Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under the legacy benefits system, some people faced punitive marginal tax rates. The fixed taper rate under universal credit ensures that work always pays, and that is why we are seeing more people getting into work.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Work does not always pay—that is the problem. A million more children whose parents are working are living in poverty, and a million and a half people are relying on food banks. Why do the Government not implement Labour’s plan for a £10 minimum wage and ensure that work truly does pay?

[Alok Sharma]

As I said, we introduced a £1,000 increase in work allowances in the Budget. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), talked about the living wage, which was introduced by this Government and has risen by 4.4% this year. At the end of the day, however, we also want to ensure that people are getting into work. If the hon. Gentleman is particularly focusing on children, he will know that children living in workless households are five times more likely to be living in poverty than those in households in which the adults work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his personal leadership in his constituency and for employing a disabled person and drawing on all the talents that our nation has to offer. Access to Work is a fantastic scheme helping record numbers of people and we will continue to do everything we can to make sure disabled people can work.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

My constituent Paul is agoraphobic and has a personality disorder, heart damage and a history of self-harm. After a tribunal accepted that he could not attend an assessment centre, the centre for health and disability assessment has blocked his employment and support allowance and universal credit by refusing him a home assessment. Will the Minister apply some common sense and overrule the decision?

[Sarah Newton]

The hon. Gentleman raises a serious point. Home assessments are of course an important part of our processes. I am very disappointed to hear about that case, which I will be happy to look into.

The Secretary of State’s Handling of Universal Credit

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who speaks with great experience on these matters. One of the burning questions this afternoon is whether the Labour party’s official position is to continue to support the principle of universal credit. Every time that Labour has the opportunity to endorse universal credit, it dodges doing that and seeks to tear it down from within.

The hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench, may be interested to hear the observation of one of the senior managers in my local jobcentre in Blandford Forum, which I visited a few weeks ago. He told me that he had been advocating and urging something like universal credit since he joined the service way back in 1986. This simplified approach, making it easier for people, is absolutely the right way. Likewise, the approach of roll-out, pause, reflect and revise that the Government and the Department have adopted is absolutely the right one. That is in sharp contradistinction to the dramatic roll-out, to trumpets and drums, of the tax credit system, and look at the absolute disaster that that was. The Department’s approach is the right one.

The shadow Minister, of course, has form on these matters. In a debate on the national health service in January this year, she told us:

“Let us have no more talk about taking the politics out of the NHS. The NHS is a political entity.”—[Official Report, 10 January 2018; Vol. 634, c. 373.]

I chastised her on that. She likes to come forward with crocodile tears, synthetic concern and outrage. Labour Front Benchers merely use this to prey on the concerns of very vulnerable people for what they believe to be cheap political advantage.

The hon. Lady may be interested to hear an email from a constituent of mine—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) wants to intervene, he is very welcome to.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I’m not going to give you more time.

[Simon Hoare]

Thank you for that. Let me quote from a constituent of mine:

“I went in great fear of UC. I thought it would be too difficult and cruel. I thought things would be made hard for me and my family. But I applied. It was easy and far simpler than I thought.”

He said that the only mistake he made was that he had listened to Labour and that it was Labour that had made him afraid of the process. That is the legacy of the approach.

In closing, I invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider—the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and I have discussed this—the role and effectively the right of audience that those who work for the CAB have in this process. There seems to be some confusion. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that she convene, at a moment of her convenience, some form of roundtable to establish some form of protocol for those in the CAB who do valiant work for our constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I am grateful to be able to speak in this important debate. I fully understand why tempers are high, given the terrible impact that universal credit has had. Ministers’ assurances about mitigating the impact of universal credit do not square with many people’s experience. Indeed, the Department’s own surveys have found that 40% of claimants are experiencing financial difficulties, that 25% cannot make an online claim—I think the rate is higher in Easington—and that 20%, or one in five, are not paid in full on time. Despite the Secretary of State’s assurances, the Department cannot measure the exact number of additional people in employment as a direct result of universal credit.

In my limited time, I must thank the charities, advice groups and campaigners who are supporting my constituents to get by on universal credit. In particular, I thank the East Durham Trust’s Malcolm Fallow, its excellent team of full-time support workers and its exceptional volunteers. Without their advocacy, and benefit and debt advice, many families in my constituency would not have a roof over their heads, or electricity and gas on the meter. Through the East Durham Trust food bank, people have been able to put food on the table to feed their family.

Thousands of people will be waiting for health assessments for UC or ESA, so I have some practical advice, as the Secretary of State said she wanted some suggestions. While the current system remains, claimants must take steps to protect themselves. In a written answer I received on 28 March from the Minister for Disabled People, I was advised:

“Anyone who is called for a work capability assessment as part of their claim for Employment and Support Allowance and Universal Credit, receives an information leaflet about the assessment process. This leaflet includes details of how they can request that their assessment is recorded.”

I would advise anyone undergoing an assessment to get it recorded. I have dealt with cases where individuals have gone from zero points to 15 points, and without the recording it would not have been possible to challenge the original decision. In addition, the health assessor commissioned by the Department should provide recording equipment and answer any questions that a person has. Unfortunately, although the Department claims to be digital by default, claimants who want to make a recording of the PIP assessment have to provide their own recording equipment. That is absolutely ridiculous. I am in little doubt that that is a deliberate barrier to prevent people making claims. I urge Members to support the motion.

Universal Credit and Welfare Changes

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

We will make sure that it continues to be successful where it goes, with more people in work more quickly, staying in work and getting progress in work. On average, people will get £600 a month more in work through the extra support that the work coaches are getting. I ask the hon. Lady, too, to go to a jobcentre to find out what is going on and how we are helping people.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I am very disappointed that the Secretary of State is blind to the hardship that is being caused by this policy. Last night in my constituency, a number of constituents, including two of my staff, were involved in trying to raise money for the East Durham Trust food bank through a sponsored run. That food bank was completely depleted. May I respectfully point out to her that it is depleted because of the policies of this Government, particularly the introduction of universal credit, delayed PIP appeals, and sanctions that have been applied to my constituents?

[Ms McVey]

I am certainly not blind to hardship. We all come into this House trying to prevent hardship. Conservative Members believe that poverty and hardship are prevented by getting people into work and supporting them in work to allow them to fulfil their dreams, hopes and ambitions. That is what we do. As I said, we have provided significantly more money for the most vulnerable, particularly for those with disability and health conditions. We want to support people into work and reduce poverty.

Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

There is a matter of some dispute here between the Chair and the Table. I think that the hon. Gentleman is a representative of a petrocurrency, but Mycroft in front of me is not wholly convinced, so the matter remains as yet undetermined.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I refer the Minister to the question I raised with the Leader of the House on Thursday. Will the Minister provide an assurance that when the Department makes mistakes in the administration of universal credit, claimants will be fully compensated in claims backdated to the point where they will be no worse off?

[Damian Hinds]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question. I have written to him today on this specific case. I do not know whether the response has yet come to hand following his question on Thursday, but I am happy to meet him and discuss it in detail. I understand that there was an issue about some of the information at the time the claim was made, and that there has been some backdating. We will talk about the matter later.

Pension Equality for Women

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to publish proposals to provide a non-means tested bridging solution for all women born on or after 6 April 1950 who are affected by changes to the State Pension age in the 1995 and 2011 Pension Acts.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and the sponsors who have supported me in the application for it. I also thank the WASPI campaign nationally, which is well represented in the Gallery. Its members are involved in protests and demonstrations outside the Palace in support of their legitimate claims.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all his work on the issue. As he says, a lot of WASPI campaigners are listening to the debate in the Gallery, so does he think that this would be an opportune time for the Minister to apologise for the crass remark he made in Westminster Hall that WASPI women could get modern apprenticeships?

[Grahame Morris]

I will come on to the Minister’s remarks in that debate, but if he did want to take the opportunity, I am sure that the WASPI women would welcome it.

