Cost of Living Support

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Tuesday 20th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

On that specific point, I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the points I made earlier about some of the ongoing work, but I will also ask my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies) to provide him with a response to that question, because I know she is engaging with colleagues elsewhere in the Government around those challenges.

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

The Minister has already acknowledged the additional costs of nearly £1,000 a month that disabled households have over able-bodied households, but those costs are disproportionately higher in rural areas such as the highlands, which I represent with my constituency. People there have extra costs for transport, energy and so on. Is it not time that the Government did more to compensate people with those extreme costs? Would a start not be to make up for what they lost with the universal credit mismatch during the pandemic and, indeed, to restore the £20 a week on universal credit immediately?

Oral Answers to Questions

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Monday 19th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on the new addition.

New statistics on food bank usage will help the Government to understand the characteristics of the people most in need, and we will continue to work across Government to support the most vulnerable. I was very interested to read the recent “Child of the North” report, which we are taking very seriously.

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

T6. The cost of the most common family foods has risen by nearly 30% in the past year alone, according to new research by consumer group Which? The Governments of Ireland and France have worked with retailers to reduce costs for families, while the UK Government have sat on their hands. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with Cabinet colleagues about how to learn from our European neighbours and reduce the crisis in people’s homes now?

[Mel Stride]

What we are learning from our European neighbours is that this is a common problem. In fact, food price inflation in Germany, Portugal and other countries is higher than it is here. Rather than intervening in markets, as some are spuriously suggesting, and taking us back to the prices and incomes policies of the 1970s, we have entered discussions with the supermarkets, some of which have recently suggested that they will be able to lower prices, or lower the rate of increase in some prices, on the more essential items.

Terminal Illness: Early Access to Pensions

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd May 2023 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I wish that more Members had attended this very important debate so that I could sum up some more contributions, but I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) for securing it and delivering a powerful speech in which he entreated the UK Government to act with compassion. It is vital that terminally ill people are finally given the respect they deserve in UK Government circles.

When terminally ill people get their diagnosis, they are absolutely devastated, and so are their families. It is a situation that none of us wants to face, and nor do we want members of our family to face it. It is absolutely devastating, and grief kicks in immediately. That is just one of the pressures facing terminally ill people and their families, which my hon. Friend laid out.

[Margaret Ferrier]

Terminal illness puts an emotional, mental and financial strain on the individual and their family. More than four in five families living with advanced cancer face income losses as a result. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that allowing early access to pensions will enable people with terminal illness and their families to focus on the quality of their end-of-life experience and not worry about money?

[Drew Hendry]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. This should be about making the people who are facing this most dreadful situation and their families as comfortable as possible and helping them to move forward. The cost is small, although as my hon. Friend the Member for Angus said, by not paying out the £144 million a year, the UK Government are running a lottery; they hope to get that dividend in from people. That is a small amount for dignity and fairness for the people in that situation and their families.

My hon. Friend shared the damning statistic that terminally ill people are twice as likely as others to die in poverty. They have bigger costs; it costs more to be terminally ill. For a start, they are ill, and most are homebound, which increases energy costs. There is the cost of the adaptations that they have to make, and increased costs for their families, who have to visit more to provide support.

The issue should be very simple for the UK Government. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group for terminal illness, and although our entreaties about the six-month rule were listened to—on every occasion, Ministers said, “Yes, we must do something about this”—the change to 12 months took years in which thousands of people died waiting. I welcomed the change from six months to 12 months because it made life marginally more easy for people, but the fact that the effect is marginal—the very minimum that could be done for terminally ill people—is the most damning thing about this. As has been stated, this is about fairness and dignity, and people’s ability to have a quality end of life. The power is with the UK Government to make a very simple and fair adjustment. As has been underlined, in the scale of things, the cost is small, but the scale of the impact on the lives of people who are terminally ill and their families is enormous.

Nobody is asking for things that people have not earned; these pensions are something that people have earned throughout their lives. The Government can look at it this way: when someone gets that devastating note that says they are terminally ill, the Government know they will save money from the fact that that person is not going to be around for years collecting their state pension. Therefore, the Government can at least make this gesture towards making people’s lives easier. Why do we not see more compassion from the UK Government over this very simple matter? People are dying; why not treat them the way they should be treated? Why not strain every sinew and make every move to ensure that people in this situation have the best possible end of life? It is one thing that all of us could achieve by working together, and that the UK Government could commit to.

We heard about the tragedy of Mr Bain, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, who spent 41 years paying into his pension. He earned it but he is not going to get it. Think of my hon. Friend’s other constituent, Malcolm, who is quoted as saying when his diagnosis of cancer came in, “You immediately think you are going to die.” Of course he thought that, with that diagnosis. People are going to die; the problem is that, with the best will in the world, doctors cannot put a definitive timescale on when. However, they can often say that, “You are going to degenerate and your life is going to get more difficult as you go towards the end of life.”

This is a simple act. State pensions are reserved to the UK Government, so only they can act on this for people in Scotland and the other nations of the UK. Other nations can, as we have heard, make provisions like this; they can do the right thing for people. My hon. Friend the Member for Angus laid it out very clearly, but I will say it again: this is not a mammoth choice, and it is not going to destroy the UK budget. It is a small step that, along with other measures, should be taken to assist people who are terminally ill and their families.

