Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 20th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow others who have made points very clearly. I support trying to get our finances on an even keel after the massive unexpected expenses of covid, yet something within me balks at what again seems to be a raid on pensioners’ incomes. Is it not so that the Library statistics outline that the potential costs of uprating the triple-locked elements of the state pension by 2.5%, instead of 8.3%, saves £5 billion in state pension expenditure in 2022-23? That seems to be the greater consideration, rather than fairness and equity. Perhaps the Government should be giving more indications of the effect, especially on pensioners.

I spoke to the Minister before the debate. He was kind to come to confirm some matters with me. When he winds up the debate, will he confirm the impact, how this Bill will affect Northern Ireland and how the process will go forward? Northern Ireland pensioners are paying more for products due to the intransigence of the EU perhaps, and they need this additional funding to pay sharply rising costs. Items that cost £1 just a while ago now cost £1.29. We must address the deficit, but that cannot be done fairly through overly taxing those who have paid all their lives and having them shoulder more of the burden than those who can afford to pay more.

I endorse the comment of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on the WASPI women; my constituency very much falls into the category of others. I think her words were “poorer in retirement”, and I see some of my constituents in that same place.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

I want to raise the plight of the 4% of UK pensioners who are excluded from the Bill and have had their state pensions frozen because they happen to live in the wrong country. All pensioners who have paid their dues should be entitled to the full uprated state pension, yet half a million British pensioners living around the world have been left behind year on year. Does the hon. Member agree that it is disgraceful to be leaving our pensioners in that situation without dignity, financial security and respect and that the Government must address those frozen pensions?

[Jim Shannon]

I wholeheartedly endorse that. It is always good to have these debates to which others bring their knowledge and information, and the hon. Lady highlights something that clearly needs to be addressed. Perhaps the Minister can give us an indication on that when he concludes the debate.

We should be cementing, investing and encouraging business growth that pays into the Treasury in a natural manner. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) referred to her reasoned amendment, which I think shows what those of us on the Opposition Benches are thinking. This is a difficult topic, and I am aware of the pressure of covid-19 on the economy and how my grandchildren—and perhaps their children—may be paying for it throughout their lifetimes. However, I am concerned about how we recoup the money. It cannot be through overly taxing those who have paid all their lives and seeing them shoulder the burden more than those who can afford to pay more. We need—this seems to be a slogan—to stop squeezing the middle class. We should be investing in and encouraging business growth.

Others have referred to pension credit. When I am on the doorstep or at a social occasion, there is not an occasion when I do not speak to someone in that bracket and ask them, “Are you getting all your benefits? Are you getting your tenant’s allowance? Are you getting your pension credit?” Unfortunately, more often than not, many of those people are not getting their benefits. The Government have a role to play in ensuring that those who are not aware of a benefit know that they should be getting it. Will the Minister remind us of where we stand on that?

The figures for Northern Ireland are quite scary: 15% of pensioners—some 43,000 people—are in fuel poverty and overall poverty. That concerns me. Perhaps the Minister can address that. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) when referring to universal credit mentioned in passing his reasoned amendment, which was not selected. He also said that, whenever furlough ends, many families will find themselves in a difficult position. I subscribe to that view, as does probably everyone on the Opposition Benches. In Northern Ireland, we are facing gas bill rises of some 35% as winter comes in hard, and those who live in Housing Executive or housing association accommodation that has been converted to gas heating face the double whammy of not just how their pensions are affected but by the cut to universal credit, and they will be squeezed more than ever. Pensioners will therefore be impacted unfairly. This winter will see increasing pressure on pensioners and many more than the 15% will fall into that category.

The right hon. Member for East Ham also referred to those in work, and I will give one quick example from a constituent. This lady said:

“You make a third of your money when you do overtime for the benefit you lose, so I am paid £3 an hour in real terms. While I do take the overtime offered to me if I am able to do it, I can also understand why others don’t. Making up £20 a week is not as easy as many would have us believe today.”

I have long opposed the cut to universal credit, especially as we are coming into winter, when there are additional costs. For the sake of working families in my constituency, I must add my voice to those calling for the money saved by this uprating change and other methods to be factored into the ability of families to afford the gas price increase. We are thinking of capping the pension increase for the most vulnerable sector of people without a real review of how their living costs will increase this year. I do not feel that we can comfortably do that with the limited information provided. Given the increase in the cost of living, as I think the right hon. Member for East Ham said, many will face the stark choice of whether they have a meal or turn the heat on. Those are cold realities for many people.

As we see rises in the cost of living in Northern Ireland, with 20% rises in the cost of food and fuel in the next few weeks, I say with great respect to the Minister and the Government that I must support my pensioners and stand with them. I will support the reasoned amendment and oppose the Bill. The Bill is not right, so I cannot support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

I am about to answer the points the hon. Lady raised specifically, if she will bear with me.

Pension credit take-up was raised. We are doing a variety of things on that, including the pension credit awareness day in June, the engagement with the BBC—I met its chief executive only last week—the stakeholder roundtable in May, and the working group established with all the key partners in this matter, let alone the various other ways in which we have changed things and the over 11 million communications to pensioners up and down the country. The Government are proud of their record.

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

[Guy Opperman]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman for the last time, because I respect him so much.

[Jim Shannon]

I appreciate the Minister’s response tonight in relation to pension credit, but in Northern Ireland 15% of pensioners are consistently in fuel poverty and poverty overall. Is the Minister prepared to give extra emphasis to Northern Ireland and help us beat that pensioner poverty?

[Guy Opperman]

I am reminded by the Secretary of State that that is a transferred matter, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that pension credit take-up is increasing, as is the amount of pension credit going to individuals.