What we and the campaign are asking for, as set out in the motion, is simple: a non-means-tested bridging pension. That would mean that some 3.8 million women would not have to live in poverty. The pension would be paid as a percentage of the full state pension, with compensation offered over the period between the age of 60 and the new state pension age.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. We all agree that this injustice needs to be dealt with, but should we not also consider how that could be funded? I have discovered from the House of Commons Library that bringing forward the proposed increase in the pension age from 67 to 68 from 2037 to 2036 would in itself raise approximately £7.5 billion, which would go a considerable way towards helping these women to address the injustice that they face.

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful for that intervention. I shall come to some of the proposals that have been made and how the injustice might be addressed.

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree that it is shocking and unacceptable that the WASPI campaigners have had to work so tirelessly to get absolutely no response from the Government?

[Grahame Morris]

I completely agree. We have debated this issue many times—perhaps 29 or 30—in the Chamber and Westminster Hall, and we have been incredibly active over the past few months. Early-day motion 63 has 195 signatures, while an e-petition that was laid before Parliament attracted 109,000 signatures, and that number continues to grow. A Westminster Hall debate was so oversubscribed that some Members were sitting on the window ledges.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and his tireless work in supporting this cause. I certainly support the call for fair transitional state pension arrangements for all WASPI women, but a number of options have been suggested. Will my hon. Friend be dealing with those in his speech?

[Grahame Morris]

Absolutely. There are a number of options. There are things that the Minister could do immediately to mitigate and alleviate the worst hardship that is being suffered. This is a matter of concern throughout the House, as is demonstrated by the number of signatures to the early-day motion, and representations have been made from every UK nation and region, as well as every political party in the House.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is doing a good job in making his case, but may I put to him the words of a retired teacher from Knowsley who was born in July 1954? She says:

“The boy I sat next to in school was born in November 1953. We left school at the same time and began to pay our NI and income tax at the same time but he receives his state pension on his 65th birthday. I have to wait 10 months beyond my 65th birthday. How can that be fair”.

Does she not sum up the position very well?

[Grahame Morris]

Absolutely. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House can give many examples of WASPI women who have come to their surgeries, written to them and sent them e-mails. Every day I receive heartbreaking letters and e-mails from women in my constituency and further afield who have been suffering extreme hardship.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I am proud to be a co-signatory of the motion. So far the hon. Gentleman has referred only to WASPI but, as we know, there is an awful lot of interest in this whole issue, and only some of the groups involved call themselves WASPI. We are actually talking about all the women born in the 1950s who are suffering from an injustice that has been disproportionately inflicted on them as a result of changes to the pension qualification age.

[Grahame Morris]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I welcome the contribution that he has made to the campaign.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for all the hard work that he has put in. I am sure that he, like me, has come across many women who have based all their retirement plans—their partners may have already retired—on what they were told, and assumed, would be their retirement age. They all say to me, “It is just not fair.”

[Grahame Morris]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Many of these women have worked since they were 16. They signed up to a deal that they considered to be an agreement with the Government, but that deal has been cast aside with little or no regard for their financial circumstances.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate. A moment ago, he used the word “heartbreaking”, and it genuinely is heartbreaking to listen to women—as I have in Dudley and the Black country—who had to retire early to care for a relative, or in some cases a husband, and were subsequently widowed. They are left with no income and face the prospect of having to wait much longer for the pension on the basis of which they had planned their whole future. Does my hon. Friend agree that particular attention must be paid to women in that position?

[Grahame Morris]

Absolutely. There are things that the Minister and the Government can do immediately. We are unnecessarily creating a generation of women in which many now rely on food banks. Some are being forced to sell their homes and to rely on the benefits system, which is degrading for them.

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

Does my comrade agree that we should praise the role of the trade union movement in supporting the WASPI women? WASPI campaigners in Glasgow and north Lanarkshire are watching a live broadcast of this debate in the Glasgow city Unison office. One of them is my constituent Kathy McDonald, who has worked for 40 years—since she was 15—but now has to go on working until she is 66.

[Grahame Morris]

Absolutely. This huge injustice affects all nations and regions of the United Kingdom. These are hard-working, decent women who have contributed through the national insurance fund and expected to receive their state pension.

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for securing the debate, and for all the work that he does in support of the WASPI campaign and others. Does he agree that many of these women are being dealt with very inappropriately by both jobcentres and the benefits system?

A lady who came to my surgery last week had just been made redundant from the Walkers crisps factory. She has a full employment and contribution record, but she is really fearful about what will happen to her over the next few years. Will she be forced into inappropriate work? She does not know what benefits she will get. She is really stressed. Given her full contribution record, should she not benefit from proper transitional arrangements? Women should not be treated in this way.

[Grahame Morris]

That case is doubly relevant to me. The Walkers crisps factory in my constituency is closing this week—just before Christmas—and 400 people will lose their jobs. Many of them are long-serving employees who have worked hard. Some are in their late 50s and early 60s, and had expected to receive their state pensions.

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. I take great pleasure in praising him for his work on behalf of the WASPI women. Some 5,500 women in my constituency have suffered because of the Government’s lack of action. Some have been forced to go to food banks, and in all cases the women feel victimised.

[Grahame Morris]

These women are disadvantaged in a number of ways, and Members might not realise how many. For instance, people have raised with me the issue of free bus passes. Many women who live outside London—in regions such as the north-east and the south-west—do not drive, and without those bus passes, they cannot travel.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

May I ask the hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members how much fuss they made when Gordon Brown introduced this change?

[Grahame Morris]

We need to address where we are now—[Interruption.] Well, the hon. Lady asked a question. Do we think that the change was wrong? I think that the 1995 changes were incorrect. Under the Pensions Act 2011, those changes—they were originally spread over a longer period—were expedited, and the former Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, has elaborated on that point.

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

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his speech. To clarify, the Pensions Act 1995 was introduced by a Tory Government, while the Pensions Act 2011 was put through by a Tory-Lib Dem coalition. Why the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) referred to Gordon Brown is a mystery.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Grahame Morris]

I will give way to the Minister.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) will be aware that in 2007, after 10 years of a Labour Government, the then Government considered all matters of pensions legislation and passed the Pensions Act 2007. During their 13 years in power Labour Members had total capacity to do something about what they now say is not appropriate. With respect, there is a legitimate point to answer.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Grahame Morris]

I will give way again in a minute, but I would like the opportunity to respond to the Minister’s point. We must recognise the injustice faced by these women, because there were many missed opportunities. There is no doubt that the 2011 Act accelerated the changes, and Steve Webb, the former Pensions Minister, is quoted extensively as indicating that. When he wrote to the WASPI women on behalf of the coalition Government, he not only informed them about the change in pension age of one year, as under the 2011 Act, but informed them for the first time about the earlier changes, meaning that some people’s state pension retirement age was being extended by six years.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

As someone who was one year old when the 1995 Act came into effect but is sitting here just like everybody else, may I ask all Members that we get past the party political nonsense of whose fault this is? The mess has been going on for long enough and the current Government are in charge now. This problem is not going away, and the Government need to deal with it.

[Grahame Morris]

Absolutely, and there are things that the Government could do immediately to mitigate the worst cases of hardship. For example, the winter fuel allowance can be worth up to £300. If the Minister is looking for suggestions, that would be a decent start. If the Government were to give the WASPI women that payment each year, they would be able to have some level of comfort during this cold winter weather, but many in my region are having to choose between heating and eating.

[Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the problems date all the way back to 1995 under three or more Governments. Does he agree with many of my constituents who feel that this issue is as much to do with communication as policy? Many of my constituents who are affected tell me that if they had known the effects of the changes in time, they would have been able to respond to them.

