Savings (Government Contributions) Bill (Fifth sitting)
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(8 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kelvin Hopkins
I rise in support of the new clause. I believe that most citizens would benefit from this kind of advice. As the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber said, even experts in the field of economics and finance are sometimes puzzled and at a loss when it comes to deciding what to do regarding savings and investments. The new clause is eminently sensible and would be a strong addition to the Bill. I would have liked this kind of advice when making my own investments back in the 1960s and 1970s.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
The issue was summed up for me last week when we heard evidence and got into a rather esoteric discussion about “taxed, exempt, exempt” and “exempt, exempt, taxed”. That is just gobbledegook to the average person, including me. We absolutely need to translate that into language that normal people, with a normal level of financial literacy, can understand.
Kelvin Hopkins
I thank the hon. Lady for that useful intervention, with which I strongly agree. I hesitate to say this, because I said it before, but it has been calculated that 50% of the population are not functionally numerate—they do not understand percentages and that kind of thing—so advice of this kind is vital for the ordinary citizen. I hope that the Government see fit to accept the new clause, and that we can move on.
Savings (Government Contributions) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(8 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 8, in schedule 2, page 19, line 11, at end insert—
“(e) make provision for eligible persons to be auto-enrolled into Help-to-Save accounts from benefit entitlements unless the individual chooses to opt-out.”
This amendment would enable an “auto-enrolment” workplace saving scheme which would see an individual automatically signed up to a Help-to-Save account. He or she then must “opt-out” to stop money being deducted from their pay or benefits into a savings account.
The amendment would enable the establishment of an auto-enrolment type of workplace saving scheme that would allow individuals to be automatically signed up for a Help to Save account. Individuals could of course opt out of this entirely, but for many it could help overcome the inertia and procrastination sometimes associated with getting started in setting up a savings account. These days, there are fewer and fewer high street outlets, banks and building societies—indeed, several are closing in my constituency tomorrow—and that is going to make it even harder for people to talk to somebody face to face about savings products. I believe that if an incentivised savings scheme is made easily accessible and available the likelihood of participation is greatly increased. More people who would be well advised to save but who do not do it would find it an awful lot easier to get started.
Jane Ellison
The amendment is about auto-enrolling individuals into Help to Save accounts. I understand the motivation, and given the evidence from StepChange the Government do not doubt the sincerity of the intention and the desire to help people to save. However, we have concerns, and I shall explain why we cannot support the amendment.
The amendment would provide for arrangements allowing employers or benefit paying bodies to divert money from employees’ pay or benefits into a Help to Save account, unless they chose to opt out. To return to an earlier debate about auto-enrolment, we all believe that it has been a huge success in pension saving. However, while there is a strong case for auto-enrolling people into long-term pension savings, we do not think that is the case for the rainy-day savings that Help to Save is designed to support.
We want a decision to save into an account to be an active choice made by eligible individuals at a time that is right for them. Given the focus on rainy-day savings, we think that many will want to use the account flexibly, putting aside what they can afford each month rather than committing to a fixed amount being deducted from their salary or tax credit payments. For those looking to make regular payments into a Help to Save account, a standing order that they control will be the best option. That is because many people who are eligible for Help to Save could well have more than one job or other changes in circumstances over the four-year period when they have an account. The target group for a Help to Save account is disproportionately more likely to have a series of different jobs or more than one job at the same time.
Nevertheless, an employer that wants to offer payroll deduction into a Help to Save account to its employees is perfectly free to do so—nothing in the legislation would stop them. The Government are aware of successful voluntary workplace savings schemes and we are keen to explore the role that employers and other local organisations can play to support people in getting access to Help to Save, but we have no intention of making that a statutory requirement at a time when we are still working with businesses to roll out and embed automatic enrolment into workplace pensions—particularly given the forthcoming rises in contribution rates. We think that that must remain the priority for employers. That takes us back to an earlier debate about the support we all give to auto-enrolment, and the desire not to confuse that picture.
I hope that, with those points in mind, the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment.
Dr Whiteford
I take on board the Minister’s concern, particularly for people who may be in multiple employment; that is a fair point. I am not sure that the arrangement would not be hugely beneficial for employers too, or that they would be all that resistant. The amendment is intended as an enabling provision, but in the interest of making progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ian Blackford
I beg to move amendment 7, in schedule 2, page 19, line 31, at end insert—
‘(2A) Where a bankruptcy order is made against a person with a Help-to-Save account any bonus paid into the Help-to-Save account will not form part of a debtors estate during insolvency proceedings.
(2B) Any bonus paid into a Help-to-Save account shall not be liable to be taken as repayment via third party debt orders.’
The amendment would ensure that those subject to a bankruptcy order would not be stripped of their assets. Currently, Help to Save affords no protection to the Government bonus paid into accounts from insolvency proceedings or third-party debt orders from creditors. The Government need to look closely at the debt collection and insolvency implications of the scheme. Given the target audience of Help to Save, it is likely that many will face financial difficulties while holding a Help to Save account. That would leave them vulnerable to third-party debt orders and potential insolvency.
Dr Whiteford
I beg to move amendment 1, in schedule 2, page 20, line 21, at end insert
“which must be paid no later than six calendar months beginning with the calendar month in which the account is opened”.
This amendment would reduce the time before the holder of a Help to Save account would receive a government bonus to six months.
I will be extremely brief. This amendment is very simple: it would reduce the amount of time before a Help to Save account holder receives their Government bonus to six months, which simply reflects the reality of the timeframe in which people on lower incomes are likely to have to dip into their savings to cover unexpected costs. Again, the amendment builds on research by StepChange, whose users are the target group for the product. According to StepChange, more than three quarters of people in the target income band will need to dip into savings more than once in a year, and a significant proportion will need to do so within six months. Two years is probably too long for them to see the full benefit of the bonus. A more frequent bonus payment will make the product more attractive to the people it is aimed at.
Jane Ellison
The amendment would require the Government to pay the bonus on Help to Save accounts within six months of the account opening. On Second Reading, hon. Members expressed concerns about the bonus being paid after two years and on maturity, and not more regularly. The Government are not requiring people to lock their money away in Help to Save. People will still have full access to their savings and will be paid a bonus on the highest balance obtained. Even if people are able to save for only six months, they will still be entitled to receive a bonus at the two-year point and on maturity.
We have said a number of times that the purpose of Help to Save is to support rainy-day saving over a four-year period to help people to build a buffer against unexpected financial shocks or changes in circumstances. In light of that objective, we have looked carefully at how frequently we should pay the bonus.
Similar accounts in the Saving Gateway pilots run by a previous Government ran for 18 months. Published research shows that participants had different views on account duration, but many were in favour of extending the period. Additionally, there is peer-reviewed research by US academics on individual development accounts, a similar savings scheme in the US that also provides match funding to help people on low incomes to save. The research concluded that 19 to 24 months is the optimal time period to embed a savings habit.