When the Minister sums up the debate and answers our questions, I ask her not to just give out platitudes and promises of long-term action, as we have heard so many times before from so many other Ministers in the UK Government. I am not saying she will do that, but I believe the debate deserves answers on how she will take the issue back to her Department and work out a proper plan for people who are terminally ill and their families, so they can have the dignity, respect and fairness they deserve. She can give a reassurance that she will fight tooth and nail to get state pensions released for people who are terminally ill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. We have been discussing a very sensitive issue, and I thank the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) for bringing forward the debate, and all hon. Members for their contributions.

The Government remain committed to ensuring that all citizens can live with the dignity and respect they deserve. I think it would help if I first set out the principles behind the state pension, which is the foundation of state support for older people. In 2016, the system was reformed, with the introduction of the new, simpler and more straightforward state pension as the basis for private saving, to which people can add throughout their lives.

The state pension is a contributory social benefit, financed through the national insurance fund. The national insurance system operates on a pay-as-you-go basis, meaning that today’s contributors are paying for today’s social security entitlements and pensions, while those who paid contributions in the past were paying for the pensions of that time. In other words, the contributors to the national insurance system do not accumulate an individual pot of money that is personal to them.

People’s national insurance contributions do not just pay for the state pension. They also entitle them—or, in certain circumstances, their spouses—to contributory social security benefits such as unemployment and bereavement benefits, which are available on the basis of the rules applicable at the time the claim is made, and about 20% of national insurance contributions are paid into the NHS. Therefore, it is a question not so much of a person paying for their own benefits, but of a general pooling of resources to meet current benefit claims for all those covered by the national insurance system.

A person’s contributions are geared towards liability to pay rather than any likelihood of future benefit entitlement. In that sense, it is similar to income tax rather than a private insurance or pension scheme. It has always been an overriding principle of the national insurance system that liability to contribute exists, whether or not those contributions will eventually give entitlement to a particular benefit. That is very different from private pensions, where a person builds up a pool that is specifically theirs, and where different laws rightly exist.

Therefore, early access to a state pension would not be appropriate in the case of terminally ill people, but there are a variety of other benefits available to them. For those nearing the end of their life, significant support is already available through the welfare system. Hearing that an illness cannot be cured must be a frightening and devastating experience, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) for all his work on that with the APPG. Our priority within the DWP is providing people with financial support quickly and compassionately. The main way we do that is through the special benefit rules, which have been mentioned today and which are sometimes referred to as the special rules. They give people nearing the end of their life faster and easier access to certain benefits, without their needing to attend a medical assessment or serve waiting periods. In most cases, people will receive the highest rate of benefit.

Changes to the special rules mean that thousands of people nearing the end of their life will be able to claim fast-tracked financial support from the benefits system six months earlier than they were able to previously. Historically, people had to be assessed by their healthcare professional as having six months or less to live. That is known as the six-month rule, which the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey referred to. In July 2021, the Government announced that they intended to replace the six-month criteria with a 12-month, end-of-life approach. Last April, the Department made those changes to the special rules for eligibility for universal credit and employment and support allowance. In April 2023, the Department made similar changes for PIP, disability living allowance and attendance allowance. Those changes have been welcomed—as they have been today—by the key charities active in the area, by the public and by parliamentarians.

I will now expand on my earlier remarks on early access to state pension. Unlike a personal or workplace pension, which can potentially be drawn earlier, it has always been the case that nobody can claim their state pension before they reach state pension age. There are a wide range of working-age benefits available to support people who are below state pension age . Removing the clear boundaries between working-age and pensioner benefits would create complexity and confusion. This is not simply a monetary issue.

As an example of the complex issues relating to early access, the value of an individual’s state pension is based on their contribution record. Is the intention here to base it on the contribution record of those who are, sadly, at the heart of today’s debate? If the value of that state pension, based on the person’s record, is deficient, would they be entitled to means-tested pension credit? If they took their state pension early, would it need to be actuarially reduced to reflect that? Early access actually means lowering the age of entitlement to state pension. At what age would it be set for this group? Would it be 16, in line with the age—

[Drew Hendry]

I appreciate the Minister’s position, but I am not sure that many people who are terminally ill, or those who work with them, will be comforted by the technicalities she is laying out. She is laying out the rules as they stand, but does she see no opportunity for things to be adjusted so that the entitlement age for those who are terminally ill could be adjusted, as it is in other countries? Is there no opportunity or intention for the UK Government to look at that?

[Laura Trott]

The Department’s position is that help is available through benefits other than the state pension. The state pension is not an entitlement pool that exists; it is done on a pay-as-you-go basis. Of course, it is different from private pensions, which I will come to in a second, and there is more that we could do on that front to make the situation easier and more straightforward.

I of course accept the sentiment on which this proposal is based—that those who are terminally ill should be financially supported—but grounding this support on the state pension system, because it is there, does not make for a practical proposition, and that is in addition to my earlier points on the nature of the state pension.