[Grahame Morris]

The hon. Gentleman makes a completely reasonable point. I am sure there is common cause across the House—I am looking at the Minister and hoping that common sense can prevail—and there must be an acknowledgement that there was poor communication. I am sure that the Minister is aware that a collective action is being taken by the WASPI women through Bindmans solicitors, and there could be a case of maladministration if the matter is found in their favour.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman and he seems to know what he is talking about. Can he give an idea of how much this will cost? I suspect that there is a range of amounts, but I am curious to know what he thinks would be the right amount of money that could go some way towards putting this right.

[Grahame Morris]

I think there are things that the Government and the Minister could do immediately, and I will come to those a little later—I have set out my suggestions in a sequential way, and they include immediately extending pensions credit to the group. I do not have the costings for that—[Interruption.] My colleagues on the Front Bench inform me that it is £800 million. We could do things with the winter fuel allowance or bus passes, which would offer immediate help to these women.

I alluded to the fundamental point made by the former Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, who said:

“The 2011 Act, which I was responsible for, did not add any more than 18 months to people’s pension age, typically 12 months. But when we did write to people—and we did write to them to tell them what changes we have made—this was the first time they had heard about the first changes. So instead of me writing to them to tell them there was an extra year on the pension age, we were effectively telling them they had six extra years added to their pension age, which is of course why they were outraged”.

Hopefully, we are having a sensible, constructive and meaningful debate, but we should make no mistake—there is real hardship and outrage out there.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is setting out his case beautifully and I congratulate him on securing this debate. As someone who represents a retirement town, many local constituents have raised this issue with me. Most of them have a slightly different point of view and do not object to the principle of the equalisation of pension age at all—indeed, they think it is just and right. They are upset because they say they were not properly advised and did not have time to plan for the changes early enough in their working careers. That is the injustice that those who speak to me feel most strongly.

[Grahame Morris]

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman, with typical alacrity, has hit the nail on the head. Nevertheless, there is an injustice that must be rectified, and the Government need to do that.

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman contend that the changes in 1995 were wrong, or were the changes in 2011 wrong? Many people I have met feel that the 2011 changes were too rapid.

[Grahame Morris]

The fundamental point, which has also been made by Government Members, is the lack of notice about the 1995 changes, and in some cases, the failure to give any notice at all. There is an issue of communication. A number of groups are campaigning on this issue, and there is a general acceptance of the need to equalise state retirement pension age—I do not think there is dispute about that and we are in agreement on it. The issue is the phasing, and the acceleration of that phasing in of the original changes in 1995.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a marvellous speech and I do not want to disagree with him. Does he agree, however, that the equalisation of the pension age for this group of women is not fair? In the era in which they worked, many were responsible for the children and had to undermine their career; they had lower wages and did not make allowances for their pensions. Some have since suffered divorce or a break up, and many of those who come to me in Swansea are becoming impoverished because of this change. It is all very well imagining a future utopian world where there is equal opportunity that justifies an equal pension age, but that is not what has happened to these women. It is quite wrong to say that this issue is just about how they were told about the changes.

[Grahame Morris]

Absolutely. These women are falling off the edge of a cliff owing to the lack of transitional relief. There are many examples of women who made plans to retire at 60 to care for elderly relatives, and of women who worked in arduous, physically demanding employment who really cannot work beyond 60. This huge injustice affects 3.8 million women in this country, and it really needs to be addressed.

[Mr Howarth]

My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. To support that point, I shall quote a woman from Knowsley who was born in June 1955:

“My elderly mother had a stroke and I subsequently became her full-time carer. The last 10 years of her life were particularly difficult as she needed 24-hour care, provided by me. My own health has suffered greatly due to the added pressure and I now find myself unable to work due to ill-health and, at an age when I should now be receiving my state pension, I am forced to attend regular appointments at the DWP and medicals to ascertain my entitlement to ESA. This is soul destroying”.

[Grahame Morris]

Absolutely, and I am sure that every—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds to that intervention, I must make it clear that I am making no criticism of him. He is making a very genuine speech and has a great many points to cover, and he has taken a lot of interventions. I do, however, criticise those people who have made interventions but are not remaining in the Chamber for the rest of the debate. The convention is that the hon. Gentleman introducing the debate should speak for approximately 15 minutes. So far, the hon. Gentleman has had a great deal more than that, but I am not blaming him. He has been very decent in taking interventions from other people, which is good for the pace of the debate, but those who make interventions and then just leave the Chamber are preventing some of the other 32 people who have indicated that they wish to speak from having the chance to do so. So I am asking for a bit of honour. There are to be no more interventions unless they are from people who are going to remain for the whole debate, and the hon. Gentleman ought to bring his remarks to a conclusion soon. However, I am not going to pressure him too much. This is not his fault; it is other people’s fault that he is in this position.

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will press on as I recognise that many Members wish to speak in the debate.

The Government must understand that this is a time-sensitive issue and, as has been said, we need to work cross-party to find a solution. If the Government are unable to do that, they will be letting down a generation of women who are being denied a fair deal on their state pension. In Easington, 4,542 women are affected, and the campaign is looking for justice, not just warm words. The suggestion from my own Front Benchers of early access to a pension credit is a good start, and that could be done immediately, but as a stand-alone option it does not take into account the fact that all the 1950s women have suffered maladministration and loss of income, and that they all deserve recompense.

The cost-neutral suggestion put forward by other hon. Members of an actuarially reduced pension for life asks the women who have been discriminated against to bear the cost of putting right the mistake that was not their fault in the first place. It also condemns women to retirement in pensioner poverty, with all its problems of greater reliance on benefits. Arrangements that address only the additional state pension age increases imposed by the 2011 Act are not good enough. There are also faults with the application of the 1995 Act, and the maladministration suffered by the WASPI women is an issue that the Government are going to have to address sooner or later. The women need recompense, and the Government need to find a solution that will bring relief to all those who are affected.

The Government have repeatedly stated that they are committed to supporting people aged 50 years and over to remain in and return to work. Several policies and initiatives have been put forward to support people to work longer, such as older people’s champions in jobcentres, lifelong learning and apprenticeship opportunities for people of all ages. However, these suggestions completely disregard the issues at the heart of the WASPI campaign. In reality, they are completely unworkable for the majority of WASPI women, as was illustrated by the case highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods).

I was incredibly disappointed that the Budget did not offer any form of help or relief to the WASPI women. I know that some Conservative Members made representations to the Chancellor in all sincerity, and I was disappointed that neither he nor the Prime Minister responded to them. I am rather incredulous that Her Majesty’s Opposition are being attacked for being weak on women’s issues by the Prime Minister. I understand that she herself is a WASPI woman, and I am curious to find out whether she received notification from the DWP about the change in her pension arrangements. Quite simply, women born in the 1950s were not given sufficient notice by the Government that their state retirement age would be increasing. I could go on and give further specific examples, but I do not intend to do so, because I want to leave time for other Members to make contributions. I am sure that they will have examples of their own.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris]

I thank the more than 30 Members who have participated in the debate, either directly through speeches or in the numerous interventions. I hope that the Minister has taken note of what has been said. I am an eternal optimist, perhaps formed by my experiences, and I think that all sides are going to build momentum and bring this campaign to a successful conclusion. I point out to the Minister, with all due respect, that if the maladministration cases are found against the Government, we could be looking at a huge settlement, so it may well be in the Minister’s interests and those of the Government to seek a parliamentary solution. These women, many of whom were in the Gallery today, deserve justice, and we are here to try to deliver that. I hope that Parliament will speak with one voice in support of the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House calls on the Government to publish proposals to provide a non-means tested bridging solution for all women born on or after 6 April 1950 who are affected by changes to the State Pension age in the 1995 and 2011 Pension Acts.

State Pension Age: Women

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Guy Opperman]

I will not give way any more, because I am conscious that 20 Members wish to speak.