Jane Ellison
We risk straying slightly off the point, but there has been a lot of debate about weekly and monthly pay in the discussions about the many changes to the welfare system in recent years. Universal credit, which like many other benefits is moving to a monthly-by-default payment, is subject to the same argument about striking the right balance. We think that paying the bonus at two years and on account maturity strikes the right balance, because it gives people enough time to build up their savings and develop a saving habit, while allowing them to access the bonus within an appropriate timescale.
The Government bonus is designed to provide support and a real incentive to those building up their savings over a long period, rather than supporting or incentivising short-term spending. A bonus of up to £600 after two years is an attractive target to save towards, and will encourage people to keep saving, if they can. We do not believe that smaller bonus amounts paid at more frequent intervals would provide the same incentive for regular saving over the long term.
Given the rainy-day nature of the scheme, Members may be concerned to ensure that savers can access their bonus early if they face an unexpected cost or change in circumstances, and I stress that savers can access their money at any time and still earn a bonus on their savings. The four-year duration of the account allows people to start saving again, so they can earn an additional bonus. While I recognise the strong views on this issue, the motivation behind the amendment, and that no one solution will work perfectly for all savers, I think—in light of the argument I have made and some of the evidence I have cited—that we have got the balance right in this regard. I ask the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan to withdraw her amendment.
Dr Whiteford
I am disappointed that the Government have not taken on board a simple and straightforward amendment. I am minded to push the amendment to a vote, simply because many Members expressed concern about this matter on Second Reading, and the amendment could be made fairly easily.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Savings (Government Contributions) Bill (Third sitting)
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(8 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the LISA’s major flaws is that the only people who will be able take full advantage of it are people who have a spare £20,000 a year to save? That is an attractive tax break for very wealthy people.
Kelvin Hopkins
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. During the era of TESSAs, PEPs, ISAs and national savings certificates, the wealthy, if they were wise, would have bought all of them for themselves, their partners and their children—anyone within the family for whom they could buy them—every year. They would build up a massive portfolio of tax-free savings over the years and be extremely well off in old age, especially if the savings in those four schemes would otherwise have been taxed at the higher rate. Instead of incentivising poor people to save, the schemes were actually tax-free bunce for the wealthy. I had some TESSAs, PEPs and ISAs, and I still have some national savings certificates today, so I am sitting pretty, but I am comfortably off. I am more concerned about people who are poor, and I am certainly not poor. I am not wealthy, but I am not poor. Mr Davies made the point well.
That is a frontal assault on such instruments, but the concern about damaging auto-enrolment is also serious. I strongly support auto-enrolment, which has been a great success so far. I wanted to go much further, and I have said in the Commons on more than one occasion that I believe we should have a compulsory universal earnings-related savings system for everyone, including the self-employed, so that we all make sure that we save for our old age. I do not stand back from that proposal, which I intend to continue advocating as a step beyond auto-enrolment. Auto-enrolment is a major step forward, but it is still not a defined-benefit scheme and it is still subject to stock market fluctuations, whereas a state system could have guaranteed defined benefits.
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point about independent financial advice. The Minister also made an important point about the cost of that advice. From the evidence we heard, it came across strongly to me that for most people on moderate incomes, this product is a lot less advantageous than putting the money into a pension and attracting employers’ contributions. That is why independent advice is so important, and why this product is not very attractive for anybody on a normal salary.
Peter Dowd
That is a reasonable point to make. The question is: what is the reasonableness of the argument? The Minister, again perfectly reasonably, makes her point. I do not necessarily accept the figures that she gave, but I take at face value the point that she makes. On balance, people have found that not taking independent advice on such matters was a little costly in the short term, but in the long term, if they did not get the right advice, it was even more costly. That bill has to be picked up by someone, and we are not talking about a few pounds—we are talking about people’s lives in the future, and it is difficult to put a price on that. We recognise the points that the Minister made, and the spirit in which she made them, but as a matter of principle, we want to press new clause 2 to a Division, just to get it into the mix.
Jane Ellison
The Prime Minister has set out the Government’s mission to build a country that truly works for everyone, not just the privileged few. Clause 2 introduces the Help to Save product, and we can be extremely encouraged that it speaks directly to that mission. Evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation cited in the House of Commons Library briefing paper shows that between a quarter and a third of households have said that they are unable to make regular savings for rainy days. According to the family resources survey, a household with less than £25,000 in income is twice as likely to have no savings as a family with more than £50,000. We heard from the debt charity StepChange in its written submissions—this point was amplified in its contribution to the evidence session—that access to a £1,000 savings pot can reduce the likelihood of the average family falling into debt by almost half.
Faced with that evidence—and the evidence we all know from our constituency surgeries of people living fragile financial lives, where one thing going wrong can tip them into debt or other problems—it is only right that we provide a strong incentive and reward for working households on lower incomes to build a savings buffer.
Help to Save will support up to 3.5 million people on lower incomes who are just about managing but may be struggling to build up their savings. It will help them develop their financial resilience and ability to cope with unexpected financial pressures. Clause 2 sets out the main characteristic of Help to Save: the Government bonus or contribution, which will be paid by the paying authority. The bonus will be paid at 50% of the highest balance achieved in the account. Over the four-year maturity period of the account, an eligible individual can save up to £2,400 and earn a Government bonus of up to £1,200. We intend that HMRC will pay any bonus amounts due and that that will be passed to eligible individuals by the account provider. Schedule 2, which we will consider shortly, makes further provision in relation to Help to Save accounts and the Government bonus.
Help to Save will meet a real need and will support many of those who are just getting by, helping them to build their financial resilience and supporting their ability to cope with financial shocks.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
Help-to-Save accounts: further provision
Dr Whiteford
I beg to move amendment 6, in schedule 2, page 16, line 31, at end insert—
‘(1A) The conditions specified under sub-paragraph (1) shall not include the condition that the individual be over 25 years old if that individual meets all other specified conditions relating to the working tax credit.’
Currently those aged under 25 only qualify for Working Tax Credits if they work at least 16 hours a week. This amendment would ensure any individual aged under 25 would qualify for a Help-to-Save account if they met other specified criteria.
In relation to later amendments to the schedule, I declare an interest as a member of the North East Scotland Credit Union. I tabled the amendment with my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber. In contrast to the LISA, the Help to Save product offers genuine benefits for low and middle-income savers. All our amendments today seek to strengthen it and address some of the limitations that have emerged in the written and oral evidence.
