a result of auto-enrolment. A total of £17 billion of pension savings has been put away by low-income workers. However, 37% of women workers, 33% of workers with a disability and 28% of black and minority ethnic workers are still not eligible for auto-enrolment. That must be addressed in the review that will be undertaken. We will be pushing hard for that, as the Pensions Minister would expect.

We respect the hard work that the Work and Pensions Committee has put into producing its report. We broadly agree with its analysis, but we believe that there should be a different emphasis and different policy solutions to address the intergenerational inequalities that exist.