Automatic enrolment was introduced in 2012 on a cross-party basis after a considerable amount of time. The important point is that the overall participation in workplace pensions of eligible female employees in 2012 was 58% but, following the introduction of automatic enrolment, the figure increased to 80% in 2016. For males, the figure increased from 52% to 76% in the same period. The private sector has seen the largest increase in participation in workplace pensions, and there was no gender gap in participation rates in 2016.

In the circumstances, I would respectfully point out that the key choice a Government face when seeking to control state pension spend is whether to increase the state pension age or to pay lower pensions, with an inevitable impact on pensioner poverty. The only alternative is to ask the working generation to pay an even larger share of their income to support pensions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

Indeed it has not, and I am sure we will hear many such examples in the debate.

I have heard stories from numerous women affected by the changes of their desperation and fear—and it is fear—about how they will cope in poverty as they wait even longer for their state pension. Does the Minister understand how difficult it is for a woman in her 60s to retrain and gain employment? The job market and the skills needed in today’s workplace are very different from what they were 40 years ago.

[Grahame Morris]

My hon. Friend is making powerful points. Does he agree that the Government have an opportunity to act while the ball is in their court and before the collective action for maladministration compels them to act?

[Alex Cunningham]

That is the case, and I will refer to that matter later in my speech.

We have a system that does not help older people to retrain and get back into meaningful employment. The welfare system has been torn to pieces, disabled people have been humiliated through repeated assessments, and the state pension is becoming increasingly difficult to access.

The Labour party has laid out the approach that we would take to reduce the strain on vulnerable and struggling women. We would extend pension credit to those who were due to retire before the increase in the pension age. That would alleviate the toughest circumstances, and restore the faith and dignity that many people feel they have lost. It would provide support worth up to £155 a week to half a million of the most vulnerable women affected by the increase in the state pension age. We have also proposed allowing those who have been affected to receive their state pension up to two years early at a reduced rate, to give women the choice over what works best for them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Scottish National party on selecting this topic for its Opposition day debate. It is one on which I and many other Members—too many to mention them all—have been working. However, I do wish to mention the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for the sterling work that he has done, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black), and my hon. Friends the Members for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) and for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who have raised this issue time and again and have worked hard to encourage Members from all parts of the House to speak in the debate. I agree with the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) that the motion has been carefully crafted to allow anyone to support it—both Government and Opposition Members—and I urge everyone to do so.

If the Government do not take this opportunity to resolve the issue, I remind them that we will have another big debate on this matter in the Chamber on Wednesday 14 December, and I encourage all Members to come along. I say to Ministers: please do not think that you will get off the hook. If this new Session of Parliament has taught us anything, it is that the Government have been prepared, on more than one occasion, to cover their eyes and ears to pretend that suffering is not happening—on universal credit, employment and support allowance, personal independence payments, food banks and now on WASPI. While I have the attention of Ministers for a very brief period, I therefore want to tell them some of the reasons why they should act.

[Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend and neighbour agree that 5,500 women in Hartlepool have been victimised by the Department for Work and Pensions, and the consequences have been devastating? They have been robbed of the happy retirement that they deserve and forced into food banks and the dysfunctional benefits system.

[Grahame Morris]

Absolutely. It is something that affects every Member. Often we bring up issues that affect only the north, only Scotland or only Wales. This time, people in every constituency are affected.

[Jamie Stone]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Grahame Morris]

I really should not give way, because of the time. I do apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but you will admonish me if I give way, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I recently tabled early-day motion 63, which has been signed by 197 Members. A petition was signed by 107,000 people, which led to the granting of a debate. It will take place next week, if it is necessary—if the Minister does not concede the point tonight. May I remind him that the early-day motion has been signed by Members from every party, every nation and every region in the UK?

Every day, I receive completely heartbreaking letters and emails from women who are in dire financial hardship. Many of them have worked and paid national insurance contributions since they were 16. They now find that the deal that they signed with the Government in good faith has effectively been ripped up. We are talking about a contract and a moral obligation on Government. An unnecessary situation has been created, with a generation of women relying on food banks, selling their homes and being forced to rely on the benefits system. It is degrading, completely unfair and unnecessary.

The failings by consecutive Governments have forced these women, many of whom I have known for years because I live in the constituency that I represent, into poverty and forced them to rely on support from friends and relatives. I am totally convinced of the sincerity of their claim that they knew nothing about the increase in pension age because of the lack of notification. I therefore urge the Government immediately to acknowledge their error, provide all those affected with some level of compensation, and provide those worst affected—those who are waiting six years longer than they had planned before they receive their pension—with some support through a bridging pension. I thank the WASPI women for their support in raising this issue.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate on a matter of some concern to me, because today universal credit is being rolled out in the Easington constituency; mine is one of 45 areas throughout the country in which universal credit is being rolled out this month. Like the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black), I just cannot stand by and listen to some of the comments from Government Members, who speak as if this is an incidental, unimportant and dispassionate matter.

Some Conservative Members imply that there is no hardship or deprivation; they should walk a week in my shoes and come to Horden, to Easington and to the food banks. [Interruption.] Have Conservative Members seen “I, Daniel Blake”? If they have never lived it, it is instructive to try to understand what “digital by default” means. I heard a former Minister, the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), say what a wonderful thing digital by default is to incentivise people and prepare them for work, because many job applications have to be made online. That is absolutely true of job applications, but the fundamental difference with universal credit is that in order to remain live, the application has to be updated daily using a smartphone or a PC. Many of my constituents do not have access to PCs and smartphones. Many of them come to my office begging for food vouchers, and I am allowed to give only three. It is heartbreaking. They have to choose between heating and eating.

How are they supposed to access computers? We have two large centres in the constituency with libraries. Those on the Government Benches are MPs—probably millionaires with comfortable lifestyles—but they do not understand the everyday trials and tribulations of ordinary working people. That is the problem.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

I represent a deprived coastal constituency. I must say, both personally and on behalf of many of my colleagues on the Government Benches, that the idea that we do not listen to our constituents or see the experiences that the hon. Gentleman sees, and the idea that he has a monopoly on compassion, is profoundly offensive.

[Grahame Morris]

The problem is Government Members’ lack of understanding. The Opposition are calmly and rationally putting forward a solution to pause and fix the problem with the roll-out.

[Angela Crawley]

Does the hon. Gentleman remember the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), saying that he could afford to live on benefits of however much per week? Does the hon. Gentleman reckon that anyone on the Government Benches would be able to live on thin air for the next six to 12 weeks while universal credit is rolled out?

[Grahame Morris]

I do recall those remarks, and I do not think it is possible. It would be incredibly instructive if Government Members actually lived on benefits and experienced what it is like.

[Dr Whitford]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern, which I am sure is the concern of many Members present who are due to face roll-out in November, or towards the end of November, that we might end up with constituents with no money for food or heating over Christmas and winter?

[Grahame Morris]

That is precisely the point that I am trying to make. I am afraid that the heat of the moment has tempted me away from the three things that I wanted to say.

As currently constituted, this system will penalise the poor and do nothing to resolve the underlying issues of low pay, housing costs and insecure employment. In my constituency, the Walkers crisp factory is closing down a month before Christmas. One Member on the Conservative Benches said that fewer than 300 people were unemployed in her constituency. I have more than 300 unemployed people from one factory closure.

The East Durham Trust, which is a tremendous initiative in my constituency, is making up food parcels because the Trussell Trust cannot keep up with demand. It is currently raising money to cook food, because some poor people do not have access to cooking facilities. I want to encourage all the good people—not just those on the Opposition Benches and in my area, but on the Government Benches—to donate to such organisations. The East Durham Trust is trying to raise the modest sum of £10,000, which will be matched by Comic Relief. I was at its 10th anniversary event, celebrating the achievements of the community and voluntary sector.

