Social Security Advisory Committee: Winter Fuel Payment

Helen Whately Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when she plans to respond to the Social Security Advisory Committee’s letter, published on 17 October 2024, on the means-testing of winter fuel payments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Emma Reynolds)]

We welcome the letter from the chair of the Social Security Advisory Committee. We were hoping to respond to the letter on the day of the Budget. Regrettably, there has been an unexpected further delay, and we are due to issue the response this week. However, my officials met the committee in August to discuss the regulations, prior to the committee’s formal scrutiny in early September.

I want to explain briefly why it is important to invoke the urgency procedure in this case. We needed to make the necessary Exchequer savings in the current financial year, as the regulations needed to come into force on 16 September. The previous Government left us with a £22 billion black hole, with Treasury reserves spent three times over. The day-to-day departmental spending set out by the previous Government in their spring Budget was not even close to reality. It is now up to us to clear up the mess of the previous Government, so we had to take some difficult decisions, such as means-testing the winter fuel payment, but we remain determined to do everything possible to support the poorest pensioners.

We have taken immediate action to increase the take-up of pension credit, working with charities and local authorities and through a campaign in print and broadcast media. The Government have written to more than 12 million pensioners about the changes to means-testing the winter fuel payment. We have also written to 120,000 pensioners on housing benefit, who could be entitled to pension credit, to encourage them to claim. We have extended the household support fund until March 2026. Thanks to our steadfast commitment to the triple lock, more than 12 million pensioners will see their state pension rise by up to £470 next year, and up to £1,900 over the course of this Parliament. The warm home discount, which we heard about a minute ago, is worth £150 off energy bills for low-income households. The warm homes plan will in the longer term insulate 5 million more homes.

By taking these difficult decisions, we were able to provide a cash injection of £22.6 billion to the NHS budget, which is the largest real-terms growth in day-to-day NHS spending—outside of covid—since 2010. That will bring down waiting times for people across the country, including many pensioners. We are taking the responsible and difficult decisions to clear up the mess of the previous Government, to fix the foundations of our economy and rebuild our public services.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Helen Whately]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.

This Government made a choice to take away the winter fuel payment from 10 million pensioners this winter and to rely on the notoriously under-claimed pension credit as a system of means-testing it. That choice will make life harder for pensioners across the country. It will see 750,000 of the poorest pensioners miss out on much-needed help with the cost of heating, and according to the Labour party’s own research, it could lead to 4,000 additional deaths this winter. The Government know that. That is why they have not done an impact assessment. Perhaps it is why, after seven weeks, they still have not responded to the concerns of their own advisory committee.

The committee wrote the Secretary of State a letter containing its concerns about how the policy will affect the poorest people. It said that 70% of disabled pensioners will miss out on their payment this winter, and it suggested expanding the eligibility for winter fuel payments beyond pension credit because the committee knows that the Government’s savings are based on a third of the poorest pensioners missing out. In direct contrast to the Government, the committee said that

“a more detailed assessment is urgently required”,

as colleagues from all parts of the House—including Labour Members—charities and pensioner groups across the country have also said.

Here we are, seven weeks later, and the Secretary of State is yet to even respond to the advisory committee. In fact, she is not even here to answer this urgent question. I ask the Minister: will the Government now, after seven weeks, respond to their own advisory committee? Will they now, after seven weeks, publish a full impact assessment for everyone to see? Does she accept that her Government have got this wrong? Does she recognise that they have negligently underestimated how many people will fall through the cracks? I suspect that deep down she is worried, as I am, about pensioners who cannot afford to heat their homes. I am sure her Secretary of State has been lobbying the Chancellor behind the scenes—perhaps that is where she is right now, instead of being here. Will the hon. Lady go back to her Chancellor one more time and try to make her think again?

[Emma Reynolds]

I do apologise for the delay in responding to the committee’s letter; it is regrettable. The initial delay, as I set out, was because we were waiting for the OBR to come forward with its costings of the policy. Then there was another, unexpected delay. There has been a delay—[Interruption.] I do not know why I am being heckled; I am trying calmly to explain why there has been a delay, for which I do apologise. We will issue a response very shortly, and certainly by the end of the week. It is important that we respond to that letter. I respect that the hon. Lady is asking that question.

