Women’s State Pension Age: Ombudsman Report

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans), and I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for securing this important debate. I was rather disappointed that she used the opportunity to bash the Labour party. With all due respect, I point out that, had we won the election in 2017—my right hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) can confirm this—this matter would have been settled. Had the SNP not lost 13 seats to the Conservatives, we would not be having this debate; we would have delivered justice for the WASPI women and for the miners, who are desperate to have pensions justice.

I want to extend my personal appreciation to the dedicated women of the WASPI campaign who have tirelessly campaigned for nearly a decade for fair and timely compensation for 1950s women affected by the DWP’s maladministration.

I do not recognise the criticism of Labour Members. I think that I have raised WASPI cases on 25 occasions in 12 different debates and remember how many Members were in their place. I remember a Westminster Hall debate where Members were sitting on the window sills because it was so crowded. Every effort has been made to bring this injustice to the attention of the public and the Government.

I thank the Sunderland, Durham and Hartlepool WASPI groups, who have worked diligently and assiduously in my constituency. I have had the pleasure of meeting and working with those remarkable women over the past decade, and I am full of admiration for their dedication and selflessness. There are around 5,000 WASPI women in my constituency, who have been waiting patiently for the final ombudsman’s report, which was published in March. I am appalled that the DWP refuses to comply with the report’s recommendations. This unprecedented response undermines the ombudsman’s authority and credibility. The Library found no other instances of a Government Department rejecting an ombudsman’s findings.

The DWP must own its mistakes, apologise to the 3.8 million women affected and swiftly deliver adequate compensation. There is no doubt that the DWP failed to notify 1950s women of their state pension age change, and now it denies its wrongdoings, as the PHSO highlighted. Ignoring the ombudsman’s findings sets a dangerous precedent, allowing Government Departments to evade accountability. We MPs have a responsibility to ensure that the Government establish a mechanism for redress. The urgency is critical. I do not want to rehearse the statistics, because they have been given many times, but the 1950s women are dying in numbers because of the age profile.

In March, the Secretary of State promised an update, but as far as I am aware we are still waiting for that. The Government’s standard delay tactics—evident in cases such as the mineworkers’ pension scheme, the contaminated blood scandal, the Post Office Horizon scandal and now the WASPI women—must end. The impact of the state pension age rise on those women, with little or no notice, is profound. The APPG on state pension inequality for women, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), highlighted that women felt worthless, ignored and disempowered, leading to severe mental health issues and, in some very sad cases, suicide.

There is no doubt that the DWP’s maladministration has caused immense stress. The evidence aligns that with the PHSO’s definition of level 6 emotional injustice, warranting compensation of up to £10,000. As Members have said, the Government have saved £181.5 billion by accelerating the raising of the women’s state pension age. Compensating WASPI women by up to £10,000 would cost around £36 billion. That is a fraction of the savings accrued by the Treasury to date.

I recently met my constituents Denise McKenna and Kathleen Kerr, who illustrate the severe impact this issue has had. Both started work at 16. Kathy joined the British Army and Denise started work at the Inland Revenue. In their late 50s they took early retirement due to ill health. They carefully managed their finances. They had only a few years, they thought, until they reached their retirement. As a married couple who were both WASPI women, Kathy and Denise suffered a double whammy—an immense financial loss, due to the pension age change. They received no written notification of the change. The five-year delay to their pension meant that they lost in excess of £80,000. They exhausted their life savings and were forced to sell their home. Surely that is not how we respect those who have worked and served our country.

Many WASPI women like Denise and Kathy made significant life decisions without knowing that their pension age had increased. That injustice demands financial redress. Women were forced to return to work, despite disabilities and conditions. That highlights this Government’s disconnect from the realities that these women faced. A former Pensions Minister, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), now a Transport Minister responsible for buses, suggested in a Westminster Hall debate in 2017 that the affected women should retrain and take up apprenticeships—[Interruption.] It was greeted with a similar reaction at the time. That ignores the challenges of re-entering the labour market, and the disproportionate care-giving responsibilities that these women bear.

Successive Governments have failed these women. It is our responsibility and the duty of this Parliament to right this wrong. Sadly, it is too late for the over 200,000 WASPI women who have passed away since the campaign started in 2015, but we cannot delay any longer. Compensation is not just financial reimbursement, but recognition of the harm inflicted on these women. My appeal to the Minister is this: heed the calls for justice, and acknowledge the emotional and psychological harm caused by the Government’s decisions and the DWP’s maladministration. As representatives of thousands of 1950s women, it is our responsibility as Members of Parliament to ensure that justice is served.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I have lived this campaign for about 10 years, as have a number of other hon. Members. Today, we have heard unanimity from speakers from all political parties across the House. Unless we can get some action quickly, I despair of what parliamentary procedure is left to us. I do not want to go back to swinging the Mace about again, but something needs to happen fairly quickly because anger is building up, in the Chamber, outside and among the WASPI women.

I do not share the view of some hon. Members about the equalisation of pensions. I supported the equalisation of pensions, but not on the basis of the retirement age for women increasing. I thought we were entering a period when we would be reducing the age that men had to work until, so we would equalise pensions that way. The argument then was about whether the economy could afford it. The reason I was trying to equalise pensions by reducing men’s working age was largely for working-class people.

In many of our cities, the difference between the life expectancy of the rich and the poor is something like 20 years. We were told then that life expectancy would be continuously improving, but it has stagnated. Many people do not work in a sedentary role, so as we increase the retirement age—it is now going up to 68 and beyond—they will work until they drop. That is not acceptable, particularly in the economy that we have, where we could redistribute wealth, lower people’s retirement age and give them a decent pension.