This terrific event was addressed by the chief executive of the East Durham Trust, Malcom Fallow. He spoke to me about a young boy who was attending the community barbecue, which was trying to feed some of the most deprived and vulnerable families in the community of Peterlee in my constituency. He said that the young boy put a burger in his pocket. When he was challenged about it, he said that he was taking it home to feed his hungry sister. That is an indictment in 2017. It is shameful and it should shame this House. It shames me that, in this great country of ours in 2017, children are going hungry because of a flawed benefit system. It is a system that can be fixed, and we have an opportunity to do that tonight.

Communities such as mine are being forced to create their own food banks to feed their neighbours because the current benefit system—I might say the personal independence payment system as well—is not working. I commend the work of the East Durham Trust; it is a fantastic organisation. However, if this Government showed some compassion and reviewed the system, such organisations may not be so necessary.

State Pension Age for Women

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the state pension age for women.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, for the first time in this Session. I thank everyone who has contacted me prior to this debate and all those raising awareness of the issue. I also thank Members for their support for early-day motion 63, which is in my name.

It is a testament to the importance of the issue that though I have been a Member of Parliament for seven years, I have never seen so many MPs in Westminster Hall. Nor have I seen so many people in the Public Gallery. Many others cannot get in. I will be disciplined in my remarks, as you have requested, Sir Edward.

I have been told by Government Members that the proposal in my early-day motion is unrealistic and that no Government would agree with its aims.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I can remember this issue being raised when I was shadow Pensions Minister at the start of the previous Parliament. The situation has been going on for so long, and the Government are doing nothing. Does my hon. Friend agree that they are simply slamming the door in the face of the 1950s women?

[Grahame Morris]

Absolutely. I am grateful for that intervention. If I may develop my argument, there clearly is an opportunity, particularly given the new parliamentary arithmetic, for the Government to do something and put right a wrong and a glaring injustice. Judging by the fact that early-day motion 63 has been signed by Members of every party, there is cross-party support for such a solution.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Most people would agree that it is about time the matter was resolved. In the previous Parliament, before the general election, we had a lot of debates about it. I asked the Minister then responsible to meet a delegation to discuss it, and they refused. Does my hon. Friend not think that that is a disgrace?

[Grahame Morris]

Yes, I do. I understand that any pension changes will always be difficult and contentious, but in this case there has been a clear injustice.

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

My hon. Friend is right that there is an opportunity to put this injustice right. The Conservative manifesto said:

“We abhor social division, injustice, unfairness and inequality.”

The Government have an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is so far as the 1950s women are concerned.

[Grahame Morris]

That is absolutely true. It is widely accepted that many of those affected by the Pensions Act 1995 did not receive adequate notification. As such, they did not have enough time to plan for their retirement.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

It is really good to see my hon. Friend back in good health; I think everyone here would agree. Does he agree that if the Government can find £1 billion to prop themselves up, they can find the money for these women who have contributed to their families, our communities and our economy over so many years? If they can find £1 billion simply to save themselves through a pact with the Democratic Unionist party, they can find the money for these women.

[Grahame Morris]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, there is an opportunity, given the apparent support for such a solution from a substantial number of DUP Members and Conservative Members who were members of the all-party group on state pension inequality for women.

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

I thank my comrade for giving way. There is this mystical letter that so many women are supposed to have received about their retirement age, but I have not met one constituent who received it. The Government say that they do not have enough of a timeframe, but does he agree that many women in this country did not have enough time to prepare for this issue?

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful for that intervention, and I was just about to come on to that point. These are not just my opinions; the former Pensions Minister Steve Webb said the same things. He said:

“I accept that some women did not know about it, and not everybody heard about it at the time.”

In fairness to him, he said that

“it was all over the papers at the time”.—[Official Report, 13 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 54WH.]

However, I do not think that is good enough. The Government have failed to contact anyone affected by the pension increase.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Morris, you can see how many people are trying to get in. You have been very generous taking interventions, but the more interventions we have, the longer your speech and the fewer people who will be able to get in. It is entirely up to you, but you may not want to be too generous with interventions.

[Grahame Morris]

Thank you, Sir Edward. I will give way one more time.

[Dr Whitford]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Would it not be reasonable for women facing a change in pension age of up to five or six years to expect a direct letter? The responses are, “You could have asked”, and, “We had a leaflet”, but why would women ask when they thought they knew what the retirement age was?

[Grahame Morris]

That is an excellent point, well made.

[Mr Keith Simpson (Broadland) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris]

I think the right hon. Gentleman will have heard the admonishment from the Chair, so I am afraid I will have to be disciplined.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Go on, let a Tory in!

[Grahame Morris]

Go on then, I will. I am generous to a fault.

[Mr Simpson]

I am very grateful, and I am aware of the Chair’s advice. I have to declare an interest, in that my wife is one of the women who have been affected. She feels incandescent with rage. She had no correspondence whatever, exactly as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) said.

My second point is that, as I am sure many of the ladies have found out, the website of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is incoherent. I was on it on Sunday morning, and the information that people get is contradictory. I hope the Minister will do something about it.

[Grahame Morris]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I hope that the Minister is taking due note of it. When a large delegation of women adversely affected by the changes came to see me, I checked the HMRC website, and a lot of the information is out of date, even on the number of people affected. I think that 2.4 million was the number originally quoted, but it is now generally accepted that the number is 3.5 million.

[Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Grahame Morris]

I will give way just one more time.

[Mr Hepburn]

My hon. Friend is very generous. Just to place the numbers in context, is he aware that more than 4,000 women in the Jarrow constituency alone have been robbed of their thoughts of a happy retirement? That has been stolen from them by a Tory Government, who are more willing to give a £1 billion bung to the DUP to save their necks in government than they are to look after people who have worked for a lifetime just to be happy in retirement.

[Grahame Morris]

Absolutely. There is a moral argument and a factual argument. I hope the Minister and his advisers will go away and reflect on the debates that have taken place—not just this debate in Westminster Hall, but the number of debates in the previous Parliament where the arguments were soundly put.

I find it difficult to understand how in any other circumstances the House would not consider this issue of inadequate notice—or, indeed, no notice—to be a case of maladministration. Various Members have raised that issue. Had any other public body failed in such a way, whether that was a Government agency or local government, there would rightly be demands for support and compensation for those affected. Those are legitimate demands, and I understand that they have been made collectively on behalf of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign in a joint letter to the Department. I hope the Minister will comment on that.

The decision to accelerate the increases in the state pension further compounded the failings, with an impact on the same cohort that had already been failed by the 1995 Act. Age UK research found that some of the people affected, who had not been aware of the 1995 legislation, now face waits of up to six years more than they had been expecting before they can access their pension.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Grahame Morris]

I will give way one more time. [Laughter.] It is like the last gala plate.

[Derek Twigg]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. To take up his point, it is the human cost that matters here. Some of my constituents have told me that they have taken up, or plan to take up, caring responsibilities and are facing real financial difficulty—and once someone is over 60 it is difficult for them to get a decent job as well. Those are real issues and the Government need to take those points on board. It is about time that the Government listened and found a way forward, rather than burying their head in the sand.

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful for that intervention; indeed, every constituency is affected. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn) said that 4,000 women are affected in his constituency; almost 5,000 are affected in my constituency of Easington. The women deserve both recognition of the injustice that they have suffered and some kind of financial help to alleviate the poverty that many of them are now suffering. I know that we are short of time, but I have heard some harrowing stories from women who have worked all their lives and now, through change of circumstance, have found themselves in the dire situation of having to sell their homes. They are facing enormous financial pressures because of changes in legislation that they were not aware of. That really needs to be put right.

The Labour party intends to extend our commitment to pension credit to hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable women. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) will go into a little more detail about exploring the options for further transitional protections to ensure that all the women have security and dignity in old age.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Grahame Morris]

I will give way, Sir Edward, but just because it is the Minister.