Currently, the under-25s will not qualify for Help to Save unless they are in receipt of the disabled element of working tax credit, or they are responsible for children and are working 16 hours a week or more. Many young adults under 25 who are in full-time work could benefit greatly from Help to Save. The amendment would ensure that those under 25 could qualify for a Help to Save account on the same basis as those over 25 if they meet the specified criteria.
We know that the under-25s need some encouragement to save. As we heard from the Minister, having some savings can be incredibly advantageous; it cushions them against unexpected financial shocks and prevents them having to use the excruciatingly expensive payday lenders and getting into problem debt when they face unplanned costs.
Help to Save is probably a more realistic way for people to save for a first home than the LISA. Extending it to more young people in that age group can only help to incentivise early saving and improve financial literacy. It seems wrong to deprive young adults who are already working more than 30 hours a week of the opportunity to benefit from this scheme just because of their age.
Jane Ellison
The amendment would ensure that individuals aged 25 or under would be eligible for an account if they meet the conditions relating to working tax credit eligibility. It is worth making it clear that under-25s will be eligible to open accounts if they meet the relevant criteria for working tax credit or universal credit. A person under 25 is eligible for working tax credit if they work a minimum of 16 hours a week and have a child or a disability.
Our intention is for eligibility for a Help to Save account to be determined by people passporting from working tax credit and universal credit. That is a well established way of targeting support to people on lower incomes. The Government recognise that some people of working age with lower incomes may not be eligible for Help to Save, but passporting is the simplest and most effective method available for determining and notifying eligibility; it is fundamental to the efficient operation of the scheme.
In particular, passporting means that people will not be required to complete a means test to prove that they are eligible for an account, or to contact the Government. It avoids the need to develop bespoke systems to determine eligibility that would be an additional cost to the Government and could deter many savers. That is why we will resist the amendment and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.
Dr Whiteford
I would rather press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Savings (Government Contributions) Bill (Second sitting)
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(8 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Maria Caulfield
Yes, on the lifetime ISA.
Ed Boyd: We have not done the research on the ISA, so we do not have a view. I can probably only help with the Help to Save side of things.
Joseph Surtees: On that point, I would say—and this is applicable to both—that a lot of the behavioural research in this area talks about a process called hyperbolic discounting, which is to do with the fact that the further away something is, the less appealing it will be. So, any mechanisms we can have in any of these products that allow people to access them before two years, in the case of Help to Save, or before much further in the future, in terms of the LISA, will appeal and widen the eligibility a lot more.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Q Some of the evidence we have taken this morning has already been more about long-term savings. In the evidence you presented just now, you emphasised the issue of accessibility and the need for people to be able to access their savings quickly to deal with external shocks. What kind of products do you think would be beneficial for people on low and average incomes for longer-term saving?
Ed Boyd: On the flexibility point in terms of accessibility of savings, there is a question. We produced a short paper on Help to Save off the back of a round table of experts in this area. One of the questions that kept coming up was whether there should be some friction for people taking out the money. For example, if someone starts to save for two years with the best intentions to make sure they get their Government bonus, but has one day of giving up on that plan, it would completely undermine it and they would not get the Government bonus. Potential frictions can be put in such as a 24-hour delay in taking out the money. I think that would be completely reasonable.
Where appropriate, someone could name a third party—a family member, husband, wife, carer or whoever—and when they say, “I want to bring it down in 24 hours”, that person is texted to make sure that there is enough friction to ensure that when the money is drawn down as a rainy-day fund, it is used for rainy-day activities and things that they really need the money for, rather than just for general expenditure. This would encourage people to save and make sure the money is used to help stop them getting into problem debt.
Joseph Surtees: I think there are two interesting points here, one of which is on Help to Save. There is a system in the UK that has proved very good at encouraging low-income people to save over a long period, and that is pensions auto-enrolment. So far, the opt-out rate for that is far lower than anticipated. It is only 10% when it was anticipated to be a quarter. People who are enrolled and have not opted out are those just above the enrolment limits.
That sort of approach is incredibly useful in this area, particularly for low-income people. When you look at products such as Help to Save, such as LISA, perhaps, if you can look at how to incorporate an auto-enrolment element into that—with Help to Save, you can in particular do it through the universal credit system. Universal credit has personal budgeting support which helps you to do that. Those sorts of little behavioural incentives will help to make it appeal and work better for these lower-income individuals.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Q I am conscious that half of UK adults have less than £500 set aside for emergencies. Do you believe that the financial services market has done enough to attract and incentivise savers who are perhaps struggling with income? Do you think that the Help to Save initiative will help to plug that gap?
Joseph Surtees: In answer to the first question, I do not think the financial services sector has done enough to attract these customers and offer them a service. I will give two examples.
You may have heard of a product called prize-linked savings, which has proved to be incredibly successful in the United States. I can send you some information later, if that would be useful. It is incredibly successful at appealing to low-income families. For many years, people have talked about introducing such a system into the UK—a sort of slightly better premium bond offered via commercial providers. This was introduced in the UK by a bank, but only for people who already had £5,000 saved. To me that says that they were not really thinking about lower-income consumers.
The second example is Help to Save itself. One of the suggestions was that it would be offered by commercial high-street providers. Without giving anything away, my understanding is that most commercial providers displayed absolutely no interest in offering this product, but did display interest in taking on these customers once they had £2,000 saved at the end of two years.
Ed Boyd: There is a big problem here, which is that people are getting stuck in problem debt. It is a growing problem. I will check my stats on this—30 million people in the UK lack savings to keep up with essential bills for just one month if their income dropped by a quarter. Within the confines of that, rather than saying, “Do I think it is the financial services’ fault that we have not done enough, or the Government’s, or someone else’s?”, there is a real opportunity with products such as Help to Save for everyone to pull together and do what they need to do to help solve the problem together.
There is an opportunity for credit unions and community development financial institutions to play a big role, as well as mainstream financial institutions, not just in helping people to save but in helping to ensure that they are financially included. You have wider debates around issues such as the poverty premium—that is, the fact that people who have insecure incomes end up paying far more because they cannot do direct debits.
I do not think it is as simple as saying, “It’s just the financial services sector that needs to deal with this and help more.” I think there is a contribution needed from Government, from the private sector and from the voluntary sector as well to work together to help increase people’s ability to budget, to increase people’s incentives and ability to save and to ensure that people are financially included as they go on that journey.
Joseph Surtees: On that point, I always think about the famous Morecambe and Wise sketch: all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order. Actually, out there you have lots of the products and approaches such as Help to Save, LISA and auto-enrolment and there are banks—and especially credit unions—that do very innovative things in these areas, but I think it is important to bring these things together so that people have access at the time they need it and can see the products laid out in front of them and make the right choices.
David Rutley
Q As you think about this product, you realise that the inertia out there in the financial services market is sometimes used by financial services companies in an unhelpful way. Clearly, this is an opportunity to help change people’s behaviours for the better. With your own operation, how would you seek to differentiate this product and get behind it to have the best possible success with your potential customers?