I was involved in designing the scheme proposed in 2019. We commissioned Lord Bryn Davies, who is one of the most respected pensions experts in the country, and worked for two years with WASPI and the different groups to design the scheme. My commentary on the proposals by the ombudsman reflects some of the work that was done. We looked at a straightforward scheme. Going into individual cases would take decades, to be frank, so we looked at a flat-rate scheme for everybody, based on an average loss of £100 a week. That resulted in an average payment of £15,000, which is a lot of money. We costed it at more than £50 billion, which seemed a lot of money at the time, but it is less than a third of what the Government saved by increasing the pension age for these women. In addition, we looked at different options: should we pay it over a four or five-year period and reduce the cost to £12 billion a year. When I said during the debate that this was a large amount of money, somebody said that we had just paid out £500 billion to bail out the banks when they had crippled the economy. Then we went into 2020 and covid hit us.

[Grahame Morris]

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) made some excellent points, but he asked us how we could fund decent pensions and the requisite compensation. I looked up the figures. As a percentage of GDP, the UK spends 5.7% on state pensions and pensions benefits. In Italy, the figure is 16%. In France, it is 13.9%. In Denmark, it is 10.1%. The OECD average is 8.2%. By any measure, we are miles adrift.

[John McDonnell]

I also looked at what had been provided in tax cuts to some of the wealthiest in our country since 2010. It was £100 billion. I looked at how much had been given in corporate welfare benefits, and, again, it was £100 billion. Therefore, although it sounded like a lot of money at the time, in the context of fairness, it was the right amount. That is why the ombudsman’s offer of between £3,000 and £10,000 is derisory; it has to be more than that. The reason for having a flat-rate compensation scheme is for ease of administration, and I would recommend that wholeheartedly.

We have heard today about the individual hardships that people have endured. We cannot allow that to go on any further, which is why this scheme must be expedited. The ombudsman reports and is accountable to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, on which I serve. We have considered each of the reports as they have come forward. We were critical about the delays that were taking place, so we impressed on the ombudsman the urgency of the situation. When we got the report back, we found that it had at least accepted that there had been an injustice and that there needed to be a compensation scheme. We waited with bated breath for the Secretary of State to announce at least the timescale and the timetable for that compensation scheme, but all we heard was that the Government would go away and consider it. That was weeks ago.

PACAC wrote to the Secretary of State and asked for a timetable, stressing the urgency of the matter, because, exactly as Members have said, people are dying. Some people cannot wait, because they either will literally not be here any more, or they are living in poverty and hardship.

We received a reply this week. The Secretary of State said that he would be bringing forward a statement “in due course”. What that means is nothing; it is meaningless. As a Committee, we have agreed to write again to say that that is unacceptable and that we need a clear timetable in which this matter will be addressed and proposals brought forward that we can vote on and, if necessary, amend in this House.

If this Parliament is sovereign and the Government are accountable to this House, I believe that there is a majority, an overwhelming majority, of Members who will vote for a compensation scheme that is readily accessible, and also at a level that reflects the hardship that people have suffered and the scale that most Members would want to see.

As we go into a general election, the issue will not go away. The WASPI women and their campaign will not go away. People have expressed admiration for that campaign, which is not just impressive; it is terrifying. Unless a proposal is brought forward, it will become an election issue. I think people’s votes will stand or fall in many constituencies on the basis of the decision coming out of all the political parties. Voters will, however, blame the Government the most, because there is an opportunity now, as others have said, to make a statement by the recess with a timetable for implementation. We could almost certainly agree the funding. We looked at how to raise the funds. Some could be borrowing, but the Government normally have contingencies for legal liabilities. This is a legal liability. We have the opportunity to act now, and I urge the Government to wake up and listen to what the whole House is saying. If today’s response is not satisfactory, we will be back next week, and if necessary every day until the recess until we get some sense out of the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Paul Maynard)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for finding the time to host the debate. We have heard from Members on both sides of the House and from across the whole country, who have spoken both eloquently and passionately on behalf of their constituents. I know that many in the Public Gallery, as well as those listening remotely, who will be taking a close, scrutinising interest in this matter. I am always conscious that it is on behalf of those women that we are deliberating.

I pay tribute to those in my own constituency who have campaigned long and hard and met me down the years, even in recent weeks. I readily acknowledge the strength of feeling on both sides of the House. The Government are listening. What colleagues have had to say during the debate, which I have heard, will be taken fully into consideration.

In the oral statement made to the House on 25 March, the Secretary of State explained that the ombudsman’s report is complex, with the events that it considers spanning about 30 years. He committed to provide an

“update to the House once we have considered the report’s findings.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2024; Vol. 747, c. 1281.]

I understand the wide interest in this matter across the Chamber. We are all united in wanting a resolution. The ombudsman’s investigation has taken five years and produced a substantial report that requires careful and considered scrutiny. It is only right that we should give it that scrutiny. The Government are giving full and proper consideration to the ombudsman’s report, and that work is ongoing. The issues to be decided are significant and complex and require detailed understanding and deliberation.

I would like to remind the House of the Government’s strong track record of supporting pensioners. In 2024-25, we will spend more than £167 billion on benefits for pensioners. That is 6% of GDP and includes spending on the state pension, which is forecast to be about £138 billion in 2024-25. We are honouring the triple lock, having increased the basic and new state pensions by 8.5% in April. In 2024-25, the full yearly amount of the basic state pension will be £3,700 higher in cash terms than it was in 2010. We now have 200,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty after housing costs.