[Guy Opperman]

I accept that I am to be brief, Sir Edward. I want to clarify the hon. Gentleman’s position. I looked at his blog from June 2016, which maintained that the Pensions Act 1995

“timescales were such that they gave sufficient time for people to plan”.

The impression from that blog is that the hon. Gentleman had no criticism of the Act. Is that still the case?

[Grahame Morris]

I do not think that is necessarily a fair reflection. The changes were accelerated in 2011 and, for the record, I do not think that women were given adequate time. In fact, they were not given individual notification that the legislation had changed, and I think that Parliament and Government had a duty to notify all those affected at the earliest opportunity.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

On the point about the abuse of procedure inherent in the non-notification of those affected, is my hon. Friend aware that the WASPI women are now seeking legal advice from Bindmans as to whether the non-notification was improper and indeed an abuse of procedure? Would the money not be much better used by the Government to settle this case, over which they have procrastinated disgracefully?

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful for that very pertinent intervention; it gives the Minister an opportunity to find a solution. I am not sure what the cost of a collective action would be: HMRC suggested £2.4 million; the real figure is probably £3.5 million. If all those cases of maladministration were found against the Government, we could be looking at a huge settlement. Given that the Prime Minister seems to have discovered the magic money tree, perhaps a few leaves could be brought down to mitigate the effects for those who are worst affected.

In this new Parliament, it is my intention to work with all Members, irrespective of party, to secure justice for the WASPI campaigners. As I mentioned before, the arithmetic has changed. It would have been difficult to secure meaningful changes to help the women affected without the support of the Government in the last Parliament. However, we now have that opportunity.

I have received the names of those Members who signed the WASPI pledge and there are 20 Conservative and Democratic Unionist party Members in that number. That is a significant number, for people following the maths—I see the Government Whips here. I am confident that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North will outline the Opposition’s position and the support Labour would offer to the women affected by the changes. However, in this Parliament, the extent and scope of any changes, transitional arrangements, bridging pensions or compensation depend upon those 20 Members from the Conservative party and the DUP. I would say to those 20 right hon. and hon. Members that they hold the balance of power on this issue.

I urge the Government to take a pragmatic approach. I am concerned that, to date, the Department for Work and Pensions has failed to provide an adequate and substantive response to the letter from Bindmans, the legal representatives of the WASPI campaign, which my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) raised. That has highlighted the maladministration by the Government—

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has now been speaking for 15 minutes. As a courtesy to his colleagues, will he please come to a conclusion?

[Grahame Morris]

I urge the Government to acknowledge their error, provide all those affected with some level of compensation, and provide those worst affected—those who are waiting six years longer than they had planned before they receive their pension—with some support to bridge the gap between 60 and 66.

I end with a quote from the DUP manifesto. I must confess that in all my days I never thought I would quote from the DUP manifesto; this may be my one and only opportunity to do so. It says that they would

“support an end to the unfair treatment of women pensioners.”

Alongside the Conservative MPs who have signed the WASPI pledge, we have the numbers to change this policy. I ask the Minister to take this opportunity, secure the change that is needed and provide dignity in retirement for all the women penalised by the changes.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. In view of the very large number of hon. Members wishing to take part and my intention to try to call as many as possible, I must now impose a two-minute limit on speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

I will not, because I have a lot of points to make. The strategy aims to increase the retention, retraining and recruitment of older workers, and bring about a change in employers’ perceptions and attitudes—surely something that we would all endorse and wish for. We know that many people approaching the state pension age want to continue working or would like to be in work, and we have changed the law to abolish the default retirement age. I do urge colleagues to read the strategy.

After extensive debate, the 1995 Act changed the 55-year-old status quo by equalising pension ages for men and women at 65, with that change taking place between 2010 and 2020, depending on age. That statute was debated at length, and the changes were then the subject of widespread advertising, debate, leaflets, letters and 16 million state pension forecasts.

I am not here to criticise the 1995 to 1997 Conservative Government, nor the 1997 to 2010 Labour Government; I suggest that they made real efforts to communicate the change passed by Parliament in 1995. I rely in support of that on what the hon. Member for Easington said when he wrote of the 1995 Act in his blog in June 2016:

“The timescales were such that they gave sufficient time for people to plan for their new circumstances, and legislation was already in place that would have seen the equalised State Pension Age rise…in gradual stages”.

[Grahame Morris]

I ask the Minister to recognise that the issue was not the timescale; everyone agrees that 15 years is enough time. I was trying to highlight in my blog that the individuals were not given notice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris]

I thank all Members from all parties and on both sides who have attended the debate and spoken with such passion on behalf of WASPI women. In defence of the Minister, who is a good and honourable man, I hope he will have a chance to reflect on the arguments that have been made and the passions that are running high, and apply the principles of natural justice to the women affected by these changes. As a nation, we owe a debt of honour to the WASPI women, many of whom are now in ill health, who have paid their contributions and who are not looking for apprenticeships at age 64 but for some recognition of their contribution—sometimes over 44 or 45 years or more. I ask the Minister to discharge his responsibilities; otherwise, the people may discharge this Government.

Question put and negatived.

Supported Housing: Benefit

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Before I move the motion, I take the opportunity to welcome the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and members of his team to their posts.

I beg to move,

That this House notes that the Government intends to cut housing benefit for vulnerable people in specialist housing, including elderly people and people who are homeless, disabled or fleeing domestic violence; believes that this will have harmful effects on current and future tenants of these specialist housing schemes; further notes that there is already a significant shortfall in this type of housing provision across the country; notes that charities, housing associations, councils and others have made Government Ministers aware of the damaging impact these cuts will have on tenants and the financial viability of these schemes and that the Government’s proposal to mitigate these cuts with discretionary housing payments will not compensate for these cuts; notes that the Government’s own evidence review into the impact of its decision, commissioned in December 2015, has yet to be published; notes that the Government has postponed the implementation of these cuts for new tenants to April 2017 but plans to fully roll out its planned cuts to housing benefit in April 2018; and therefore calls on the Government to exempt supported housing from its planned housing benefit cuts and to consult fully with supported housing providers to identify ways in which all vulnerable people who need supported housing can access it.

Six months ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) led an Opposition day debate on the Government’s decision to cap housing benefit support for vulnerable people in specialist housing. The decision will affect elderly citizens, our armed forces veterans, those with disabilities, people with learning difficulties and people with mental health problems. It will hit homeless people and it will jeopardise the safety of people fleeing domestic violence.

Following pressure from the Opposition Benches, and concerns raised by Members on the Government Benches, there was an interesting debate last week led by the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). A campaign has been mounted across the country by community groups and housing providers. I was pleased that the Government agreed to delay the implementation of the cap, but I press Ministers now to go one step further. They must reverse their decision to slash housing benefit for a huge range of vulnerable people living in supported housing. What kind of country would we be if we abandoned the most vulnerable in our society? What kind of message will it send, not just to the country and to vulnerable people but to observers around the world, about the priorities of this Government?

What credibility will be left for the outgoing Prime Minister’s repeated assertion that the Government would not balance the books on the backs of the poorest? Unless Ministers reverse that destructive decision, that is precisely what they will be doing. I am willing to give way to the Secretary of State if he is prepared to stand at the Dispatch Box, say that he will reverse the decision and make the announcement that we are all hoping for. To implement that decision would be a damning legacy for the former Prime Minister and a broken promise to those who can least afford it. The decision is not just detrimental to the most vulnerable members of society; in purely financial terms, it makes no sense.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is becoming more difficult for people to get housing benefit, and that in some instances, it might not be adequate?

[Grahame M. Morris]

Indeed, that is the case. The groups I originally listed are some of the most vulnerable in society—they are people who should be protected and who require supported housing. If the Government proceed on their intended course, some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people will be further disadvantaged, and the cost to the taxpayer and the Exchequer will be greater.