Regarding the public sector equality duty, we have done everything in line with the duty, which is to provide an equality analysis of the decision that we have taken. As hon. Members will know, that analysis was published in September. However—I say this gently—after the election we found ourselves in a situation of having a £22 billion black hole, with Treasury reserves spent three times over. The OBR has said that its assessment of the previous Government’s Budget would have been materially different had it known the pressures on spending and the real situation in the Treasury. I note that the hon. Lady does not come with an apology.

We have had to take the decision to means-test winter fuel payments. We did not want to do that, but we have had to take some difficult decisions to clear up the mess, to tackle our fiscal inheritance and to start rebuilding our public services, which pensioners across the country and many others rely on.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Whately Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the new shadow Secretary of State, and welcome her to her post.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

May I say how nice it is to be sitting opposite the right hon. Lady again, albeit, regrettably, having swapped places with her? I enjoyed our exchanges on social care during the last Parliament, and appreciated our constructive conversations during the pandemic, although, given how well she knows the care brief, I suspect that she was gutted, as I was, to see the incoming Government abandon the care cap and scrap more than £50 million of funding for social care training. The consistent feedback from jobcentres was that the biggest barrier to young people taking up job opportunities in social care was lack of career progression, hence our reforms to create a career path for care workers and investment in training. Has the right hon. Lady spoken to her counterpart in the Department of Health and Social Care about the impact of those social care cuts on her ambitions to get more young people working or learning?

[Liz Kendall]

I, too, welcome the hon. Lady to her post. As she has said, while we will always have our political differences we have also worked closely and constructively on issues that matter across the House, such as the terrible problems facing social care during the pandemic. I will continue that work, and I hope that the hon. Lady will as well, in her new role.

The hon. Lady asked about the impact of what is happening in social care on people’s opportunities and chances to learn. I have already had many discussions with, among others, members of integrated care boards, and they are passionate about the opportunities that exist to get more people into work and enable them to get on in their work, including jobs in social care. Joined-up working between the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Work and Pensions will be at the heart of our plans to get Britain working, because, unlike some Opposition Members, we do not find it acceptable for 2.8 million people to be locked out of the workforce owing to long-term sickness. We have a proper plan to get Britain working and growing again.

[Helen Whately]

The right hon. Lady will know that under the Conservative Government youth unemployment fell by 380,000, and that we were tackling inactivity with our WorkWell programme, helping people to stay in work or return to work, which I am delighted to see the right hon. Lady continuing. Unfortunately, however, as a result of her Government’s Budget and Employment Rights Bill, businesses will slash the number of their employees. Moreover, the Government have just broken another promise and hiked up university fees. What advice would the right hon. Lady give a young person who is currently out of work and education, and must choose between worse job prospects and more expensive university degrees thanks to her Government’s choices?

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Lady’s party left nearly a million young people not in education, employment or training, and almost a record number of people—2.8 million— out of work owing to long-term sickness. They failed to introduce reforms to join up work, health and skills properly, and they have not learnt from those mistakes. I am proud that this Government are investing an extra £240 million to get Britain working again, giving people the opportunities that they need to work and build a better life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the shadow Secretary of State.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

The Conservatives are the party of work and aspiration, and once again, we left office with unemployment at a historic low. We all know that Labour always leaves unemployment higher than when it came into office, but rarely has it seemed in such a hurry to achieve that. Its first Budget will, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, cost the country 50,000 jobs in the next few years alone. What assessment has the right hon. Lady made of the cost to her Department of those job losses?

[Liz Kendall]

May I gently say this to the hon. Lady? She should be apologising, because we have record numbers of people out of work due to long-term sickness; one in eight young people is not in education, employment or training; and people are locked out of the world of work because the Conservatives failed to make proper plans to get people into work and on in their work. Until Conservative Members face up to their responsibilities, and to the cost to the taxpayer of their mistakes in not getting people with long-term sickness into work—£25 billion extra over the course of the forecast period—they will remain on the Opposition Benches.

[Helen Whately]

I wonder if the Secretary of State did not hear my earlier question; I said that I was grateful that she is continuing the work that we did in government, through the WorkWell programme, to help people in ill health into work by joining up healthcare and employment. However, the point I was just making, to which she did not respond, was that 50,000 jobs will be lost as a result of Labour’s Budget. That is not the only thing frightening the life out of businesses at the moment—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady can keep pointing at me, but this is topical questions, and I have all these Back Benchers to get in, so questions really need to be shorter.