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful to the Minister for sharing those figures. I am aware that people are a bit sceptical about statistics—someone said in the Select Committee the other day that 83.6% of all statistics were made up; I am not sure if that is true. Can I just advise the Minister of this? We have the poorest pensioners in Europe. Just 5.7% of our UK GDP is spent on state pensions and pensions benefits, compared with 16% in Italy, 13.9% in France, 11.9% in Spain, and an OECD average of 8.2%. His suggestion that our pensioners are generously provided for does not stand up to scrutiny.

[Paul Maynard]

I am grateful for that contribution. I heard the hon. Gentleman make those comments in his speech as well. I am trying to remember the precise figures, but I cannot, so I will write to him. More generally—this point is often made to me by pension experts—the international numbers are not directly comparable because each welfare system is entirely different, particularly in the public-private split in how pension systems are funded. To say that one percentage is generous while another percentage is not generous is not quite the point. I shall write to him none the less, because I think that he will find the fine print useful for his future contributions.

Women’s State Pension Age

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I certainly accept that we need to proceed in a manner that does not delay matters, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has given. We owe it to the people to whom he referred to proceed without undue delay, by very carefully considering the report in its entirety, looking very closely at its findings. I am satisfied, as is the chief executive officer of the ombudsman, that the engagement between my Department and the ombudsman was full and complete. We will continue to proceed on that basis, working closely with Parliament in the same spirit that we worked with the ombudsman.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

To say the Secretary of State will have disappointed the 5,000 WASPI women in my constituency and the many tens of thousands across the north-east would be an understatement. Frankly, the Minister’s response is shameful. I take issue with what he said about the complexity of the report. He said that it has only been five days since the 100-page report was published. I am not a speed reader, but I reckon that is 20 pages a day. The issues raised are not bolts out of the blue; the WASPI women have been actively campaigning for more than 10 years, highlighting the issues and the potential remedies. The response we have had will not wash with the country. The Secretary of State says that there are 200,000 fewer pensioners in poverty, but 270,000 WASPI women have died waiting for justice. How many more will die before he finally comes along and implements those recommendations in full?

[Mel Stride]

The answer on timing is the same one that I have given consistently throughout this statement. I have been asked that probably three dozen times, and the answer remains the same. This is a complex report—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member will allow me to continue, that is not, as far as I am aware, a matter of dispute, even between the Government and the Opposition. We both accept that it is a complex report and that we need to look very carefully at the findings in order to come to conclusions. That is exactly what we will do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend and near neighbour for her question—I know that she cares deeply about the issue that she has raised. We work closely with other Departments. For example, we work with the Department of Health and Social Care on NHS talking therapies, of which we have announced 400,000 more over the next five years, as well as on WorkWell, which I have mentioned, and on fit note reform. With the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, we are working closely on housing—I have spoken about the local housing allowance changes coming through—and with the Department for Education we are working on SWAPs, and on training and apprenticeships.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Schools, general practitioners, social services, charities and housing associations can all refer their clients to a food bank in an emergency, yet this Government, who are responsible for benefit sanctions, have ordered DWP staff to stop referring claimants to food banks. How can Ministers justify this decision to the families of the 4,027 children living in poverty in my east Durham constituency?

[Jo Churchill]

May I make it clear that that was just scaremongering? The DWP has not changed its policy. There are merely improvements being made to the signposting slip, so that we comply with our obligations under the GDPR. We continue to provide guidance to customers, signposting them to emergency support, as is right.

Budget Resolutions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Jackie Doyle-Price]

I agree, and we should embrace this outbreak of consensus. The hon. Lady is absolutely right, because we cannot tackle this in a silo. Ultimately, it is for the local authority to ensure that a statement of special educational needs is given, but equally, local authority budgets are under pressure. I went to my local education authority a few years ago to talk about the need to progress a free school application for special provision, and I received a clear message: “We don’t want to encourage that, because people will move here, and we would have to look after them until they are 25.” We need to look at this at a high level to make sure that we deliver the provision that is needed across the board.

Turning to the substance of the Budget, I welcome the decision on national insurance, which is clearly no longer the contributory levy that it once was. The idea was that people bought credits towards their pension and out-of-work benefit entitlements, which have become much more universal, so national insurance makes no sense as a separate tax. That raises a philosophical debate about whether there ought to be a contributory principle for some services. In particular, we still await a long-term solution to funding social care.

Although I welcome the aspiration to remove national insurance, we still need to sort out social care funding. There is still uncertainty about how we fund social care, and local authorities are again left to pick up the pressure. It has been very convenient to give local authorities that responsibility, but we need to do our bit. Ultimately, everything has to be paid for. If we are to have mature and sensible long-term decisions at central Government level, we need to give local authorities the same space. While there is still uncertainty about how the cost of social care will be met, local authorities cannot make sensible decisions, and the disasters that the hon. Member for Halifax described will only become more common.

We need to look again at how to ensure that local authorities make mature and sensible decisions about their budgeting. The Audit Commission has been replaced by audit firms, and the frank advice that ought to be given has simply not been given. We used to have the surcharge, which was a very blunt instrument, to ensure that councillors made mature and sensible financial decisions, but now councillors have no stake.

We often say in this place that we have great champions for local communities, but we have to show leadership and maturity in making sensible decisions. When it comes to local councils, we have the same situation on speed. They have great local ward champions who view themselves as street-by-street spokespeople for every problem, but they perhaps do not properly recognise their corporate responsibility for making sensible judgments. Councils are multimillion-pound businesses that are there to deliver outcomes for the whole local authority area, not just individual wards.