Hon. Members will be aware that the second Government review of state pension age was published on 30 March 2023. The Government noted the independent report’s recommendations on the rise from 67 to 68, but highlighted that Baroness Neville-Rolfe was unable to take into account the long-term impact of recent significant external factors, bringing uncertainty to the data on life expectancy, the economic position and labour market.

I raise that point because, as part of that process, independent reviewers looked at early-access policies that would allow variation in state pension age for certain groups. John Cridland covered that in his 2017 independent review of state pension age. More recently, Baroness Neville-Rolfe, in her independent review, recommended that the Government should look at such a scheme for people who had spent long periods of their lives doing physical work.

However, both reviewers recognised the real, practical difficulties of designing and delivering such a scheme. We are aware that when and why people leave the labour market will vary and will be affected by a host of factors, including their national insurance record, savings, health, caring responsibilities and other factors. It would be impossible to take account of all those factors in setting the state pension age or to create rules for one particular group that would be fair to others. In addition, the Government are mindful of the fact that a universal state pension age has many benefits, including giving a clear signal to those planning for retirement.

Private pensions are very different. Through automatic enrolment, we have extended pension saving, so more individuals will have access to choices at retirement, with more than 10.8 million people automatically enrolled into a workplace pension as of March 2023. If someone has a defined benefit private or workplace pension, they may be able to begin taking an income and/or lump sums from their pension at any age due to ill health. That provision is dependent on the rules of the scheme.

In addition, the generous tax benefits of saving into a defined contribution pension provide individuals with the ability to accrue savings for their retirement and provide them with freedom and choice about how they access them. Individuals can normally access those savings, without penalty, from age 55. However, to address the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), they may be able to access their pension as a lump sum from any age if the scheme administrator has received evidence from a registered medical practitioner that the member is expected to live for less than one year.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) raised a specific example of where there were difficulties. I would be grateful if she would write to me about that, and we can see whether there is anything we can do to help.

The hon. Member for Reading East raised some points on energy. The energy price guarantee has been extended for an additional three months at its current level, from April to the end of June. That will bring a typical household energy bill for dual-fuel gas and electricity down to around £2,500 per year in Great Britain and around £2,109 per year in Northern Ireland.

In conclusion, I have set out the range of support that the Government provide for people with terminal illnesses. Although I of course have the greatest sympathy for anyone in that position, the Government do not believe that adjusting the state pension system to support that group is the right approach, although early access to private pensions is obviously a different matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan]

Thank you very much, Mr Sharma. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this important discussion. I am disappointed, if I am honest, that so much of the oxygen in the room has been devoted to private pensions. There is a fundamental—and, dare I say it, fundamentally clear—distinction to make between private pensions and state pensions. People in the workplace have a choice over whether to take out a private pension or not; they do not have a choice over whether to pay their national insurance contributions. I would suggest—respectfully—that that is a fundamental, fairly obvious difference between private and state pensions.

In her summing up, the Minister talked about the pay-as-you-go nature of national insurance contributions. I think that most of us, as Members of Parliament, already understand that there is no national insurance pot and that national insurance is, in effect, a distinct version of general taxation.

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend is making a point about the state pension and the mechanics that have been described. However, this situation—where there is no specific pot—is the same in other countries, such as Australia and Canada, which do allow early access to the state pension. There is no difference in the mechanism for it, or indeed the principle behind it; they have just applied the compassion that is missing in this situation. Does my hon. Friend not agree?

Social Security (Additional Payments) (No. 2) Bill

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 6th March 2023 Commons Chamber

Alongside colleagues from across the House, I have campaigned hard to retain the £20 uplift to universal credit. Indeed, we asked for it to be extended to legacy benefits. It was a great policy from the British Government, which was warmly welcomed, including by my party. It is no coincidence that we saw food bank usage reduce as the uplift was in place. Likewise, it was no coincidence that food bank usage increased as the uplift was taken away.

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

My hon. Friend makes a telling point about the universal credit uplift. Does he not think that, when it was made, it was a welcome admission that universal credit was not enough to live on, whereas the removal of the uplift has re-established that deficit for people and their families?

[David Linden]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I tend to take the view that if the British Government concluded in March and April 2020 that social security was inadequate for the then economic climate, social security is indeed inadequate in the current economic climate. I welcome the fact that the Select Committee is looking at benefit provision. The all-party group on poverty, which I co-chair with Baroness Lister, is taking evidence on this separately tomorrow.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey has outlined, it was a huge disappointment when the British Government decided against retaining the uplift. Since its removal, I have heard anecdotally that many people have struggled with the sudden loss of income—the largest drop in support in the modern welfare state. Any of us who interact with our constituents can outline how challenging that has been.

Similarly, new clause 5 would require the Secretary of State to produce an assessment of the impact on household incomes— as well as on fuel and food poverty—of the Government’s failure to extend the equivalent uplift to legacy benefits. As with the previous iteration of the Bill relating to cost of living payments, it is welcome that the British Government have included Scottish payments for disability in the eligibility criteria. Although I wish sincerely that the London Government would look towards Holyrood as a guide for more of their social security policies, I appreciate that Ministers have been working with my colleagues in Edinburgh and have ensured that people in receipt of Scottish disability payments will also get the additional payment.