[Helen Whately]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Budget is not the only thing frightening the life out of businesses at the moment. Labour’s Employment Rights Bill is a wrecking ball for the UK labour market. Labour’s own impact assessment predicts that businesses could cut staff—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I did make the suggestion that you might come to the end of your question, but you decided to carry on reading, so I will have to stop you. I call the Secretary of State.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Whately Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the hon. Lady for drawing that to my attention. I am aware of the changes that need to be made and some of the things that have already been addressed, but I will write to her further to set out how we are addressing exactly what she raises.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

The roll-out of universal credit is going well in my constituency. Work coaches have told me—[Interruption.] Jobcentre work coaches have told me how they value being able to give extra help to my constituents to help them into work. Will my right hon. Friend advise me what work she is doing to ensure that housing benefit payments reach the landlords of some of my most vulnerable constituents?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I know she shares my concern that we must ensure that universal credit addresses the needs of the most vulnerable and that, where it needs to be paid directly to landlords, it can be. It is right that we have tried to limit that, but it is also right that we do not have one system that does not take into account the particular needs of the most vulnerable in our society. As we have had the opportunity to discuss, I will be looking further at what else can be done.

Universal Credit

Helen Whately Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

We are learning as we go along, which is what the “test and learn” process is all about. I hope that the hon. Lady will appreciate the roll-out of the landlord portal and the ability to upload childcare costs. The changes we are making are helping the very people whom require that help: her constituents and mine.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

I welcome how universal credit is encouraging and enabling people to do more work, but will my hon. Friend assure me that those for whom work is a real challenge, such as single parents of pre-school children, will have sufficient income under universal credit?

[Alok Sharma]

As I have just said, 85% of childcare costs can be recouped under universal credit, which is an improvement on the legacy system.

The Secretary of State’s Handling of Universal Credit

Helen Whately Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

So that is twice we have not had an apology from the Opposition.

I now move back to tax credits. Tax credits were introduced in 2003 with an error rate, I am told, of 10% to 14%. Some people call this Brown’s burden—or maybe it is just Labour’s burden. I offer this opportunity now: does anybody on the Opposition Front Bench want to apologise for those tax credits and the mistakes therein? Whether it is on scaremongering or on one of the reasons we brought in universal credit—the failings of the tax credits system—we see that nobody is prepared to apologise.

It is not that we cannot all make mistakes. We have all made mistakes on various scales. But for the only mistake I ever made in this House, I just apologised. Most people think you do that in everyday life, but in this House the Opposition do not apologise, whereas I am prepared to do so.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

A constituent of mine recently asked when they would be able to move on to universal credit because they had heard very good things about the support and flexibility it could provide. Is it not important to continue to roll out universal credit to give more people the opportunity to go on to a better benefit?

[Ms McVey]

My hon. Friend is quite right. She is referring to the real people who are going on this benefit who want an opportunity to have a chance. This is not about a politician who is here to oppose—and I understand that—but people who say, “We’d like to go on this new benefit and we’d like to have a simpler system.”

The motion on the Order Paper says that “20% of claimants” are

“unable to make a claim online”.

Well, I will break down the figures so that we all know what happened here. The claimants survey shows that 98% of people successfully make a claim online. Here are the figures that underpin that: 54% make their claim on their own; 21% had help from others, including organisations like Citizens Advice and family members; and 20%—I am assuming that this is the 20% the Opposition are talking about—had help from jobcentre staff. That is what this benefit system is about—people need help and support. We know that some of them might not be able to use IT. We have brought in this system because in this modern age where technology is vital, people can only get a job if they can go online. We are now going to provide that universal support to allow people to go online. We have put £200 million into local authorities to help and support people with budgeting and IT. I will offer Opposition Front Benchers the opportunity to apologise for putting out this information. Would they like to take that opportunity now? It seems they are not doing to be doing that now.

I go back to the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) about fact checks in the Department and what happened there. He is looking for the timeline. I left here having checked what was going on. I then asked the Department to go through the various bits that we did together and said that there were various elements within the letter. That night, I checked it again, and so it was Tuesday when I asked for permission to come to the House. The timeline on which I was allowed to do it—he is quite right—was 48 hours later, but actually it was Tuesday when I asked to come to the House. I then met Amyas Morse on Monday and we discussed the various elements of the report. As I said, I have faith in the organisation—of course I do—but that does not mean that you always have to come to the same conclusion—the same judgments—from a report. I am rather surprised—or maybe not—that so many Opposition Members talk about auditors in another way. People can look at different sets of facts and come to a different result, which is what we did.