As well as looking holistically, we need to make sure that, where local authorities get things wrong, there is an element of accountability outside the ballot box, especially because local election turnouts are so poor. That is all our fault. We are all politicians, and it is our job to motivate people to vote for us. I am often frustrated by the knockabout of political debate, which is a big turn off—it is sometimes a big turn off to sit here on a Wednesday lunch time. For people who are not engaged with politics, it is an even bigger turn off. The result is that, particularly in local politics, people zone out and switch off.

Even after the biggest failure in local government finance, the turnout in my local election in Thurrock was less than 20% in some wards. Is that not shocking? It tells us that the public are thinking, “Well, it doesn’t make any difference. It doesn’t matter who I vote for. Nothing will change.” We should all think about that as the general election approaches, because I detect the same mood out there.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is never a turn off for me. She is making some excellent points, not least in respect of SEND children and kinship carers. The needs of those individuals and groups should be addressed.

On local government finance, my local authority is a coalition of Conservatives, independents and Lib Dems. Heaven knows I have criticised it an awful lot, quite justifiably, but we should recognise that all local authorities, including mine and Thurrock, have had to deal with huge cuts over the past 10 or 14 years. My local authority has had to cut £260 million from its revenue spend. I was looking at some figures, and would it not be more sensible to change council tax—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We have quite a lot of time this afternoon, but that is an incredibly long intervention. I am looking forward to the hon. Gentleman’s speech in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon). My constituents, like his in Oldham, have a sense of disappointment about the Budget’s failure to address many of the challenges that they and others in former coalfield and industrial areas face.

Taxes in the UK are unfairly distributed, penalising our poorest communities. Rather than supporting our fragile regional economies, Government policies and decision making take money and resources out of our communities. Data from the Office for Budget Responsibility show that, despite the headline cut to national insurance, the UK’s tax burden is the highest it has been in 70 years, and that it rises every year of the forecast period. It is true that anyone in my constituency living on the national minimum wage—earning around £20,000—will receive an extra £148.60 a year, or £12.38 per month, from the reduction in national insurance.

However, we need to look at the overall tax burden. Around 40% of that extra income will be lost to the increase in council tax. My council’s website, which gives some examples, says that those living in a band A properties will be charged £61 more next year. Of course, that figure will be much higher once we have added increases to parish police and fire precepts. The problem is compounded in areas that, like mine, have a small council tax base because the majority of properties are in bands A to C. Indeed, the additional money that councils raise will not even cover the rising costs, so we will have to pay more but see services cut.

Durham County Council will receive—I have checked this figure—£130 million less in revenue support in 2024 compared with 2010. Indeed, a survey by the County Councils Network found that 95% of local authorities are increasing council tax by the maximum permitted 5%. In east Durham, that means that our poorest communities are paying the most. Here is an interesting example: a band A property in Easington Colliery faces a council tax bill of £1,671, which is not far short of the Prime Minister’s £1,824 council tax bill for his band H flat in Downing Street. If the Prime Minister were paying council tax on a band H property in Horden in my constituency, his council tax would be £5,157.88. Despite our property prices being significantly below the national average, our poorest communities, and residents in my constituency, are facing council tax bills similar to that of the Prime Minister. Council tax is a new poll tax in all but name.

I often feel like a lone voice advocating for a proportional property tax, but I should not be, because it would benefit 77% of UK households. Proportional property tax is a flat tax—a charge of 0.48%—on a property’s current value. It would effectively be an annual economic stimulus to the regional economies worth £6.5 billion a year, increasing disposable incomes of households in the poorest communities, which do not enjoy the same levels of public and private investment as households in London and the south-east. Services that take up the largest part of Durham County Council’s budget are adult social care and looked-after children. Those are important services, but they should be funded nationally based on a needs assessment.

Those costs should not fall on local taxpayers, particularly as we have seen a rise in some councils and service providers effectively outsourcing those with complex needs by moving their people into our poorest communities. If the Minister is not aware of that issue and wants to understand how councils in the south are gaming the system at the expense of my constituents, I recommend that he reads an article by the Express journalist Zak Garner-Purkis—I do not normally recommend the Express, but he is an excellent journalist.

Far from giving our communities a chance, the Government’s policy, taxation and investment decisions are widening the economic divides in our country through higher taxes and a lack of public investment, which impact on the private sector’s willingness to invest in my constituency. Of course, there would be opportunities if we had the right investment and growth policies. We have large areas with derelict and run-down housing that would be ideal for redevelopment and the creation of decent family homes, but we have a tax and investment system that holds back our regional economies and deprives them of opportunity. We have a Government who refuse to take any steps to address widening economic disparities—I thought that was the whole purpose of levelling up.

There are other national issues that affect my constituency, including the NHS: there are long waits in A&E, and NHS dental provision is collapsing. We have over-subscribed schools, a lack of home-to-school transport, and schools in a poor state of repair—not only those affected by RAAC or asbestos, but some quite new schools built by disreputable construction companies that have fleeced the taxpayer.

The Conservative party has now had 14 years, either in government by itself or in coalition with the Lib Dems and others, to improve the opportunities for constituencies such as mine. However, 14 years on, the problems that our country faces today are just as deep-rooted and extensive as ever. The Chancellor and the Prime Minister say that they are proud of their record. Well, I think my constituents have reached the same conclusion as many others. They say it is time to put that confidence to the test. If this Government have a shred of integrity, we should be going to the polls on Thursday 2 May for a general election. The Chancellor’s Budget has lifted the lid on 14 years of Tory economic failure: taxes are still rising, prices are still going up for consumers, mortgages are going through the roof, and the Chancellor did nothing yesterday that is going to change that. We need a Government that can rebuild Britain. It is time for change. It is time for a general election.

Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 19th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

10. What steps his Department is taking to tackle in-work poverty.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

17. What steps his Department is taking to tackle in-work poverty.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

22. What steps his Department is taking to tackle in-work poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

If the hon. Lady would like to share those details with me, I will make sure that I and the Minister for Pensions, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) will have a close look at the case she raises.

[Grahame Morris]

A moment ago, the Secretary of State’s colleague, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) referred to the publication of data. Can I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to the GMB trade union’s research, which found a shocking 155% increase in the number of public sector workers relying on universal credit? How will the Department rectify this alarming trend and ensure that our hard-working public servants receive the fair pay they deserve, instead of being forced into reliance on inadequate in-work benefits?

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

Our policy and rules around sanctions have not been changed by the Budget, but it is important that where somebody can work and is offered support to work and decides to take benefits and not engage with the system, sanctions can under certain circumstances be appropriate. That is not to say that sometimes people will not have perfectly reasonable reasons for not engaging with the jobcentre, in which case no sanction will be applied. The hon. Gentleman seems so often to be suggesting that there is no scope or role for sanctions whatsoever within our benefit system, and that is not going to help the very people we are out to support.

This Budget will help break down the barriers stopping people moving into work or progressing within it, and it is most particularly a Budget for those who face the greatest employment challenges. It is a Budget for disabled people and those with health conditions, with new and extended employment support, better integration of work and health services, and, through our health and disability White Paper, the biggest reform to the health and disability benefits system for a decade. It is a Budget for older workers, with the removal of disincentives in the pensions tax system, and with more help to retrain and reskill and more tools to help people plan for the future.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I am fascinated by the Secretary of State’s contribution and the improvements in pensions, particularly for high earners, but did the Chancellor forget to mention the injustice to mineworkers and the opportunity presented to address that historical injustice through a fair share of the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme to assist some of the people who are existing on meagre and modest pensions?

[Mel Stride]

I am very happy to engage in detail with the hon. Gentleman on the specific point he raises, but as to the general point of removing the pensions lifetime allowance, Labour has to decide exactly what its policy is. The right hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) tells us this afternoon that she is against the policy, but we know that it will mean that thousands upon thousands of additional highly skilled people working in the national health service will as a consequence stay in the national health service where we need them. The shadow Health Secretary, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who is in his place on the Front Bench, made exactly the same point not that long ago—[Interruption] —saying that a failure to act could cost lives. I say to the right hon. Lady: what is it? Political opportunism, or standing shoulder to shoulder with our national health service and the millions of people up and down the country who depend on it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and his excellent speech. In the time that I have, I wonder if I might focus on one specific issue —council tax and its failings. I was very interested in the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), when he spoke about the advantages of a wealth tax for those with more than £10 million in assets. It should not be discounted—I think there is a lot of merit in it. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) has also advocated such a policy.

We heard a lot from the Chancellor yesterday. There were a lot of Es flying around— [Interruption.] I was paying attention, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are a couple of Es in levelling up, but unfortunately Easington did not get any levelling-up money. That is meant to be the Government’s priority.

It would be worthwhile for the Government to address the fundamental unfairness of council tax. I want to explore why replacing council tax with a proportional property tax should command the support of those on the Opposition and Government Benches. It is advocated by the Fairer Share campaign, which I recommend the Minister and other Members have a look at. Fair taxation is the foundation on which Labour can build a better Britain and help to secure the missions recently set out by the Leader of the Opposition. For the Conservatives, abolishing council tax in favour of a proportional property tax would demonstrate a long-term and systematic commitment to levelling up. It would help to alleviate and mitigate the cost of living crisis and deliver a tax cut—a council tax cut—to more than 75% of households in the country, and 100% of households in Easington.

The problem with council tax is very simple. In the days ahead, the majority of people will receive a council tax bill. At Prime Minister’s questions, a lot of political capital was made about Conservative councils being better than Labour councils, but the truth is that almost all councils, irrespective of their political colour, are facing huge pressures. Most people will face a council tax increase of about 5%. The County Councils Network reported in February that three in four councils will increase council tax by the maximum amount permitted. This is an issue that cuts across all parties. My county council, Durham County Council, is led by a Conservative-led coalition. It faces a £10.2 million deficit, despite raising council tax by the maximum—5%—and proposing cuts of £12.4 million.

The truth is that the system is broken. It is the poorest households that pay more and get less, while councils remain unable to fund vital services. Currently, households are taxed based not on their ability to pay, but on the 1991 valuation of their home and the area in which they live. That means that local authorities must impose tax levels on their residents to cover the costs of essential statutory services such as caring for looked-after children and adult social care regardless of the wealth, or lack of it, in those communities. For that reason, an £8 million townhouse in Westminster bizarrely, or perversely, ends up paying less council tax each year than somebody living in a £150,000 home in my constituency. The most affluent areas have other advantages, with Westminster City Council better placed to raise revenues through business rates, fees and charges such as car parking charges compared to poorer local authorities like mine.

This is the opposite of levelling up. It is widening the economic gap between London and the regions, as well as between the richest and poorest in society. The theme of the Budget yesterday was boosting employment, and the key to that aim is strengthening regional economies to sustain additional employment. A proportional property tax strengthens local economies and supports employment by cutting taxes in the regions by £6.5 billion. A huge annual economic stimulus of £6.5 billion would empower people to participate in their local economy. For the poorest communities such as mine, the average household saving could be as high as £900 a year.

The Government’s refusal to invest in our poorest communities will hold back regeneration, growth and employment. Rather than the Government’s tax and spend investment policy, a proportional property tax is much more efficient at allowing the poorest communities to keep more of their own money to spend and invest in their own local economy as they see fit. That might be a philosophy that the Conservatives could agree with.