It is widely acknowledged that disabled people are far more likely to live in poverty than non-disabled people and are particularly vulnerable to the rising cost of living. For instance, I have heard testimony in my constituency, in the Lilybank area, of vital medical equipment—not something that can be turned off or turned down a wee bit to take cognisance of energy prices—leading to extortionate electricity bills. Despite that knowledge, legacy benefit claimants, many of whom are long-term sick or disabled, were unjustly denied that uplift during the pandemic. That was a monumental injustice, and it certainly adversely financially impacted many people throughout the pandemic, which was already causing heightened health anxiety. It is only right that an assessment be made of the failure to extend the uplift to legacy benefit claimants.

We must also consider where inflation will be at the time that payments are made. In January this year, the consumer prices index was still in double digits and near the highest levels in about 40 years, at 10.1%. However, we know that the poorest often experience a high rate of inflation; according to the Resolution Foundation, the poorest tenth of households experienced an inflation rate of 11.7%. What is more, recent Office for National Statistics stats show that food and drink inflation remained close to the highest rates since the 1970s, with the soaring price of milk, bread and other basic essentials pushing prices up by almost 17% in a year.

Recently, the British Government rightly increased social security benefits and the state pension in line with the CPI, so it seems only logical that that should apply to the cost of living payments that the Bill makes provision for. Therefore, our new clause 6 would ensure that

“all payments due under this Act are increased by the rate of inflation as measured by the latest Consumer Prices Index at the time of payment, if that is higher than the original amount.”

We do not know what the economic landscape will be later this year, so the new clause was tabled as an insurance policy in the event that inflation does not fall as has been forecast. It is unfortunate that some of the amendments are not in scope; the money resolution was so restrictive that it prevents our bringing forward amendments that would assist our constituents in a more meaningful way.

However, I have highlighted some of the inadequacies in the UK’s social security system, mainly the punitive sanctions regime. Instead of providing a robust safety net for millions of households, the surge in sanctions demonstrates the uncaring approach of a Westminster Government who Scotland did not vote for and who are pushing people further into poverty during a cost of living crisis. People across Scotland are paying a very steep price indeed for poor economic decisions made in this Palace of Westminster.

It does not have to be like this. We can make better policy if the Government accept that they do not have a monopoly on wisdom. I have tabled the amendments in good faith and I believe they would vastly improve the Bill. I hope the Minister can come to the Dispatch Box later and confirm the Government’s support for amendment 2, which I believe can make this legislation much better for not only the people that I represent, but the people that we all represent in this House.

Social Security and Pensions

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Amy Callaghan]

My very good friend has made an excellent point. There is no limit on the Scottish child payment, whereas this Government have imposed an abhorrent two-child cap.

Pensioners have been abandoned continually by successive Tory Governments who have broken the triple lock, abandoned the WASPI women, provided a lower state pension relative to average earnings than most other advanced economies, and ended the free television licence. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s recent UK Poverty 2023 report, 1.7 million pensioners in the UK were living in poverty in 2020-21.

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

How does my hon. Friend think her constituents who are in that position—people who are struggling on social security payments—must feel when they see all the blatant tax evasion that is going on, depriving Government coffers of money that could go towards providing them with a decent standard of living?

[Amy Callaghan]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that excellent point. On Friday, in my constituency, I met representatives of Pensioners for Independence, who cannot not understand why the UK Government are contributing such measly sums to our state pensions and our welfare system, and who see independence as a shining light and a way out of this despicable system. The people who have paid into the pension system their whole life are being completely short-changed by this UK Government.

We welcome an inflationary increase to benefits, which is entirely necessary given that inflation rates have soared due to economic mismanagement by this Government and the four preceding ones. But the welfare system in this place is fundamentally broken, potentially beyond repair. Worse yet, this Government are unwilling even to try to fix it. It would be remiss of me not to mention the light at the end of the tunnel for the people of Scotland: an independent Scotland, delivering fairness, equality and a complete social security system that is entirely fit for purpose.

State Pension Triple Lock

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I will pick up some of the Secretary of State’s comments. He started off by trying to claim that there was not much illumination from the shadow Secretary of State’s speech, but we got absolutely no illumination from his speech, either. There is still no clarity on what the Government are going to do. As I said, it is just not adequate to say, “It’s irresponsible to come forward and provide clarity on what is going to happen on the triple lock.” The Secretary of State kept talking about being honest with the public, so he should be honest and tell us what will happen with the triple lock.

The Secretary of State attacked Labour with the old trope about Labour doing borrowing. I am sure that, not that long ago, he was backing the mini-Budget that was all about borrowing to give tax cuts to the rich. That was economic madness. Does he want to come back to the Dispatch Box and apologise for that?

I am happy to support the motion. It is simple and, as it references the Tory manifesto, it should win the entire House’s support—hopefully without the chaos that we witnessed in the Opposition day debate about fracking. I note that that was also the day when the former Prime Minister was questioned at the Dispatch Box by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford); she did her 55th U-turn and said that she would protect the triple lock, so it should be easy for the Government to further confirm that, rather than holding on to the line about waiting until next week.