I said it was unfortunate that the NAO could not have taken into account all the impacts of those changes; that was not anything against the organisation. Those changes came in in January, February and April, so the NAO could not have taken them into account. I was not casting any aspersions on the organisation. It is interesting to note that paragraph 2.34 of the NAO’s report says:

“It is too early to assess the impact of this change.”

It says that in the report. In that instance, which is what we were talking about, it was too early to have felt the impacts of all those changes, and that is the crunch of it. When I misspoke, I corrected myself, but the impacts of the changes could not have been felt.

Universal Credit

Helen Whately Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

We need to separate two parts of this. One bit is where I came myself to the House to apologise for using the wrong words. I used the words “faster rate” and “speeded up” on the premise that the report had said there was no practical alternative but to continue with universal credit and that there had been a regrettable slowing down. My interpretation of that was incorrect, which is why I came to the House yesterday and apologised for my words. We should separate that from the impact of the changes. I said—and I stand by this—that the impact of the changes could not have been felt because it was still being rolled out and those impacts were still being felt and therefore could not have been taken into account. We need to separate where I used the incorrect words, for which I came to the House to apologise, from the impacts of the changes and therefore the conclusions that can be drawn.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

While my right hon. Friend has apologised, could she confirm that the Labour party has yet to apologise for its misleading statements—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry but questions must be about the policy of the Government, not about other people not apologising for other things. [Interruption.] Order. I do not need any help in these matters. I do have some experience. The hon. Lady is a most assiduous Member, but this is an exploration of Government policy and ministerial accountability to the House. It is not about the Opposition. Sorry, but that is the position.

[Helen Whately]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

No, the hon. Lady has already had one bite at the cherry. Let us have a masterclass from Sir Desmond Swayne.

Universal Credit and Welfare Changes

Helen Whately Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

This is the same report that actually says that people are getting into work quicker, staying in work longer, progressing in work better and getting £600 more a month through our support. It is also the same report that focuses on the 16-hour benefit rule, that shows that people were locked out of work under the legacy system, and that shows that our plans will enable people to work 113 million extra hours a year because they are not locked on benefits.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State and her Ministers for listening to suggestions to improve universal credit and welfare assessments. I specifically mention the introduction of video recording for work capability and PIP assessments. Will she update me on the roll-out of video recording?

[Ms McVey]

I thank my hon. Friend for doing so much in this area. She often meets me to talk about ideas that she thinks would make considerable improvements, and one of her suggestions was video recording. We want to give people confidence in the system and to get transparency in the system, which is why we have said that we will implement the idea. Over the summer we will be testing and learning by working with disabled people and asking them, “Do you feel more confident with this? Is video recording what you want?” We have made a commitment to improve the process through recording.

Universal Credit

Helen Whately Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately).

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

Jobcentres in my constituency tell me with some passion that universal credit is really helping them to get more people into work. The Government have also listened to concerns about universal credit and are making improvements. Does it not baffle the Secretary of State and is it not bizarre that the Labour party is trying to block those improvements, when the Government are doing exactly the right thing?

[Ms McVey]

My hon. Friend is spot on, and the incredulity with which she says what the Opposition are stopping points out the ridiculousness of their position. Not only have we helped an extra 3.1 million people into work, but these regulations help the most vulnerable and will bring in an extra £1.5 billion of support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

We are here to improve lives and to raise the sum of human happiness. We know that the best way out of poverty is work and that purposeful work is the key to human happiness, and we all want to give kids the best possible start in life, which includes meals for the poorest and high-quality pre-school childcare, which we know improves outcomes for the most disadvantaged children in our country.

We know, too, that universal credit is helping to improve lives. It has been on offer in my constituency for some time and has now been fully rolled out. The feedback I get from the jobcentres that serve my constituency—job coaches tell me this with great passion—is that it is helping them to help people, and helping people to get into work, increase their hours and find better work. It is overwhelmingly a good thing. I spoke to my local citizens advice bureau to find out what problems it was experiencing, following rumours that universal credit was causing trouble, and on the day I went in, there had been two calls about universal credit. I asked what they were. One was, “How can I get it?”, and the other was, “Am I eligible?” So people were calling the CAB because they wanted to be on universal credit, because they had heard good things about it. I am therefore really concerned that we are hearing such misleading information in the Chamber, when we know that universal credit is helping people to get into work, stay in work and find better work.