The success of the levelling-up fund should be judged on the extent to which it narrows the economic divisions in our country. In fact, those divisions are widening and inequality is growing. The north-east region as a whole received just £108.5 million, compared with £210.5 million and £151.3 million allocated to the south-east and London respectively.

I am disappointed that the Chancellor said nothing in the Budget about the regressive council tax. I am proud that the Durham County Council Labour group is the first in the country to call for the introduction of a proportional property tax to replace the iniquitous council tax. It is a simple and fair tax applied equally, no matter whether someone lives in Peterlee, Pimlico, Belgravia, Blackhall, Horden, Hartlepool or Hounslow. The Government can deliver a tax cut to more than 18 million households, support regional economies and help levelling up. A proportional property tax is a levelling- up tax. I hope that both the Government and the Opposition will support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to close the Budget debate this evening. I begin by acknowledging all 28 speeches we have heard today, but I want to pay a particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) for her outstanding maiden speech. I thought she captured the history and pride of her constituents, but also their ambitions and aspirations, in a truly impressive way. I also want to refer to the fact that she is a graduate of the Jo Cox women in leadership scheme. For the shadow Chancellor and me—we were both asked to speak on the day Parliament was recalled following the loss of Jo—to be able to open and close this debate and see a graduate of that scheme take her place and give a maiden speech like that, of such quality, is truly one of the legacies that Jo deserves. I know the whole House will share that sentiment.

As we have heard, this Budget has come at a time of profound importance for the country. Many Members have said that too many of their constituents are not just struggling to afford the little things that make life worth living, but finding it a stretch to afford the basics. We see every public service squeezed to breaking point. Frankly, very little in this country is working as it should. At the same time, there is an urgent need to proceed with net zero, and win the prize of the jobs and industries that will sustain our economy for generations to come. Acknowledging these challenges is not talking Britain down; it is facing reality head-on.

Yet, after looking at those challenges, what was the Chancellor’s big idea yesterday? What was the rabbit out of the hat and the only thing we did not know was coming? It was that huge tax giveaway for thousands of the very highest earners, during a cost of living crisis. I think we have learned something in this debate today, because we have found out that the Government cannot even tell us how many doctors that will benefit. I do not think they are unwilling to tell us; I do not think they know. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) said, they never seem to miss an opportunity to give something away to those at the top.

Most of all, we have had another Conservative Budget and another set of lost opportunities to rise to the challenges we face. Fundamentally, it is a Budget for growth that downgrades growth. Many Members have rightly highlighted that the cost of living crisis is dominating the lives of their constituents and the hard-working people who have seen their wages stall while prices have risen.

[Grahame Morris]

My hon. Friend is very kind to give way, and he is making an excellent speech, but can I just ask his opinion about left-behind areas? It is all very well for the high earners who are getting advantages with their pension pots, but does he see the benefits, particularly in former mining communities, of implementing the recommendation of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee report and returning the investment fund and the full miners’ pension scheme surplus to retired miners and their widows, who are struggling with the cost of living crisis, not least with huge fuel bills?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He will know that he represents several members of my family, so I have personal knowledge of his constituency, and they think he is a very fine Member of Parliament. Because of my family and my personal heritage of growing up in County Durham and mining communities, I know the issues he talks about, particularly those around profit sharing and the surplus and reserves of the mineworkers’ pension scheme. There is a case to look at there, and I would be more than happy to engage with him on those issues for the benefit of his constituents and those of other Members in the Chamber.

We are seeing people cutting back on all they can, but still being left with too much month at the end of their money. The British public need only ask the following questions. Are they better off after 13 years of this Government? Are they safer? Are the public services they rely on working better than a decade ago? No, no, and no again. At the core of that failure is the hard truth that, over 13 years, the Government have turned the UK into the worst-performing major economy in the world. That failure is at the heart of what is hitting people’s pay packets and public services. As we have heard many times in the debate, the British economy is the only developed economy in the world that has still not recovered to its pre-pandemic size.

Benefit Sanctions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I will endeavour to heed your advice about the timings. I thank my good and honourable friend and comrade, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), for securing this important debate. I also congratulate him on his assiduous work in questioning Ministers, both in the Chamber and with the use of written questions. I also thank him for sharing the figures that he has discovered—the constituency-based figures—with other Members.

In my remarks, I will first go over the purpose of universal credit and look at the level of sanctions. I also want to stress the human cost of sanctions. Universal credit is the last line of the social security safety net. It is set at a level no one should fall below. By any standard, it is set at a very low level. Let us just remind ourselves that for a single person under 25 the standard allowance—this is a monthly allowance not a weekly allowance—is £265.31. There are additional premiums for disability and so on, but the standard allowance is intended to cover council tax, utilities, food, clothing and other bills. Sometimes the housing element does not meet the full rent, so there is a top-up element for rent as well.

For a couple over 25, the standard allowance is £525.27. In a functioning economy, housing, heat and food should not be scarce commodities. They should be readily available, whether an individual is retired, employed —many people are in low-paid, insecure employment—or in receipt of social security. Universal credit should alleviate poverty. Instead, sanctions are entrenching hardship and destitution. It is a terrible shame that the Government do not put the same effort into hunting down tax evasion and apply sanctions against the very wealthy individuals who evade payment of many millions of pounds in the tax that they owe.

The level of sanctions is excessive. I thank again the hon. Member for Glasgow South West for highlighting the figures and sharing them. He mentioned that throughout the whole country the figures are as follows: in June 2020, there was over £34 million in sanctions; in July 2022, a little under £35 million; and in August 2022, £36,397,000—£36.5 million basically. If we total those together, sanctions at that level is almost half a billion pounds a year.