Last year’s breaking of the triple lock cost each pensioner £520 on average during the cost of living crisis, and the Red Book shows that it will take £30 billion in total from pensioners by 2026-27. At least uprating the state pension this year in line with September’s 10% inflation rate would give certainty of income to its recipients.

However, we should also look at the reality. If the triple lock is reinstated and pensions are uplifted, we are actually almost celebrating not cutting pensions in real terms in the Budget. That is how desperate things are. If that is the measure of compassionate conservativism—not making further cuts to pensions—then it shows the reality of where we are with this Government.

In terms of inflation in the here and now, we know from the Office for National Statistics that tea is up 46%, pasta is up 60% and bread is up 38%. The price of budget food in supermarkets is up an astonishing 17% in the year to September. On energy costs, the average bill, based on the previous cap, was £1,100 a year just a year and a half ago. Now, with the so-called energy guarantee, we are supposed to be pleased that bills are now, on average, £2,500 per year during the winter period.

For the Energy Prices Act 2022, the Government’s own figures estimated that energy bills would go up on average to £4,400 without the support package. That is almost 50% of an average state pension. Given that it is perfectly obvious that pensioners are more likely to use more energy than an average household, it is not just the triple lock that needs to be reinstated; we need this Government to come forward with confirmation of what the future energy support package will be for those who need it. The Secretary of State talked about protecting the most vulnerable. Well, they need to know what is happening with energy going forward as well.

In Scotland, average usage already means that bills are in the order of £3,300 per annum even with the current energy support package, so for people on fixed incomes it really is unaffordable.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is telling it like it is for people in their homes just now. He is talking about energy costs. That does not include those people, including pensioners, who live off the gas grid and are therefore paying far, far more than those he is quoting.

[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.

Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill [Lords]

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry]

I am also keen for the Bill to make progress as quickly as possible. Our thanks should go to the people who have been campaigning for this change, including the fabulous organisations such as Marie Curie, Macmillan and Citizens Advice; MND and MND Scotland, which have done so much work; and individual campaigners who have told their stories time and again, some at great personal cost.

I praise the probing amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), because it is important that such matters are considered. I hope, from the Minister’s tone today, that she will take away some of the comments that have been made so that lessons can be learned from what has happened to people. Terminally ill people will face increased pressures in the coming months and years, and it is vital that services can be streamlined for them. Ministerial churn should not slow the process in the future and work should be done to ensure that protection.

It has been suggested that the Scottish Government need to do further work. I am certain that the Minister, Ben Macpherson, will be delighted to consider how things can be streamlined further in the interests of fairness and dignity for those people at the heart of the system. I am sure that the Minister will find an open door there.

As I said right at the beginning, this is a welcome step that will help people. It is a victory for the campaigners, so well done to them. They will not stop, and they should not stop, until they get the things they need for the people affected and their families.

Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill [Lords]

Drew Hendry Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 8th September 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome the new Secretary of State and Ministers to the Front Bench. This Bill is a good place to start their new jobs. It is not a massive piece of legislation in its content, but its effect is seriously important for people. In welcoming it, it is important to stress that, but also to give voice to those who have suffered and had frustrations during the time that we have been waiting for this to happen.

This is a small but hard-fought step that will make the last days of life easier for the families and loved ones of those who are diagnosed with a terminal illness. Even though I still believe that the Bill does not go far enough, it is important to welcome that. Thousands of terminally ill people who were previously denied fast-track support will now get the help they need, which is hugely important.

There are also the thousands who did not get much-needed help in the time it has taken Governments to act. I heard the words of the previous Minister, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), and I will talk about some of the positive things in a moment, but all the pre-laid excuses about why it has taken so long do not cut ice with the people who have suffered. That should be acknowledged when we are talking about this important issue.

The action needed was simple: scrap the six-month rule and make life a little easier for folk who do not have long to live—or even to get their forms in—so they can receive support and advice. The ask was to get rid of the arbitrary date, which was inhumane; I still think that having an arbitrary date is inhumane, but it is better than what we had before. The moral imperative is, and always was, to just do the right and decent thing for people and give folk who are dying some dignity in whatever time they have left.

That is what the Bill will do in some measure. It will make a difference to those at the end of their lives. It will relieve the financial worries of families who have received the news that no family and no person wants to hear. Moreover, it will ensure that they get fast-track support across all social security payments for the first time.

The Bill has been a long time coming, as I have said. We have many frustrations about how it has been handled, which I will come on to, because, as I said, I think it is important to give voice to them, but I thank the staff at the Department for Work and Pensions who have worked on this policy change. In my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on terminal illness, I thank outgoing Ministers for the constructive meetings that we have had over the years on this issue.

For me, the story began in 2017 when I heard the experiences of my terminally ill constituents and what they were going through from colleagues in the incredible Macmillan citizens advice bureau in Inverness. Indeed, it resonates with me still today. It is one of the sharpest memories that I have of any meeting I have ever had in my parliamentary career. I sat in a room with these battle-hardened—and, I have to say, battle-weary—professionals trying to help people at the end of their life, and I am not ashamed to say there were tears in that room as I heard their stories.