The Government have listened to and addressed concerns about universal credit, for instance by giving people better access to advance payments and not making them wait for payments. The Government are doing exactly the right thing to make universal credit work even better, and Labour Members should be supporting that, not trying to block it. I am worried that they are stuck in the 1970s. Perhaps then it was okay to give up on people and condemn them to a life on benefits, but we know now that that is not the right thing to do. They should be supporting us to help their constituents to get into work and stay in work.

On free school meals, we have seen a shocking abuse of figures. We know that as a result of the Government’s policies, 50,000 more children will get free school meals and no child will lose their right to them, so let us not have any scaremongering about children losing free school meals. Let us also have a bit more clarity about how Labour might pay for their proposals which, according to latest estimates, would cost the country an extra £100 billion and increase borrowing per family by £4,000. I say to Labour Members, “Let us do the right thing.” Let us not play party politics, but help to make people’s lives better.

PIP Back Payments

Helen Whately Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. It is really important that we remember what PIP is. It is a very modern, dynamic benefit, and it treats with parity of esteem physical and mental health and disabilities. No two people are the same and no two people’s needs are the same, so it is a person-centred benefit. It is really important that we remember that.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s decision to accept the Court’s judgment and the Minister’s careful work to improve PIP assessments, including by looking at the recording of assessments, which she and I have talked about. Irrespective of whether someone’s health condition is mental or physical, does my hon. Friend agree that what matters is that they get the help that they need to meet the extra costs of living and to live the fullest possible lives?

[Sarah Newton]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. She is absolutely right to focus on parity of esteem—the Government have legislated for that—between people with mental and physical health conditions. That is really important.

Let us just look at the facts about how many people with mental health conditions are being positively supported by PIP. The latest figures from 27 October show that 66% of PIP recipients with mental health conditions get the enhanced daily living component compared with only 22% who receive DLA, the predecessor benefit. Some 31% of PIP recipients with mental health conditions get the enhanced mobility rate compared with just 10% of DLA recipients. It is absolutely the case that hundreds of thousands more people are being helped with PIP than with DLA. It is of course important, however, to do all we can continually to improve the process.

Work Capability Assessments

Helen Whately Excerpts

Wednesday 13th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[David Linden]

The hon. Lady makes a good point; I very much agree.

The latest quarterly release on appeals of work capability assessments shows that 59% of decisions are overturned at appeal. To be blunt, that means that six in every 10 decisions are wrong. That is incredibly alarming.

There is, of course, a wider point about the undertaking of work capability assessments by a private sector provider, which I oppose on ideological grounds—I agree with the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) on that point. I doubt, therefore, that it will come as much surprise that I very much welcome the commitment by the Scottish Government to ban private firms from carrying out benefit assessments. I wholly concur with the Scottish Social Security Minister Jeane Freeman, that

“profit should never be a motive nor play any part in assessing or making decisions on people’s health and eligibility for benefits.”

Over and above my ideological objection to private sector provision, I am sure that all hon. Members will be concerned to note that, according to the DWP’s own data released only last week, the ESA assessment provider has consistently failed to meet the contractual expectation for the quality of assessment reports.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

One thing I have been calling for, for some time, is standard recording of all work capability assessments. Often there is one story from one side and another story from the other, and recording would not only provide some evidence about what really happened, but improve people’s experience of the assessments. It has been piloted, so does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be good to push forward with the recording of assessments as one way of improving the experience for our constituents?

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady and will come back to how the assessments are conducted, because that forms a major part of my speech.

At this juncture, I want to commend to the House the excellent report by Rethink Mental Illness entitled “It’s broken her”. It was published just last week and makes truly harrowing reading. The report lays bare the full extent of the challenges for people with mental illness when facing assessments for both ESA and PIP. Drawing on findings from a series of interviews and focus group-style discussions, the report finds that the assessment can be “traumatising and anxiety-inducing” for the following reasons: there are numerous issues with the paper forms that claimants must submit, including their complexity and length, and the inflexible nature of the questions they ask; claimants must collect their own medical evidence, which is extremely burdensome, often expensive and time-consuming; the staff who perform face-to-face assessments frequently have a poor understanding of mental illness; and, finally, delays in mandatory reconsideration and appeals to the tribunal mean that claimants may have to wait many months for the correct result.

The report concludes that the current PIP and ESA assessment procedure

“inherently discriminates against people with mental illnesses”.

It sets out a number of policy recommendations to

“dramatically improve the benefits system for people with mental illnesses, as well as saving the Government the vast costs that are currently incurred due to persistent incorrect decisions made early in the process.”