Where is the one-nation, caring and compassionate Conservative party, if the Government force people into poverty and destitution, particularly those who are vulnerable? My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) quoted the figures for his constituency, but the figures are worse for my constituency of Easington. Deductions amount to roughly £75,000 a month from people who are in the direst hardship before the deductions for advance payments, for bedroom tax, or overpayments caused by administrative error or neglect.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West made a great point about digital exclusion and the number of people who simply cannot access the system because they do not have even a basic smartphone or the wi-fi connectivity to be able to do that. The consequence is rising poverty, growing queues at food banks, and now the need for the voluntary and community sector to create warm spaces to accommodate people and at least give them a hot drink and some shelter, particularly in this terrible cold weather that we are experiencing. Sanctions harm society and can have tragic consequences.

I want to quote a BBC article dated 10 May 2021. It is a moving piece entitled “Deaths of people on benefits prompt inquiry call”. The article states:

“Cases where people claiming benefits died or came to serious harm have led to more than 150 government reviews since 2012”.

It highlights cases, including this one:

“Ms Day, 27, who had been diagnosed with emotionally unstable personality disorder, had previously said her benefit claim left her feeling ‘inhuman’, her sister told the BBC.”

After Ms Day’s death, the inquest concluded that the authorities made 28 errors in managing her case.

In another case:

“Errol Graham starved to death in 2018 while seriously mentally ill. His benefits were stopped when he failed to attend a work capability assessment and did not respond to calls, letters or home visits from the DWP. When his body was found, Mr Graham weighed four-and-a-half stone (30kg) and his family said he had used pliers to pull out his teeth.”

We need to end the sanctions culture. It harms society, leaves the poorest in destitution and places the sick, the ill and the disabled in extreme circumstances in which they can often see no way out. The Minister can act by introducing a moratorium on sanctions. Sanctions should not be used routinely; they should instead be reserved as a last resort for the most extreme circumstances and cases. This is a matter of life and death. The Minister has an immense responsibility to safeguard those in need and the vulnerable. I urge him not to fail them as his predecessors have failed them, and to end the sanctions culture we have today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

Plus one. The long and short of it is that, in that time, I have engaged at length with multiple employers, Jobcentre Plus and individual work coaches at the Department for Work and Pensions.

I will endeavour particularly to address the points raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, given that this is very much his debate. He has engaged with the Department on a number of individual cases, and I will endeavour to write to him on the specifics of the particular case that he raised most recently. I am advised that we have responded to the case that he raised today, but I undertake to write to him with more detail before Christmas. Given the circumstances that we face, the letter will obviously have to be communicated by email as well as post.

I turn to the second point. With no disrespect to the hon. Member and other colleagues who have raised this issue, I do not recognise the comments against individual DWP members of staff. Where there are particular examples of named individuals who people genuinely feel have transgressed and behaved in an inappropriate way, clearly there is a process that must be entered into.

It is certainly not the case, in any way whatsoever, that there has been a change of policy by individual Ministers—either by myself in the 47 days that I have held this post, or by previous Ministers. I cannot speak for colleagues who have held these positions.

[Grahame Morris]

I am sure the Minister gives that assurance in good faith, but how does he explain the rapid increase in the level of sanctions in recent months? Can he rebut the allegation that there is a sanctions regime that incentivises DWP staff to apply sanctions?

[Guy Opperman]

On the second point, I am not aware of any such policy or any such incentivisation in any way whatsoever. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of such incentivisation, he should publish it and name it individually, because there is no such evidence as far as I am aware.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the rise in the numbers. It is right to have a legitimate discussion about what is a fair and effective welfare system that supports people into work and provides value for money for taxpayers. Our work coaches support claimants by setting out the activities to move them into work or to progress in work and work more. Activities are set out in the claimant commitment, which is surely the start or base of all the discussions. They are tailored to reflect individual circumstances and take into account health conditions, caring responsibilities, current work and opportunities for training.

The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the rise in the number of sanctions. Some 98.2% of sanctions are for missing a meeting with a work coach. Such sanctions can be quickly and simply resolved by attending another appointment. The evidence is that approximately 50% of such sanctions are resolved with mandatory reconsideration.

I wish to address in particular the issue in relation to the most vulnerable. It is right that the most vulnerable in society receive extra support. The Government have clearly shown a commitment to that by adding a further £26 billion in the cost of living support in the autumn statement, on top of the £37 billion for 2022-23 that we announced earlier this year, in May.

Where benefit claimants have vulnerabilities, safeguards exist to ensure that they are not sanctioned inappropriately. Those with severe health and mental health conditions, those with full-time caring responsibilities and those with children under the age of one are not required to look for work and cannot be sanctioned. Many of the most vulnerable receive other elements of universal credit in payment, such as housing, child or disability support. Those payments are not affected by a sanction.

Finally, when people experience particular challenges, such as childcare difficulties, accommodation issues or bereavement, work coaches have the discretion to switch off work-related activities for a period of time. Such measures enable us to support vulnerable claimants and provide tailored support. To answer the follow-on question, we have a well-established system of hardship payments, which are available as a safeguard if a claimant demonstrates that they cannot meet their immediate and most essential needs—including for accommodation, heating, food and hygiene—as a result of sanctions. I am advised that the relevant percentage is 1.987%.

Various colleagues made specific points. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) and the hon. Member for Slough made the point that work is hard to find. I will address that point in two particular ways. First, the evidence from the labour market statistics shows that the employment rate is up 0.2 percentage points on the quarter; the number of payroll employees is up on pre-covid levels by 932,000 to a record high; and the inactivity rate has fallen. On the vacancies rate, which surely relates to the point that work is hard to find, there were 1.2 million vacancies. Although obviously it remains high, the rate has fallen for the fifth consecutive month, to 1.187 million. Inactivity, which is a long-term issue, has fallen by 0.2 percentage points on the quarter, to 21.5%.