I could not believe what I was hearing, and I had sat opposite the Government Benches and heard quite a lot up until then. Even then, I thought that surely there must be some kind of mistake here, that it was simply a policy flaw that only allowed people to claim benefits if they had a diagnosis of six months to live, and that just highlighting this would allow us to move on and get this changed for people because, as I have said, and I will say again, it is inhumane for people. But no, this was a culture of hostility—I have to underline this—in the universal credit regime.

Terminally ill people also lost a lot more than just their payments at that time. Countless terminally ill people were forced to go to work coach meetings, and others had their social security payments stopped entirely. Some of these people died from their illness having not had their support payments, or their payments had not even started. Others had actually had their payments stopped, and were told that they no longer qualified for this.

As I say, with the new universal credit regime, terminally ill people also lost their right not to find out about their terminal diagnosis. Previously they could choose not to be told of their diagnosis, and that was possible because their advisers completed the forms on their behalf. With universal credit came a change to the forms, confusion at the DWP, a litany of failures and a “computer says no” attitude to problem solving. The system was pretty miserable for terminally people before the universal credit roll-out—no one has ever accused the DWP of being particularly keen to put dignity at the heart of its operations—but after the roll-out it was beyond a nightmare for people.

Back then, I reached out to Marie Curie and, with Members from across the House, set up the all-party parliamentary group on terminal illness. We launched a truly cross-party effort to have the issues arising from the universal credit roll-out resolved, and to get this Government to scrap the arbitrary six-month rule. We joined forces with the all-party parliamentary group on MND and, working with the MND Association and Marie Curie, we launched the Scrap 6 Months campaign.

I think it is important at this point to pay tribute to the former MP Madeleine Moon, who did so much work. I believe she is in the Gallery, which is fantastic. She deserves a lot of credit and praise for the work she did in pushing this forward, and I was delighted to work hand in hand with her, as I promised I would, to try to get this issue highlighted. I must also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), who has taken up the mantle with Bills of her own. Indeed, I have had my own ten-minute rule Bill on this subject.

We had two active APPGs, a cross-party approach and amazing campaigners who, with so much grace and humanity, laid everything on the table at evidence session after evidence session. An example is Michelle McCluskey, whose mum died of a cancer tumour, weighing just 3 stone after the DWP stopped her £117 a week benefit. She relayed the pain and suffering this caused her over and over again to the media and in evidence sessions, trying desperately to ensure that nobody else had to endure the same. She, like other amazing campaigners, such as Mark Hughes, who himself has a terminal illness, and others who have campaigned with terminal illnesses, achieved this change today. This change is their victory—this is their moment—and I want to put on record my thanks to each and every one of them, and to the teams at Marie Curie, the MND Association and MND Scotland for all they did to lobby this Government over the past five years to just simply do the right thing.

Back in 2017, when we started to form the campaign, we must have been much less jaded as we seriously thought, given how horrendous the situation was and how easy it was to fix, that this Government would act, but it is now 2022 and, thankfully, the legislation is now going through its remaining stages today. Although I am happy—I am happy this is happening, believe me, because as a result, thousands of people will get the fast-access support they need—and I welcome the Bill, I must highlight the human cost of this Government’s inaction. Year after year we produced reports, held evidence sessions, met Minister after Minister, and highlighted real and devastating cases. We were promised that action would come. I have heard stories of the internal workings, but people who are dying do not really want to hear those. They want action to help them and their families at that time.

We held evidence sessions, and every time we were promised that action would come. Then there was a reshuffle and a new Minister, more promises of action, another new Minister and yet more promises of action, then yet another Minister and so forth. All the while, the Government were telling us that the review was imminent, and all that time we were losing campaigners to their terminal illnesses as each new Minister came and went. That time cost many more lives than we ever foresaw. Back in early 2021, Marie Curie estimated that until that point around 6,000 people had died waiting for this change.

Let us remember what we are talking about. This is not a budgetary change or a big costly exercise; this is about faster access to help for people who are dying from a terminal illness. Five years from when I first raised the issue with the then Secretary of State, five years of campaigning by so many incredible people, and we are here—it is welcome. However, this is a story of a failing Government who need to understand the issues around this. Back when I first raised the issue with a UK Minister, I also raised it with the then Scottish Minister responsible for the roll-out of Scotland’s new social security operation, Jeane Freeman MSP. Her response was almost immediate:

“Thank you for highlighting this issue and we will find a way to ensure this never happens with the new Scottish Social Security Department.”

True to her word, for personal independence payments the Scottish Government have taken an open-ended approach to defining terminal illness for financial support. I have yet to have one complaint in my inbox that people are not getting that support, so I do not see the difficulties that have been highlighted. The Scottish Government chose to start from a place of putting those people and their needs first, and to find a way to make the system work while putting dignity and respect at the heart of the process. That is in sharp contrast to this Parliament, where the internal struggles of the Tory party have seen us reach our fifth Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions in five years, and a hostile approach that is not limited to the Home Office but reverberates across Departments.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I absolutely understand the good intentions behind what the hon. Gentleman sets out, but the fundamental flaw is that it relies on people who are terminally ill knowing about the support, and how to navigate what is now a complex situation in Scotland. Under our rules, the 12-month rule, support can be automatically highlighted by GPs at the same time as palliative care. Not only is that a better system, but people who would otherwise unknowingly miss that support will get it. Will he lobby the Scottish Government to listen to the stakeholders he has praised and mirror what we are doing?