Calum Bennie: I think the key thing here is to make sure that people have enough savings before they commit to a LISA. Obviously, if they are investing in an ISA in general, there is always a risk that they could be disadvantaged if they take their money out in the early years. Even a stocks and shares ISA is very much a longer-term investment. You are talking about people being advised to put their money in a stocks and shares ISA for at least, say, seven years, and ideally 10 or more, but at least they are not going to be penalised with 25% coming off.
Any marketing that we would do on the LISA, and I have to clarify that the LISA would not necessarily be a focus of our marketing—our focus would be on our core products, which are our investment ISAs, as the LISA would not be for everyone—would certainly ask people to make sure that they have enough in their ISA to meet their general savings requirements, and any emergency fund requirements too.
Dr Whiteford
Q Good afternoon. One of the key issues we are grappling with today is the potential for the lifetime ISA to derail or undermine auto-enrolment. I have been listening very carefully to your evidence. Am I right to infer that you see the LISA as a viable alternative to pensions, rather than a complement to pensions, for some low to modest income people?
Calum Bennie: Can I just clarify what you are trying to find out from me here? Are you asking whether we would be promoting having a LISA over and above a pension?
Dr Whiteford
Not really. I am asking whether I am hearing you right when you promote the lifetime ISA to people as a product instead of a pension.
Calum Bennie: For those who do not want to go into a pension, it is there and it is complementary. We would certainly not want to take away from pensions. As they stand in the current framework, pensions are right. Auto-enrolment is right and is working for so many people; it is a success and has been more successful than the many detractors perhaps thought it would be. We would certainly not want to denigrate that at all. What we are saying is that there are some people who are just not attracted to pensions. They do not want to be forced into pensions and the LISA represents an alternative for them.
Dr Whiteford
Q Thanks, that is a helpful clarification. I also wanted to come back to something you said earlier about self-employed people. We took evidence earlier today that around two thirds of self-employed people would not actually qualify for a lifetime ISA. I just wondered whether Scottish Friendly had done alternative modelling or had an alternative assessment of the market.
Calum Bennie: No, we have not.
Melanie Onn
Q I will follow up along the lines of what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan asked. Earlier we heard evidence from the Tax Incentivised Savings Association and the Association of British Insurers and their view was very much that a LISA would be complementary to a pension, not in isolation from a pension. Can you clarify your view that people may not actually have a pension and may exclusively go for a LISA? Do you think that will be a secure route for them, in terms of planning for their long-term older age?
Calum Bennie: In essence, yes. The whole traditional world of retirement is changing and a range of products for people to put money aside for their later years makes total sense. We have done research. With the many customers we have who are saving in ISAs and in other savings plans, when we do the research to find out what they are saving for—financial services companies traditionally market for the holiday of a lifetime, a car, or a home improvement and things like that—our research shows that people are actually saving for retirement. They may have a pension, but they are also saving independently in an investment plan. You cannot just force people to save for their later years in pensions; they are saving in all sorts of vehicles for their later years.
Dr Whiteford
Q I want to come back to the potential gender differential impacts of the policy and of the LISA in particular, because generally how we ensure that women are able to benefit from public policy decisions is critical. You said that the Women’s Budget Group had concerns that not many women would be able to benefit from it. We also know that, in later life, women are far more likely to be on means-tested benefits because they have smaller pension pots or do not have an occupational pension at all. Has the Women’s Budget Group crunched numbers on that or modelled that in any consistent way?
Jonquil Lowe: No, I do not think we have the detailed number crunching that you are after. It would be a really interesting thing to do, but it is always difficult to have these discussions because you are talking about different cohorts of people. The women who are currently retired and on low pensions did not experience the same set of circumstances as women today. Certainly, the state pension system now has much better protection for people who are caring, which is unlike the private pension system—
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions and, indeed, for the sitting. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee for their evidence.
House of Lords Reform and Size of the House of Commons
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Ellis
As I have said, as was set out in the Conservative party manifesto, the Government recognise the need to reduce the size of the House of Lords. However, comprehensive reform of the House of Lords is not considered a priority in the current Parliament, given the other pressing constitutional matters, not least, I should say, the further devolution of powers to Scotland and Wales. We consider there to be higher priorities.
The House of Lords has not stood still in the past few years. In the last Parliament, it took forward some important reforms, with Government support. Although there is more to do, that Chamber has constantly evolved. The House of Lords Reform Act 2014 allowed peers to retire formally and permanently for the first time. It also provided for the expulsion of peers for non-attendance. Previously, a peer had to apply for a leave of absence. The Act was promoted by Lord Steel.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way because I have been trying to get in for some time. He tried to make a virtue of the fact that so many peers work part time. Does he not share my concern that that leaves things open to conflicts of interest in a way that even this place does not have? Does he share my concern that so many party donors are in the House of Lords?
Michael Ellis
I do not accept that characterisation at all. There is a proper process for appointments to the House of Lords by committee and a proper vetting process. The reality is that, as I have been saying, the House of Lords is a constantly evolving Chamber. The 2014 Act provided for the expulsion of peers—for example, for non-attendance—and for their retiring, a process that has seen some results. Further reforms introduced in 2015 empowered peers to expel Members for serious misconduct and suspend them beyond the end of a Parliament.
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate after three outstanding Front-Bench speeches from three individuals—the hon. Members for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis)—who had distinguished careers outside this place before they came here.
Many of us, I suspect, will be familiar with the political gambit that is the dead cat. Popularised by my friend and colleague Sir Lynton Crosby, the idea is that when one is in a position of deep political embarrassment one throws the equivalent of a dead cat on to the table. The purpose of so doing is to divert attention from what was just being discussed because, whatever the controversy that has been raging beforehand, people suddenly say, “Oh my God, there’s a dead cat on the table.” The conversation having changed as a result, embarrassment—such as my own at my execrable Australian accent just then—is avoided.
In this debate, the House of Lords, perhaps appropriately for an ermine-clad Chamber, is the dead cat. The SNP has chosen a discussion of the future of the House of Lords for this Opposition day debate because of a wish to divert attention from a number of other issues. The question I have to ask SNP Members is this: when they think about the issues that their voters bring to them in their surgeries or by email or correspondence, what are they? Overwhelmingly, they will be education, health, law and order and the economy. Why is the SNP not talking about those issues today? I will tell the House—[Interruption.] Order! The SNP is not talking about law and order because its centralisation of power in the hands of Police Scotland has been widely viewed as illiberal and is thought by local authorities in Scotland to have been a disaster.