Scotland was raised specifically, so let me give the Scottish figures. The number of people employed is at 2.725 million, up 22,000 on the quarter and up 61,000 on the year. The employment rate is at 75.9%, up 0.7 percentage points on the quarter and 1.4 percentage points on the year. Unemployment is at 93,000, down 21,000 on the year and 12,000 against February to December 2020. The number of people in workless households has fallen by 113,000 since April to June 2010.

State Pension Triple Lock

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I would also like to quote the Prime Minister’s first speech from the steps of 10 Downing Street on 25 October, only a few weeks ago:

“I will unite our country, not with words, but with action…This government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level. Trust is earned. And I will earn yours.”

Well, I am not sure how long those promises have lasted. It is certainly clear that the Prime Minister is avoiding a general election. In truth, he can claim no personal democratic mandate to be Prime Minister. He bases his authority on the Conservative manifesto on which he and his colleagues were elected in 2019:

“the mandate my party earned in 2019 is not the sole property of any one individual, it is a mandate that belongs to and unites all of us.”

By “us”, I think he is referring to members of the Conservative party. He continued:

“And the heart of that mandate is our manifesto.”

The Prime Minister bases his legitimacy on the Conservatives’ 2019 manifesto, so may I remind the House of what it said about the triple lock? Many Opposition Members have already said this, but let me do it again for the sake of completeness. It said:

“We will keep the triple lock, the winter fuel payment, the older person’s bus pass and other pensioner benefits”.

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) said he was gratified that Labour Members were supporting the Conservative manifesto. Can I tell him that the Conservative party was not alone in making those promises? In fact, 626 hon. and right hon. Members of this House, including myself, were elected on a manifesto commitment to maintain, retain and protect the triple lock. So it is in order for us to make reference to that.

Other colleagues, including the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), referred to the relative position of the UK. The UK has one of the least generous state pensions in the developed world, as is demonstrated by the OECD figures, which show that the UK spends less on old age pension benefits as a proportion of GDP.

In April, when the Prime Minister broke the Conservative party manifesto pledge, the state pension increased by only 3.1% instead of the 8.3% due under the triple lock. That has cost someone in my constituency on the new full state pension £487 a year. I am sure Conservative Members are going to be concerned. I lived through the days of terrible pensioner poverty and I felt that the last Labour Government went a long way to address that, through not just the basic state pension, but the supplements introduced by Gordon Brown and others.

I would be terribly embarrassed if my Government’s legacy was one of pensioner poverty. However, the groundwork for poverty has been laid by the current Government; those foundations have been laid over the past 12 years. It has left groups such as the WASPI—I know that the Minister and others do not like to hear that term—cohort of working women born in the 1950s and 1960s in desperate hardship through no fault of their own.

Fifty of the UK’s areas most at risk in the cost of food crisis have been identified and not surprisingly the north-east and my constituency are among the worst affected. This year, our communities will see the introduction of “warm spaces” to help those who are unable to heat their homes because of spiralling energy costs. Our Government and the economy are failing to meet the most basic needs—food and warmth. A real-terms cut to the state pension, alongside soaring energy and food costs, will force many more pensioners into poverty. So I urge Conservative Members to do the right thing, back their own manifesto commitment and vote to retain the triple lock.

Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 6th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

17. If she will publish the individual site assessment on the closure of her Department's office in Seaham.

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

An overarching equality assessment has been completed, which considers the impact on all DWP colleagues. This has been made available for the House in the Library, and I am also arranging for the site-specific equality assessment for Seaham to be shared with the hon. Member.

[Grahame Morris]

I thank the Minister for that response, but previously when I have raised the issue of the Seaham site, I have been assured or reassured that DWP employees at that office would be relocated to other offices within the region. Is she aware that the private bus operator Go North East is proposing cuts and changes to 80 regional bus services, many affecting my area? Does that not show that the DWP planning assumptions are rather precarious? Many of the DWP closures, including the one in Seaham, are in areas of economic deprivation that can ill afford to lose good-quality public sector jobs.

[Mims Davies]

This network design change is to reshape how the Department works, resulting in a smaller, greener and better-quality estate for our colleagues. Many of these buildings across the land offer back-of-house functions, and they are just not good-quality buildings for our colleagues. I absolutely understand the point. Where colleagues are being offered new opportunities to go to the Wear View House site in Sunderland, which is approximately 7.5 miles away, there will be individual one-to-one conversations with them about what is right for them and how they can stay with DWP and continue in a role that works for them.

DWP Estate: Office Closures

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

The Department has been following all the guidance that it needed to, and if there are concerns about that, I will gladly follow up with the hon. Member outside the Chamber.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Will the Minister clarify something? My understanding is that the Government are proposing a full site consolidation involving moving staff from Seaham Lighthouse View in my constituency to Wear View House in Sunderland. The impact of these closures in areas of economic deprivation, such as east Durham, will be huge, and we can ill afford to lose good-quality public sector jobs. My question to the Minister is: how will closing a DWP office in my constituency that employs 390 people help Easington to level up, when the Government are moving employment to the larger cities?

[David Rutley]

We had a full debate in Westminster Hall yesterday that the hon. Member was successful in securing, and we discussed this in more detail. What we can do to support his area is not just around the changes we are proposing today, but is much broader. There is a big broad economic agenda to improve the north-east, which his constituency will benefit from, too.