[Drew Hendry]

I thank the former Minister for his intervention, and I would say two things. First, the principle in Scotland was to ensure that it was not a DWP operative or contracted-out person who made the decision, but clinicians and health professionals. This is not a particularly party political issue, but I said that I would give a voice to the frustrations of people of all political persuasion, and none, who have struggled and suffered through this process, and that is what I am doing. I will always work to try to get a problem ironed out, should a problem exist, but I am not faced with the same content in my mailbag that I had in previous years due to difficulties with the DWP.

Like other Departments, the DWP is barely functioning at the moment, so there is real work for the new Secretary of State and Minister to get into. Staff from offices across the Chamber cannot get answers for our constituents, and the situation is even worse for colleagues in local citizens advice bureaux. People living with terminal illness face housing and fuel poverty on top of the rising costs that come with having to live with a chronic health condition: they have to stay in and heat their houses because they have to be as well as possible in those houses. People living with terminal illness face many ongoing issues, and they, like millions of households across the nations of the UK, are being failed if that is not heard. The Government must listen to those demands to treat dying people with dignity and respect and ensure that more people do not die stressful deaths in poverty due to inaction.

Cost of Living Increases: Pensioners

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Commons Chamber

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

It is kind of a pleasure to follow the Secretary of State, but I have to say, not for the first time, that I am a wee bit puzzled, because she seemed to be responding to a different debate from the one we are having. The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), set out some clear and harrowing examples of people who are really struggling, yet the Secretary of State gave a pre-prepared speech about a secure and dignified retirement tomorrow, ignoring the here and now.

Talking about how this Government have paid the most in pensions ever does not cut it. Those statistics are fine, but they do not help pensioners who are really struggling. That point needs to be taken on board. I asked about the £9 billion package that the Secretary of State cited, but she was not sure how much of it was Treasury-funded and how much was a loan to bill payers. I can tell her that out of that £9 billion, roughly £5.6 billion is just a loan to bill payers that will have to be paid back—bill payers who include struggling pensioners.

On pension credit, the Secretary of State picked up on what the pensions Minister—the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman)—said earlier, bragging about how the Government are writing to local papers. When the shadow Secretary of State called them out on it, however, the Minister shouted, “Oh, we’ve done that for years!” If it has been done for years and there is still £4 billion of unclaimed pension credit, it is clearly not working. It is quite clear that another strategy is needed to make sure that there is a far greater uptake of pension credit, which can then be a passport to other benefits.

I welcome this debate. The motion combines the key issues for pensioners in the ongoing cost of living crisis: rising energy costs, real-terms cuts to pensions and, for older people in work, the health and social care levy. Where I disagree slightly with the shadow Secretary of State, which is why I intervened on him, is that I think that the motion could have been stronger in explicitly demanding the reinstatement of the pensions triple lock.

Earlier today, the pensions Minister stated that pensioner poverty has fallen, but as I tried to point out, the Government’s own statistics on households below average income show that UK pension poverty has risen to a 15-year high under Tory rule. Some 2.1 million UK pensioners—18%—are now living in poverty after housing costs, an increase of 200,000 people on 2018-19. Sadly, that was the figure before the latest energy cap rise was announced, so it will massively increase unless there is proper Government intervention. It is worrying that the Minister is trying to argue something different; either he is ignorant of the facts or he does not care. The Government really need to pay attention and start intervening.

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

My hon. Friend is making a terrific point about the poverty that is affecting pensioners just now. Does he agree that the effect is disproportionately felt by pensioners living in off-gas grid households? Last year, heating fuel was 42p a litre; it is now £1.25 a litre and rising. There is going to be a really dramatic effect on pensioners in those areas.

[Alan Brown]

I completely agree. I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that point; he has been at the forefront of the campaign to highlight the effects of increased energy costs on those who are off the gas grid. That threefold increase in fuel costs is completely unsustainable and really does lead people to the choice between heating and eating.

Let us look at conventional households covered by the energy cap. Next month, the cost of energy for the average household will have increased by 75% compared with April 2021, a rise of more than £800 a year. Pensioners spend more time in their homes and are more likely to feel the effects of cold or damp, so increased energy costs disproportionally hit the elderly. Not being able to afford to heat their homes puts their health more at risk. There are already something like 10,000 premature deaths a year due to fuel poverty, and that was before the huge energy cost increases. It is truly shameful that in an energy-rich country, or group of nations, people are dying prematurely because they cannot afford to heat their homes.

National Energy Action has estimated that the cap increase will have caused a 33% increase in fuel poverty rates. If this rise continues without Government interventions, come October we will be looking at some 8 million fuel-poor households in the UK, with perhaps between 2.5 million and 3 million of those households containing pensioners. When we look beyond the phrase “heating or eating”, we see that the grim reality for people faced with that choice is starving or freezing or suffering in damp houses, and that brings us back to the possibility of more people dying prematurely. It is truly shameful.