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Savings (Government Contributions) Bill
Eilidh Whiteford ExcerptsMonday 17th October 2016
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Savings (Government Contributions) Act 2017 View all Savings (Government Contributions) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Blackford
That was a politic answer. I cannot help but remark that I asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions a question earlier today, which was enlightening in itself. I asked a question about the WASPI women. I raised a specific point, saying that the SNP had put proposals in front of this Government as we were asked to do. We said that we could deal with the WASPI issue by spending £8 million, which, by the way, the Government could afford to spend because there is a surplus of nearly £30 billion sitting in the national insurance fund. What was the answer we got from the Secretary of State? It was to get the Scottish Government to do that. What he failed to realise is that this House has not given the Scottish Parliament the responsibility for pensions. Why not do that now, then? The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government would certainly take responsibility for pensions and for pensioners, which this Government are walking away from.
Nothing is being done by this Government. They are like rabbits caught in headlights. That is exactly what we got when the Financial Secretary intervened just now. This is a Government who have no answers to the real issues and the real problems that affect us in the pension landscape. They have been caught doing nothing in the face of systemic risk, which the Government themselves recognise. The Financial Secretary turned around and said, “It is not for me, but for the Department for Work and Pensions”. Well, I am sorry, but she is a Minister of the Government, and this is a Government responsibility. She should be coming to this place with answers.
We also need to recognise that although this Bill will help some savers, it does little to help those who cannot afford to save for later life. Of course, we have had the benefit of the Work and Pensions Select Committee holding an inquiry into the effect of the lifetime ISA on auto-enrolment. Evidence from the Association of British Insurers stated:
“Presented as a choice, no employee will be better off saving into a Lifetime ISA than they would under automatic enrolment. This is due to the loss of employer contributions.”
A recent Standard Life analysis shows that the typical gain from tax breaks and minimum employer top-ups to a qualifying workplace pension for a basic rate taxpayer is between 70% and 85%, compared with the return of 25% from a LISA. That is the con that this Government are trying to inflict on the people of this country. The long-term cost of forgoing annual employer contributions worth 3% of salary by saving into a LISA instead of a workplace pension would be substantial. For a basic rate taxpayer, the impact would be savings of roughly one third less by the age of 60. For example, an employee earning £25,000 per annum and saving 4% of their income each year would see a difference in excess of £53,000. After 42 years, someone saving through a pension scheme would have a pot worth £166,289.99 at a growth rate of 3%. Under a LISA at the same growth rate the value would be £112,646.75. Is the Minister going to defend this?
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a really important point about the advantages of pension saving over the new LISA, but does he share my concern that the real beneficiary of the LISA will not be people on low and middle incomes, but exceptionally rich people looking for a tax-efficient way to save very large amounts in a year?
Ian Blackford
My hon. Friend is spot on. Those who are already investing large amounts into pension schemes and perhaps approaching the cap will be turning around and saying, “Thank you very much.” This is not a policy for low and middle-income workers; this is a policy for the rich. It is the same old thing from this Tory Government who learn nothing. No wonder they are so out of touch in Scotland and no wonder that they have only one Member of Parliament in Scotland when they do not do the right thing for the pensioners in our country.
There are clear risks for young people in taking the wrong decisions if they do not get appropriate advice—something that is lacking from these proposals. Will the Government make it clear that young people will be advised of the likely outcomes of opting for a LISA over pension savings? If not, why not?
The SNP is supportive of any initiative that promotes savings for later life, but the LISA is simply a gimmick that benefits only those who can afford to save to the levels demanded by the Government to get the bonus. Help to Save is another example. We agree that working to encourage savings is welcome, but in this case again, the UK Government have only scratched the surface rather than really targeting those who are struggling to plan for emergencies or later life. Individuals eligible for Help to Save have only limited resources for saving by definition, and they will now have more difficult choices to make between medium-term savings and longer-term aspirations.
The very fact that the Government expect the policy to cost only £70 million in 2020-21 implies that the Government top-up will, on average, be only £20 per eligible individual in that year. Yes, £20—that is what this Government are proposing in this Bill. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has taken the view that Help to Save is poorly targeted, and it questioned the purpose of the scheme, stating:
“There is also a deeper and critical question about which groups are really ‘under-saving’. The key justification for giving a household extra money only if it places funds in a savings account, rather than giving it extra money regardless and letting the household decide what to do with it, is that we have reason to believe that the household is saving less than is ‘appropriate’ given its circumstances.”
The charity StepChange found through its work with poorer families and those with existing problem debt that four in 10 people struggling to save experience an income shock, such as a broken boiler or car repairs, at least every six months; that 60% of those facing an income shock turned to borrowing; and that a third of them cut back on essentials such as food to cover the costs. It found that half a million families could avoid problem debt if they had £1,000 of savings.
Responding to the Government’s consultation on Help to Save, the charity had three concerns: the proposed two-year period over which a Help to Save account will run may disincentivise applicants, and the Government should think “very carefully” about the way in which the scheme is advertised, in order to minimise a potential problem caused by the perception of a rigid two-year account length; the Treasury should amend the eligibility criteria so that those aged under 25 who work at least 30 hours a week can apply for a Help to Save account; and the Treasury should look closely at the debt-collection and insolvency implications of the scheme, and the Government should protect money in Help to Save accounts from third-party debt orders or insolvency proceedings. The charity concluded:
“At the very least any bonus accrued should be protected.”
Once again, we have seen a missed opportunity to tackle the pension saving deficit head on. While helping some, the Bill does little for those who cannot afford to save for later life. The Government must be much more ambitious if they are to deliver real dignity in retirement. We do not intend to oppose the Bill tonight, for which I am sure the House will be grateful, but we will seek to deal with the missed opportunities and to strengthen the Bill in Committee.
draft Disabled Persons’ Parking Badges (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Provisions) order 2016
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I am very glad to see that the Deputy Leader of the House has managed to get here for at least the tail end of the debate. I am glad to have an opportunity to make a few brief remarks about this draft order, which will ensure that the blue badges that have been cancelled, lost or stolen in Scotland cannot be used in England or Wales with impunity.
As we have heard, the background to this measure is the Disabled Persons’ Parking Badges (Scotland) Act 2014, which significantly strengthened the law, to prevent the misuse of blue badges and ensure that those who need disabled parking spaces have access to them. That Act started life as a private Member’s Bill in the Scottish Parliament, brought forward by my colleague Dennis Robertson, MSP for Aberdeenshire West, and I pay tribute to him today. We all know only too well how hard it is in this place to steer a private Member’s Bill on to the statute book, so Dennis and his staff deserve enormous recognition for their efforts in navigating public consultations and parliamentary processes to ensure that that valuable piece of legislation received Royal Assent.