The Government’s proposal does not make financial sense, and it leaves the providers of supported housing in an invidious position. I know that housing providers—I have met many of them—breathed a collective sigh of relief when the decision to cap support was delayed pending a review, but they are still left in a very precarious position, with the sword of Damocles hanging over the services they provide.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne pointed out in a debate in the House on 27 January, unless the Government reverse this pernicious proposal, 156,000 units of supported and sheltered housing may have to close.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have received a letter from the New Charter housing group, which operates social housing in the Tameside part of my constituency. New Charter hits the nail on the head when it says that, as a result of this proposal, it

“will not have the income to sustain the provision of supported housing”

and

“will inevitably see the closure of some schemes.”

It adds:

“Many of these supported and sheltered schemes”

in Tameside will

“become financially unviable”.

Is that not exactly what will happen up and down the country if these cuts continue?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point in a very concise way. [Interruption.] A member of the Government is saying from a sedentary position, “They don’t know,” but the situation is absolutely clear. The point I am trying to make is that housing providers need certainty over their income streams before they can plan for new provision—that is a reasonable point, which I am sure is not beyond the understanding of Ministers with a financial background.

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

Is it not important to do this review, with housing benefit being rolled into universal credit? There is scaremongering that there are going to be cuts, but people do not actually know what the outcome is going to be, so let us have a constructive discussion during the review and give some certainty to the sector.

[Grahame M. Morris]

With respect, I must point out that Government decisions should be based on evidence. Before embarking on a plan and a policy, it would be sensible to look at the evidence objectively and scientifically. If the hon. Lady wants expert opinion, I am happy to give her that and to quote the chief executive of the National Housing Federation, David Orr, who met the then Housing Minister on 18 December last year. He said—this is an expert in the field—that the impact of the local housing allowance cap will be

“stark and make it extremely difficult for any housing associations to develop new supported housing.”

He also said:

“providers across the country will be forced to close schemes.”

There is plenty of evidence of that, and I am sure that Members on both sides of the House have had representations from housing associations and housing providers.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that a research project is now looking at this evidence? That conflicts with his motion on the Order Paper, which says:

“the Government intends to cut housing benefit for vulnerable people”.

That is pure scaremongering.

[Grahame M. Morris]

It is a matter of fact. It is a kind of chicken-and-egg situation: surely you review the evidence before you announce a decision and then put it on hold. I believe the review was started in 2015—perhaps the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—so why are we still waiting for the results? Why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer make an autumn statement that had huge implications for some of the most vulnerable people living in supported housing, without looking at the evidence first?

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I will give way this once, and then I would like to make a little more progress.

[Richard Fuller]

I do hope the hon. Gentleman will talk about the 20 years prior to this review, when there was no review. For many years under the Labour Government, there was no review of what was happening with the additional housing benefit for people in supported housing or of how it was being spent. Does he remember that in the last debate on this issue, many people said they did not know where that money was? They did not know how much money was being spent, what it was being spent on or whether it was effective. Are the Government not therefore absolutely right to conduct this review and then to come forward with their proposals? Is he really not just scaremongering?

[Grahame M. Morris]

We have to deal with the position we now find ourselves in. Demand for supported housing has changed and increased dramatically. One million people rely on food banks, which certainly was not the case 10 years ago. We have a huge problem with people suffering from mental health problems and learning difficulties. We have a debt to our armed services personnel—our veterans—many of whom have post-traumatic stress disorder and need supported housing.

There are therefore new factors that we need to take account of, but, if I may be so presumptuous, it is surely the job of the Government to commission the studies. [Interruption.] Well, indeed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne and my noble Friend Lord Beecham—or Jeremy Beecham, as we know him—have tabled a series of questions and got the answer that Ministers do not know. That is a bit of an indictment of Ministers, who are supposed to compile an evidence base on which to make decisions.

Looking again at the advice of professionals, we see that the National Housing Federation estimates that a staggering 80% of the total planned new build will not be built.

[Richard Fuller]

indicated dissent.

[Grahame M. Morris]

The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head, but this is—[Interruption.] In practical terms it means that 9,270 specialist homes will not be built—[Interruption.] I will tell the hon. Gentleman why that is, because he is chuntering.

[Richard Fuller]

I’m sceptical.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Sorry, the hon. Gentleman is sceptical. The reason is that providers need certainty; without certainty they cannot proceed. Often, they are raising funding for these schemes—I can see the Minister for Housing and Planning nodding in agreement—and they need certainty when going to the market. Where there is uncertainty, they cannot raise the necessary funding. On that basis, as responsible organisations—they are a mixture of local authorities, housing associations, charities, charitable trusts and so on—they cannot reasonably go on to build the supported housing units I think everyone in the House agrees we need.

There is another effect as well. That situation, in turn, has a knock-on effect on the construction industry. The jobs that would have been created, and that I think we all want, will not now happen. This is an important sector, and we should be growing it, not allowing it to contract. At a time when house building outside London remains in the doldrums, that will be another setback for the industry and the economy.

How on earth can Ministers expect supported housing providers to continue, when they know that spending cuts and other policy decisions have already hit people living in supported housing schemes? Supported housing provides vital help for tens of thousands of people across this country. It is mark of a decent, civilised society that services such as this exist in the first place. They play a crucial role in providing a safe and secure home with support so that people can live independently and others can get their lives back on track. As I mentioned, that includes supporting ex-servicemen and women to find a stable home, including those suffering from post-traumatic problems, and with mental health needs and physical disability needs.

I remind the House of the armed forces covenant, which sets out the relationship between the nation, the Government and the armed forces. It recognises that the nation as a whole and this House in particular have a moral obligation—I call it a debt of honour—to members of the armed forces and their families. It establishes how they should expect to be treated and how we should expect to treat them. I am an eternal optimist—I am a Sunderland supporter and we have escaped four times—but if Ministers do not do a U-turn today, they will be breaking that covenant with our veterans and those who have given so much in service to their country.

In addition to ex-servicemen and women, many older people also rely on supported housing to maintain their independence. These elderly citizens have worked all their lives and paid their taxes, only to find in the autumn of their lives that their Government are turning their back on them. Personally, I think that that is morally indefensible and a betrayal of a generation that gave us the welfare state and the national health service.

I know that some of my hon. Friends are going to address the issue of victims of domestic violence, who are another important group. Over time, a number of Members—not just Opposition Members, but Government Members—have raised concerns about the closure of homes for victims of domestic violence. I understand that at least 34 such establishments have closed, and I am advised by housing associations that all eight in my own region are at risk of closure, including that in my own constituency.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about domestic violence refuges, but this Government committed £40 million in the autumn statement for services for victims of domestic abuse, which is a tripling of funding compared with the previous four years. Does he not welcome that?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I welcome the Government’s commitment to providing that specific support, but the problem is that the hostels, establishments and places of safety are disappearing. Places of safety are needed, mostly for women, but also for some men who have suffered violence and threats of death. It would be a terrible indictment of the Government if they allowed such establishments to be closed.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

On the £40 million, which has yet to be allocated, and the £10 million gift before the election, the bids for money to be allocated to Refuge were submitted with sustainability plans for the future based on housing benefit at its current rate. The Government signed off on every single one of those plans, but then, dishonestly, went back on them.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful for that instructive intervention.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing up the important issue of domestic abuse services. I am sure that he will agree with the concerns expressed to me by De Gwynedd Domestic Abuse Service and many other agencies that arrangements for abuse sufferers under the age of 35 when they are moving out of refuges may well put victims at risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

I completely agree. This is a very real concern that affects the constituencies of Members on both sides of the House. I shudder to think what the consequences will be if these facilities are allowed to close. It would be simple for the Secretary of State to announce from the Dispatch Box that he will do a U-turn on supported housing. The whole House and the country would breathe a sigh of relief if he did that.