The interventions that the Government have announced to date clearly do not go far enough. Even worse, the removal of the triple lock is taking more than £500 a year from the pockets of pensioners, as the Government’s own Red Book demonstrates. Earlier today and this evening, Tory Ministers were arguing that wage increases were a false measurement owing to the partial recovery from covid. They have used that to justify breaking the triple lock. Just four months on, however, we have evidence that a much larger pension increase than 3.1% is required. The facts are clear: the spring statement in two days’ time will provide the one opportunity to reinstate the triple lock, or at least, as a bare minimum, to introduce a mechanism for increasing pensions by 6.1% in line with the current rate of inflation and what the Scottish Government are doing with benefits.

It was good to hear the Secretary of State guarantee that if inflation is at 7% or 8% later in the year, at the point when calculations are being made for the purpose of future uprating, pensions will rise by that amount. I hope that the Government stick to that, and it is not just bluster at the Dispatch Box. We all know who pulls the strings; it tends to be the Chancellor, so I hope that the Secretary of State is lobbying the Chancellor, because we know that inflation is not going to go down any time soon.

While I am talking about inadequate measures, let me point out that the £150 rebate on council tax will not catch all pensioner households in terms of bandings; and, as the shadow Secretary of State said, many pensioners living alone or in receipt of pension credit already receive a full or partial council tax discount, and are therefore unlikely to benefit from the new council tax rebate measure unless the Government do something about it. Making others who have avoided debt all their lives take out a £200 loan to pay back later is also morally wrong. That loan should be converted to a grant for all, and certainly, as the bare minimum, for pensioners and those on benefits.

The Secretary of State spoke about the warm home discount, but, as she knows, the Government put no money into that scheme, although too many Ministers do not even understand that; it is actually paid for by other bill payers. While I welcome the extension of the discount to 3 million households, only 10% more pensioners will receive it. The Government should extend it further, but, in doing so, should provide some direct funding rather than imposing the funding on other bill payers. They should also consider extending the energy company obligation scheme so that more homes become energy-efficient, but that too should involve direct funding rather than other bill payers having to foot the bill.

Apart from the £150 funded rebate, the only direct Government intervention to date on energy has been the allocation of £1.7 billion for the development of Sizewell C. Not content with Hinkley Point C being the most expensive power station in the world, the Tories are determined to build another more expensive one. In their own impact assessment for the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill, the upper estimate of the capital and financing costs of the Sizewell C development is £63 billion. How will that help people who need energy costs to come down? And why did Labour vote to commit bill payers to that amount for a new nuclear power station? The money could be spent so much more wisely. There really needs to be a rethink on this nuclear policy.

There are other cost increases to be considered. For instance, the cost of food is rocketing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

I repeat that the time to be bold and increase fuel duty would have been when fuel prices were at a record low. That would not have had the same impact on people’s pockets. The current rise is unsustainable—[Interruption.] The Minister did not listen to what I said. This here-and-now policy from the Government is unsuitable; it should involve bolder long-term planning. Had they raised fuel duty earlier when prices were lower, they could have reinvested the revenue in public transport and in creating money for a rainy day, like right now.

[Drew Hendry]

Is it not a fact that pensioners and other people could have been helped greatly in this fuel crisis, had the Government listened and introduced a fuel duty regulator, which would have regulated the price and ensured that fuel was affordable for people just now?

[Alan Brown]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend has made my point much better than I was making it myself, and I appreciate that. A fuel duty regulator is exactly what would have given better stability for the Treasury and for people’s pockets.

Looking at other windfalls the Treasury receives, we see a VAT windfall from the £800 increase in average household bills. That is well over another £1 billion coming into the Treasury coffers. The Treasury is also benefiting from increased oil and gas revenues. The last Budget predicted an extra £6 billion in oil and gas revenues in this Parliament compared with the March 2021 Budget, but given the sustained period of increased prices, that £6 billion will prove to be an underestimate. That is more money that should have been reinvested.

I know that Labour has targeted a windfall tax on the oil and gas companies, but that sounds a wee bit like raiding the one traditional cash cow. Why do we not, as the SNP motion suggested last week, look at this in the round? Why do we not target all sectors or companies that have benefited disproportionately from the pandemic, and in particular the new-start companies and the Tory crony companies that were awarded PPE contracts and that have realised record profits since? That is a real obscenity that should be targeted. Anyone who has read Private Eye and seen the eye-watering sums that those companies have made should be truly horrified.

I want to highlight some additional measures in Scotland where the SNP Government are providing mitigation for pensioners, but even the powers the Scottish Government have are nowhere near enough to make the transformational changes that we want. Older people in Scotland get their bus passes at the age of 60, instead of having to wait until the state pension age. They also have universal free prescriptions and are more likely to have had targeted energy efficiency measures for their homes. All charitable organisations in this sector, as well as the energy companies themselves, want the UK Government to follow the lead of the Scottish Government in making energy efficiency a national infrastructure programme. The low-income winter heating assistance will give around 400,000 low-income households a guaranteed £50 payment every winter instead of the complicated UK cold weather payment of just £25.

Benefit Cap

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[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).

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.