One of Dennis Robertson’s aims when he brought the original Bill forward was to tackle the misuse of blue badges. Research by Transport Scotland found that 83% of the 800 badge holders it consulted had experienced the misuse of blue badges or disabled people’s parking spaces. Even more telling was an Audit Scotland report, which found that around 4,000 badges belonging to people who had died had not been returned to councils by their families or carers. Not all those badges were necessarily being misused, but it did help to manifest the problem. There are around 228,000 legitimate blue badge holders in Scotland and they need to be able to access the parking spaces to which they are entitled. We know that there were some brazen and blatant instances of blue badges being traded in the informal economy. Those loopholes have now been closed, and Scottish councils’ enforcement procedures have been significantly strengthened, but it is very important that those badges do not find their way to England and Wales, where they could be misused.
The 2014 Act gives local councils extra powers to crack down on the misuse of disabled people’s parking badges. It has helped to raise awareness about the impact their misuse has on disabled people and encouraged a more responsible attitude towards disabled parking spaces overall. Thanks to the Act, the proper use of disabled people’s parking badges is now far more easily enforced, with tougher penalties for misuse, including fines of up to £1,000.
I am very pleased that the UK Government are introducing these consequential changes to ensure that badges originating in Scotland can no longer be misused in England or Wales, and that people who need disabled parking spaces have access to them.
DRAFT Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2016
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I want to put a few brief points to the Government about the reduction of the income rise disregard in the regulations.
As a constituency MP, I know—I am sure all of us know—just how distressing it is for parents in low-paid jobs to find out they have had an overpayment of tax credits, and the hardship and real anxiety that the recovery of those overpayments causes. These changes will make it harder for some families to budget and will create particular uncertainty for those in seasonal, temporary or otherwise insecure employment. As the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles pointed out, that is very likely to push some of those families into debt.
In 2013-14, there were 138,900 overpayments of tax credits in Scotland alone, which is more than 30% of the total number of awards. I take on board what the Government have said today about real-time information improving that situation for some families, but the new arrangements really will not help people with fluctuating or unpredictable incomes. Increasingly, so many people in low-paid jobs are not salaried; they are working on zero-hours contracts, on hourly rates, and their incomes can vary enormously from week to week. Even real-time information cannot predict the future; in areas such as mine, where many work in seasonal jobs, those people could be particularly vulnerable to the impact of these changes, which cannot predict the future and exaggerate the impact of very minimal changes on people’s incomes.
The reduction of the income rise disregard will make the existing problems more acute for people whose wages are variable. That brings us to what is, in my view, the biggest flaw in this measure: low-paid parents especially will be financially worse off if they take a better paid job, get a promotion, or work overtime. Once their income has increased by more than the disregard, a claimant will lose tax credits of 41p in the pound. That is a colossal rate of marginal taxation. It could also affect a claimant’s level of housing benefit or council tax reduction, leading to perverse incentives and anxiety and uncertainty for low-income families.
The impact assessment process and the inadequacy thereof has already been debated this morning, so I will not reiterate those arguments, but we are indebted to CPAG, which has modelled the impact of the changes on low-paid working families. It contends that a couple with one child, both working full time on minimum wage and with the mother returning from maternity leave, and £100 a week childcare costs—which is probably at the low end of realistic—will be more than £1,000 worse off next year than they would have been under the current arrangements. A lone parent with one child, but no childcare costs, who moves into work next month, doing 30 hours a week at minimum wage, will be nearly £950 worse off over the coming year. I do not think that the Government want to disincentivise work, but that will be the unintended consequence of what the Ministers proposes today. For all those reasons, my colleague and I intend to oppose the regulations today.
Spending Review and Autumn Statement
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to champion the schools in her Lincolnshire constituency and to draw attention to the fact that the funding formula has not been fair to her constituents. That is why we are getting rid of it and introducing a new national funding formula, which will help to make sure there is a fair deal for Lincolnshire schools.
Having had a chance to look at it, I have discovered that this is a pretty well-thumbed copy of the little red book, so I do not think this is the first time that the shadow Chancellor has read from it.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
The Chancellor has been forced into a humiliating climbdown on tax credits. That will at least give a stay of execution to some of the affected families. However, from what we have heard today, hundreds of thousands of social sector tenants now face losing money because of his austerity agenda. Why is he determined to put low-income households on the frontline?
Mr Osborne
We are saying that rents in the social sector should not be higher than rents in the private sector in a particular area. It has to be said that in most parts of the country they are not higher, but there are some parts of the country where they are. This is perfectly fair—fair to those who pay for our welfare system, fair to those who rely on it. It is only for new tenancies.
I would make the broader observation that if the Scottish nationalists want to do something about housing benefit, they should agree the fiscal framework and make use of the powers they are being offered in the Scotland Bill. As always, they want to duck responsibility for decisions that we have devolved to them and the Scottish Government. They should stop arguing about the process—Lord Smith has put an end to that argument—and get on and agree the framework, and then they can defend the decisions that they take on housing benefit in future.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
Eilidh Whiteford Excerpts(9 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Hinds
I start by welcoming the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) to his new position and I wish the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) well in her new role.
These amendments intend to prevent the Government from making future changes to control welfare spending and we cannot support them. The Government’s approach is clear: our mission is to get wages up, taxes down and welfare under control. New clause 1 seeks to revoke the 2015 tax credits regulations and new clause 8 seeks to delay the introduction of the regulations unless and until the Government put in place a scheme of transitional protection for existing tax credit claimants for a minimum of three years. The House will recall that the Government tabled the regulations for a vote on the Floor of the House on 15 September, rather than their being scrutinised upstairs in Committee, to allow wider discussion on the regulations and to allow all hon. Members the opportunity to debate and vote on the issue. This House voted in favour of the regulations.
The House further discussed the regulations in the Opposition day debate on Tuesday 20 October and again voted in favour of them. However, as the House will also be aware, last night unelected Labour and Liberal Democrat Lords voted against tax credit regulations, raising constitutional issues that the Prime Minister will address.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Is the constitutional issue that politicians should not lie to people in their manifestos?
Damian Hinds
I can only guess that the hon. Lady is making a strange reference to the Conservative manifesto. We were very clear in our manifesto that we are still only halfway through the job of getting the deficit down to zero. It stands at £3,300 for every household in the United Kingdom and we said very clearly during the election campaign that, as part of that, we needed to make £12 billion of welfare savings. What was not in our manifesto was the national living wage.
The Chancellor has said that he has listened to concerns from colleagues in this House and will come forward with proposals in the autumn statement to achieve the goal of reforming tax credits, saving the money needed to secure our economy while helping with the transition through the changes. I do not believe that the new clauses are therefore appropriate for inclusion in the Bill.