Homeless people are another defenceless and vulnerable group who can and do benefit from supported housing. Supported housing for homeless people with complex and multiple needs, such as mental health problems, can help them to make the transition from life on the streets into a settled home. It can help them with education, training, life skills and normal socialisation. It also helps homeless people in desperate circumstances to stabilise their lives, and it can assist them into employment and a stable future. In short, it brings dignity back into homeless people’s lives and enables them to participate fully in society once again. It can also provide huge savings for our criminal justice system.

There has already been a steep rise in rough sleeping since the coalition Government came to power in 2010. That has been caused by a number of factors, not least the combined impact of rising rents, cuts to housing benefit allowances, which have affected younger people in particular, and reductions in services that local authorities can offer to vulnerable people on the brink of homelessness. Unless the Government have a rethink about the housing benefit system, there will be a further rise in homelessness. The inherent cost to the Treasury and society must not be pushed to one side. Are Ministers seriously suggesting that, in the sixth richest economy in the world, this country cannot provide that vital assistance to homeless people?

I have heard Ministers waxing lyrical about the importance of mental health provision, and I absolutely agree with them. It should be a priority and they have said that it must be a higher priority. People with significant mental health needs often have to utilise supported housing—the hon. Member for Waveney made this point in an Adjournment debate last week—to stabilise their lives and live more independently. If the Government’s rhetoric about prioritising mental health means anything, Ministers must not proceed with the plans to slash housing benefit for supported housing.

People with learning disabilities also need supported housing. I declare an interest, because I have an association with Mencap and Golden Lane Housing. In fact, I met the previous Minister, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), who is in his place, to discuss some specific points. If Ministers are really serious about helping people with learning disabilities and learning difficulties to maximise their independence and to exercise choice and control over their lives, they cannot possibly countenance these cuts.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

I remember that meeting, which made it clear why this review cannot be rushed. Many unique challenges have to be supported through supported housing, and it is right and proper that the Government do not rush this. Crucially, support in the short term remains in place. That view has been echoed by Denise Hatton, the chief executive of the YMCA, who has said:

“It is positive that the Government has listened to the concerns of the sector and we welcome the fact it has taken appropriate action to protect supported housing.”

We cannot rush this, because that is how mistakes will happen.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for the courteous way in which he met the delegation from Mencap. As a basic principle, however, surely we should compile the evidence and assess it before making a decision, but the Government have made an announcement, and that has introduced uncertainty. That is why schemes have been cancelled and why housing providers are giving notice of their intention to close facilities. A basic principle needs to be applied. The amount of time that the review has taken—I think it is of the order of 19 months or so—is another issue. Does it really have to take that long to have an impact study on which the Government can base their policy?

I will make progress because a lot of right hon. and hon. Members want to take part and I do not want to stifle their contributions. In my opening remarks, I said that these cuts make no financial sense. I remind Ministers that the Government’s own Home and Communities Agency has found that supported housing provision has a net positive financial benefit of about £640 million for the UK taxpayer every year. Rather than cutting provision for supported housing, the Government should now expand and improve it. The National Housing Federation has calculated that there is a current shortfall of 15,640 supported housing placements, so there is already considerable pressure on the sector. I have mentioned some of the reasons for that. Local authorities, housing associations, charities and other providers in this sector really want to deliver the supported housing that the people of this country need, but delivering this ambition is virtually impossible because the Government have made the operating environment so uncertain.

Incredibly, in last year’s autumn statement, the then Chancellor introduced the cap on housing benefit to local housing allowance levels without the Government actually knowing what its impact would be. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne highlighted this point when he spoke at this Dispatch Box in January. Before the debate, he had asked Ministers for evidence about the impact of the decision. Specifically, if memory serves, he asked the Minister—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

Not me.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Perhaps I am mistaken and it was one of the Minister’s colleagues.

My right hon. Friend asked how many elderly people, how many women fleeing from domestic violence, how many people with mental health problems and how many young people leaving care would be affected, but, incredibly, the then Minister for Housing and Planning was not able to provide an answer. If the Government do not know how many people in supported housing are in receipt of housing benefit, how can we expect them to make a decision? It is absolutely vital to have such information to hand to make an informed decision. Ministers did not know what a profound impact their decision would have on providers and on the people who depend on these services, and it seems that they still do not know, unless they are just not answering questions on this.

To be fair, Ministers did commission an evidence review, but that was back in January 2015. Even though the review had not reported on its findings at the time of the last autumn statement, the then Chancellor still ploughed on regardless. Six months ago, my right hon. Friend was assured that the review would be ready later this year. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), teased us in the Adjournment debate last week by suggesting that the review would be published imminently.

Did Ministers know what the impact would be when the Chancellor included this decision in his autumn statement? They did not know what the impact of their decision would be—that is for sure—when the issue was debated in this House six months ago. That raises the question: what is happening, and when will we know?

When it comes to making policy, Ministers are old hands at making policy in an evidence-free zone. The use of evidence to develop policy seems to be an alien concept to the Government, but I would have thought it was in the natural order of things. This is something of a travesty. Although the Government’s evidence review seems to have ground to a halt, Ministers cannot claim to be completely ignorant. After all, the providers of supported housing have made their feelings known. I am sure that Ministers—even those in the new ministerial team—have met housing associations, charities and providers. We have met them regularly, and they have made their views absolutely plain.

I have mentioned the views of David Orr. He has said that housing

“providers across the country will be forced to close schemes.”

He has described the difference between supported housing and general needs social housing and explained why rents in supported housing are higher. He has pointed out that

“the uncertainty about the future approach is already leading to supported housing under development being delayed or cancelled because of the long lead times involved in investment and development.”

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is being most generous in giving way. He mentioned an “evidence-free zone”, but all I have noted so far from his speech are continual references to David Orr of the National Housing Federation. There are more voices in this industry than his. Is not the process the Government are going through about taking on those voices, and about gathering and discussing the information? There is not therefore an evidence-free zone.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to the Minister—[Interruption.] I am sure it is just a matter of time. This is a terribly confusing time.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right that there is a plethora of housing providers. I have met and received evidence from Mencap, Golden Lane Housing, Rethink Mental Illness and Changing Lives, as well as various housing associations, such as North Star and the Durham Aged Mineworkers Homes Association, and the National Housing Federation itself, all of which have raised concerns about supported housing in particular sectors. I have not listed those supporting members of the forces, but there is a similar thread and strand bringing this all together.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Before my hon. Friend finishes his long list, which could possibly be even longer, may I remind him that the YMCA is desperately concerned about these proposals? We should place that concern on the record. I cannot believe anyone in this House wishes to destroy all the good work that the YMCA has undertaken.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out what an important role the YMCA plays in providing supported accommodation for young people, particularly those leaving care and those in the younger age bracket.

It is important that we look at the evidence. I do not think that the sums add up. Ministers seem to be drawn to an evidence-free policy, but surely it should be obvious to them that a local discretionary scheme will not work. Ministers have previously said that discretionary schemes can assist in mitigation, but that does not alleviate the uncertainty. Providers of supported housing need certainty in the rental stream to fund the cost of managing these schemes and to service the loan charges incurred in developing them in the first place. Any reasonable person—let alone a Minister—will know that people cannot rely on a fluctuating income stream to service the cost of a loan. If Ministers persist with this ham-fisted plan—let me call it that—existing supported housing schemes will close, new supported housing schemes will be cancelled and some of the most vulnerable people will be left to fend for themselves.

The new Prime Minister once talked about the Conservative party as the “nasty party”. When she spoke on the steps of No. 10, she said she wanted

“a country that works for everyone”.

The Government have an opportunity today to prove that the Prime Minister meant what she said just seven days ago, but if the newly appointed Ministers refuse to listen to reason and proceed with these callous cuts, they will be demonstrating that the Conservatives have not really changed and truly deserve their label as the “nasty party”. I commend the motion to the House.