I now turn to amendments 49 to 52, which intend to prevent the freeze for four years of working age benefits, child benefit and tax credits. The freeze of the main rates of the majority of working age benefits, child benefit and tax credits will, in total, contribute some £3.5 billion of savings by 2019-20, and will help us to achieve our objective of deficit elimination. It will put welfare on a fairer and more sustainable footing so that we can continue our investment in our national health service and our schools, even as we get the national finances back into balance.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) pointed out, there is an imbalance in a system that has seen a rise in average earnings of 12% since 2008, and in working age benefits, such as jobseekers’ allowance, of 21%. The individual element of child tax credit has risen by 33%. The freeze will help reverse that trend, helping earnings to grow faster than benefits, which will strengthen the incentives to work, and deliver the savings necessary to bring down the overall welfare bill. None the less, the Government will continue to offer protections to the most vulnerable. We know the best way to support people is to help them move closer to the labour market, but of course we realise that that is not possible for everyone. That is why we have made many important exemptions to the four-year freeze. We have exempted pensioner-related benefits, personal independence payment, disability allowance and attendance allowance relating to the additional cost of disability as well as statutory payments, carers’ allowance, the support group component of the employment and support allowance and disability elements in tax credits.
Graham Stuart
I would hesitate to give advice to any Member as to how they should conduct themselves, but this is an emotive area and these decisions affect vulnerable people. A balance has to be struck between fiscal responsibility, looking after the most vulnerable and changing the incentives so that we get people aligned with the best opportunity in the long term as well as the short term. These are sensitive issues, and I agree with my hon. Friend about the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth referring to the Government demonising the disabled and the poor in a way that she did not substantiate at all. One mention in an autumn statement two or three years ago of the fact that some people abused the system is not an effort to demonise the poor and disabled, and suggesting that undermines the other arguments—and there are strong arguments to be made in this area and questions that need to be asked about the Government’s programme.
The decisions being made are not easy, and they will not all be right, but trying to smear the whole Government Front-Bench team loses people rather than wins them over. I do not think the hon. Lady needs to do that in order to make a powerful case and have a strong hearing outside this place; if what she says looks like partisan point scoring and personal vilification, it will undermine the arguments she is trying to pursue and champion.
I am delighted that the Minister is listening. I hope and expect—as I know all my hon. Friends and Opposition Members do—that we will find a solution to this technical challenge and make sure it is delivered as quickly as possible, so that the terminally ill get the money they are due as quickly as possible.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford
I shall speak to the amendments in this group in my name and the names of my party colleagues, namely new clauses 9, 10, 11 and 12, amendments 35 to 48, 56, 20 and 57 to 65, and new clause 7, on which I will open my remarks.
New clause 7, along with amendments 35 to 48, is intended to amend the parts of the Bill relating to the benefit cap. Amendments 35, 36 and 37 would maintain the cap at its current rate, while amendments 38 to 48 would mitigate the differential impact of the Government’s proposals on specific groups of claimants by exempting from the benefit cap bereavement allowance, carer’s allowance, child benefit, child tax credit, guardian’s allowance, maternity allowance, severe disablement allowance and widowed parent’s allowance.
The bottom line, and the key point to be made today, is that many of the provisions in this part of the Bill are entirely arbitrary and have no robust evidence to support them. By proposing an arbitrary benefits cap, the Government fail to acknowledge the underlying drivers of benefits increases. They fail to acknowledge, for example, how soaring private sector rents in parts of the UK with astronomical house prices and chronic under-supply of affordable housing push up the cost of housing benefit—money that usually goes straight into the pockets of private landlords, often without even passing through the hands of tenants. But I recognise that that is not the only driver, and in the absence of proper analysis, setting the benefits cap at an arbitrary level is possibly the worst example of policy making on the back of a fag packet that I have seen in this place for quite some time. Although I support the Labour amendment that would force the Secretary of State to review the impact of the lower cap more regularly, I would prefer to see this very weak piece of policy making removed completely from the Bill.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
On the effect of the cuts, Brent council has produced its own report, which highlights the fact that in Brent 13,600 households and 26,200 children will be affected.
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Lady makes a useful point. I am aware that Brent is one of the areas where the benefits cap will be particularly keenly felt, but all our big conurbations are affected, especially those where there is a large gap between the incomes of the wealthiest and people who are earning what in any other part of the country would be a decent wage, but in certain parts of the UK is not enough to live on.
I am glad to see that Labour Members have supported amendment 56, which I intend to press to a vote this evening. I shall also address some of the related amendments, 57 to 65, all of which would affect support for those distanced from the labour market, whether under employment and support allowance or universal credit. They would remove the provisions in the Bill that seek to reduce ESA for those in receipt of the work-related activity component.
I want to be absolutely clear that SNP MPs will oppose the proposals in clauses 13 and 14, which are an outright attack on people who are seriously sick, disabled, or living with debilitating long-term health problems. We are talking about people who are so seriously incapacitated that even the Government’s own stringent assessment process has deemed them unfit for work at present. Slashing support for sick people will not help them recover more quickly. In fact, money worries are one of the things that often slow down people’s recovery from serious illness. We have just heard a powerful speech delivered from the Government Benches about support for people who are terminally ill, but sometimes people recovering from illnesses that could go either way need a long time to recover, and they do not always get the support and the sympathy they need.
I am deeply concerned by the Government’s rhetoric on this matter. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) hit a raw nerve earlier when she suggested that some of the Government’s language has been deeply inappropriate, but as recently as the summer Budget the Chancellor said it was a “perverse incentive” for ESA claimants to receive more than jobseeker’s allowance. When a person has been assessed as not currently fit for work, I fail to see how reducing their income by 30 quid a week will get them into work faster.
Today, the Disability Benefits Consortium has released figures suggesting that 70% of disabled people surveyed say that the cut will make their health worse, not better. There are other important considerations to take into account, however, particularly for those with long-term disabilities or health conditions that compromise their ability to work over long periods. A lifetime of disability or the development of a long-term condition already erodes the financial assets and resilience of too many people, including carers. About one third of disabled people already live in poverty, and sick and disabled people who are unable to work—many disabled people do work, of course, and hold down steady jobs—face many costs that might not be immediately evident. For example, they might need to heat their home throughout the day at a higher temperature than would be necessary for a more active and fit person. They also incur those costs over a long period. In contrast, the vast majority of people on jobseeker’s allowance are on it for fairly short periods. About 60% of people on JSA move off the benefit within six months, whereas almost 60% of people in the work-related activity group need that support for at least two years.
Let us face it, most of us could, with a wee bit of effort, cope with a very low income for a week or two, but for those who face an extended period out of the labour market because of their health, £73 a week is just not sustainable. People will be eating poorly and will be unable to heat their home and clothe themselves adequately on such sums. Any one of us in this Chamber could find our lives, or the lives of the people we love, transformed at any moment by serious illness or disability. Earlier this afternoon someone described this as a civilised society, but in my view to be a civilised society we need an adequate safety net. We need to remember that returning to employment immediately is just not an option for people who have been deemed not currently fit for work.
I agree entirely with the Labour Front Benchers that the language the Government have been using has vilified and stigmatised sick and disabled people. Talking about “perverse incentives” implies that they are malingering. That is not the case. I do not think that a perverse incentive involves being so ill that one cannot work. When this part of the Bill was discussed in Committee, the Government seemed to suggest that they planned to use the savings from the cuts to ESA to provide additional funding for tailored employment support for disabled people. God knows, that is badly needed, given the fairly woeful performance of parts of the Work programme, but the only figure I have seen mooted by the Government is an increase of £90 million in employment support, whereas the measures are expected to save in the region of £640 million. Based even on the most rudimentary arithmetic, that seems a fairly paltry portion of the savings. I am also not convinced that it is the best use of resources given the direct adverse impacts on low-income, disabled and sick people. I would welcome detail from the Government on that, because from where we are standing now it looks extremely thin.
New clause 9 and amendments 57 to 65 all seek to reverse the proposals to introduce further conditionality on parents and responsible carers of very young children. I am particularly concerned about the potential impact on one-parent families. There is quite a lot of evidence that many lone parents are already struggling to comply with the new conditionality regime. We have seen disproportionate numbers of lone parents sanctioned, for example, and in recent days we have seen a massive U-turn by the Government in acknowledging that the sanctions regime is not working. I met representatives of One Parent Families Scotland just over a week ago and was gobsmacked by some of the examples they highlighted of struggling parents being sanctioned in extenuating and extremely difficult circumstances.
Currently, lone parents of children under five do not actively have to seek work, but they do need to attend work-focused interviews or work-related activity. Under this group of amendments, parents will be expected to be available and ready actively to seek work from the time their youngest child starts school, but not before. These proposals, which were pushed in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) and supported by the lone parent charity Gingerbread, take account of the very real logistical hurdles faced by those who are parenting single handed, and do not unnecessarily penalise those children who are already more likely to be poor as a consequence of their family circumstances. The Government’s proposals increase the risk of sanctions for parents of very young children, which can only be detrimental not just for them but for our society as a whole.
That leads me on rather neatly to new clause 12, which is in my name and which I also hope to push to a vote tonight. It would compel the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the sanctions regime. I have called for an independent review previously in the House. In the last Parliament, as we have already heard, the cross-party Work and Pensions Committee called for a full independent review. Earlier today, my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) eloquently called for that review, because it is manifestly clear that the new sanctions regime is just not working, as it is failing lots of very vulnerable and disadvantaged people. It is failing not just lone parents, but sick and disabled people, particularly those with invisible or fluctuating conditions such as mental health problems. We can see the fall-out from that in the explosion in the number of food banks in our constituencies and in almost all the communities that we serve.
Last week, we had tacit acknowledgement from the Government that the system is not working when they made their U-turn, announcing their so-called “yellow card” warning scheme pilot. They also showed a new willingness to consider reviewing those classed as at risk to include homeless people and those with mental health problems. I welcome those steps; they are an important change of tone in the Government’s approach, but we need action now and not in the new year—that part of winter when these problems will already have become a lot worse. We must recognise that these steps also fall far short of the independent root-and-branch review that is really needed.
If we are to move towards a more workable system, we need a solid evidence base and to understand better how sanctions have differential impacts on claimants who are disabled, those with protected characteristics such as gender and ethnicity, those with long-term health problems, including mental health problems, and those who are bringing up bairns single handed.
Finally, new clause 10 aims to ensure that any changes to the age of eligible claimants for housing benefit must be made by primary legislation rather than by regulation through the back door. New clause 11 offers protections for young people who cannot, for whatever reason, live with their parents. The Government said that they plan to cut housing benefit for 16 to 21-year-olds, but we on the SNP Benches do not think that that should be done through regulation. It is another example of a policy for which there is a very poor evidential base and which needs proper scrutiny. Some 60% of the young people set to be affected by this measure live in social housing. In other words, they are already likely to be deemed vulnerable by their local authority. Their age should not matter, but their need for support most certainly should. Again, this seems entirely arbitrary, and, again, we have seen none of the promised detail of support for those who are particularly vulnerable. I am forced to conclude that the Government have not thought through the implications of their slash-and-burn approach to our social security system.
Our amendments in this group seek to protect low income households, sick and disabled people and children. They offer the Government a way to mitigate the worst impacts of the legislation and help us all better to understand how we can genuinely improve our social security system. I hope that the Government will take some of that on board this evening.
Helen Whately
Over the past few weeks, the Welfare Reform and Work Bill Committee, of which I am a member, has had to make some difficult decisions, but they were decisions that the electorate showed in May that they wanted us to make. The decisions that we have had to make can be seen both in this Bill and in the summer Budget.
I do not support the Opposition’s proposed new clause 2, but its wording shows that they do recognise that these reforms are part of a broader and coherent plan. They are part of a package of measures to create the kind of economy and society that people want. I am not talking about a society in which people spend years on benefits and low pay but one in which work pays, people keep more of what they earn and everyone has a chance to be better off.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford
I will keep my remarks brief. This Bill has been the centrepiece of the Government’s austerity agenda, but the Government’s package of proposals was holed below the waterline by the vote in the House of Lords yesterday. The Bill’s measures are characterised by their arbitrary nature, by a total lack of evidence that they will achieve their intended aims and, above all, by the fact that low-income working households and the sick and disabled have been put on the frontline and are shouldering a wholly disproportionate share of the cuts.
Cuts to tax credits are at the heart of that agenda, with 7 million families set to lose an average of £1,300 each.
Dr Whiteford
I will not give way, because time is very short.
Those measures will drive disincentives to work and will compromise economic recovery. Above all, they will push hundreds of thousands of bairns into poverty. The benefit cap fails to tackle the underlying issue of an out-of-control housing market and a lack of affordable housing, and it hits those living in our most expensive urban areas. Cuts to employment and support allowance penalise people with serious and long-term illnesses and disabilities, and, to add insult to injury, stigmatise people for their own poor health. On sanctions, we have heard that the Government’s U-turn fails to address the need for a proper review of the sanctions regime. Those are the wrong choices to make. There is a responsible path to deficit reduction. There is a responsible alternative to austerity, and this Bill is not it.
However, we did not get a chance to debate the amendments in the third group this afternoon, so I wish to put it on the record that I welcome Government amendments 2 to 16, which take into account the concerns raised by the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations.
This is a deeply regressive Bill. It harms low-income households and makes disadvantaged people carry the can of the Government’s economic failure. The SNP will oppose the Bill tonight.