I must turn briefly to the reasoned amendment, which was put forward by a solitary Lib Dem—admittedly, there are not many of them in 2021 so I understand that. It used to be a serious party—a party that understood the fiscal pressures facing Government. Now, to be blunt, it is being reduced to a party of protest, with, it seemed to me, about 15% of its MPs conducting their party conference in the backroom of a Travelodge somewhere on a business park. The practical reality is that the party of Asquith, Gladstone, even Ashdown, is now putting forward something devoid of ideas. It is a party of protest. and we do not agree with it in any way.

We are proud of the fact that last year, when we had no obligation to do so, we took the dramatic and important decision to raise the state pension by 2.5%. We will be raising the state pension by prices or 2.5% when this Bill passes, and pensioners will be protected on an ongoing basis, so I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Universal Credit and Working Tax Credits

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Will the hon. Member tell me how many households in his constituency are in receipt of universal credit? I am giving him a chance to put on the record how many of his constituents are affected. There is a whole section of my speech in which I will tell him how the Government can afford to pay for this.

I did not know that the hon. Member did not know the figure for his constituency—I promise that I was not trying to catch him out. I was simply trying to make the point that the recovery of his local economy would be adversely affected by taking that spending power away, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) made clear for her constituency.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for introducing this important debate. Northern Ireland has the highest levels of child poverty in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. My mailbag, like everyone’s, is full of real-life stories of people worried sick about how they will be affected. Does he agree that the removal of the £20 universal credit payment will plunge even more people into food poverty and have a detrimental effect not just on their pockets financially but on their health? It is a double whammy, and they just cannot take it.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I agree with the hon. Member. Opposition to the cut is truly universal, for those reasons. It includes MPs, charities, unions and six former Conservative Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions. If we are being honest, I think several serving Conservative Ministers also share that view. In this debate, I want to knock down the fiction that there is somehow a choice to be made between cancelling the cut and getting people back into work. I want to talk about what the cut will mean for the families affected and the impact that it will have on all our local economies and the national resilience necessary to meet future challenges. I also want to talk about how the Government could easily fund universal credit at its current rate without making this counterproductive and harsh cut.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not a disgrace that the Government have developed this habit of abstaining completely from Opposition day votes because they do not have the guts to oppose in the Lobby the things that we suggest, and they are frightened of the effect that it will have in their constituencies? It was once the case that when Governments lost Opposition day votes they put into effect the will of the House. This Government are showing such contempt for the House that they cannot even be bothered to take part in these votes. Is that not a disgrace? Is there anything, as a House, that we can do to prevent this despicable behaviour?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House has expressed itself very clearly in saying that there are concerns about the £20 of universal credit being taken away from the people who need it most. That being the case, how can we ensure, legislatively, that we turn that into a victory for the people we represent in this House and for those who want that universal credit money to continue for at least a period of time?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman for their points of order. How the Government choose to vote is not a point of order for the Chair, but it might be helpful if I remind the House that on 26 October 2017 the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), set out the following:

“Where a motion tabled by an Opposition party has been approved by the House, the relevant Minister will respond to the resolution of the House by making a statement no more than 12 weeks after the debate.”

I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard that. To address the hon. Gentleman’s point directly, the resolution on an Opposition motion is not a binding resolution, hence my drawing attention to the fact that we assume that a Minister will come to the House within 12 weeks to respond.

Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 8th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I, too, welcome the Bill and very much look forward to its moving forward. Having read the background information and looked back on what happened, I have a couple of questions, although I support the Bill and think it is important that we do so.

The FCA found in the case of London Capital & Finance that it had been

“misleading, not fair and unclear”

in its advertising, and that there had been

“serious concerns about the way the firm was conducting its business”.

For me, it is clear that the FCA at that time failed the investors. At the same time, Dame Elizabeth’s report concluded that

“the FCA did not discharge its functions in respect of LCF in a manner which enabled it effectively to fulfil its statutory objectives.”

We are where we are tonight, and we have a Bill that I hope will address those issues for this particular group of investors. I just ask the Minister whether—the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) referred to this—in other cases where people have invested similarly and indiscretions and fraud have taken place, they too will be able to benefit from this legislation.

I welcome clause 2, which will give the Secretary of State the power to make a loan to the board of the PPF to enable the payment of compensation to eligible occupational pension schemes following the High Court judgment. That is an essential component of the legislation, as is the fact that it entails the loan being repaid by the fraud compensation fund levy over a period currently estimated to be between 10 and 15 years. We must protect, if we can, the pension schemes and investors through that process and give them peace of mind. The protection of those pensioners is increasingly important to me, as it is to every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate and to the Minister.

I will pose one last question to the Minister, if I may, about those investors who may have passed away without being able to take advantage of this legislation. Will the families of the deceased—those who are no longer here —qualify for the compensation as well?

Gender Pension Gap

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 19th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson]

Absolutely. I know that the Minister will be listening intently, and I hope he will take away the reasonable and straightforward suggestions that I will make this evening, so that we can truly level up in the way that the Government say they want to.

Women born in the 1950s—WASPI women, or Women Against State Pension Inequality—have suffered hugely as their state pension age was accelerated, giving them insufficient time to prepare for retirement. Despite the clamour of outrage, the Government have refused to do anything to address the hardship caused to the women affected. I wish I could say that that policy decision was the only one that targets women in retirement. I wish this was the only measure I could find that has transformed retirement into a time of financial uncertainty and fiscal pressure for women. Sadly, it is a mere continuation of policy choices that have contributed to—indeed, exacerbated—the gender pension gap under which too many women now labour.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady, myself and others in this Chamber have supported the WASPI women the whole way through. Does she agree that there is not only a legal obligation but a moral obligation to deliver for them and that the WASPI women in our constituencies who have contacted us deserve to know that the battle has not ended for them?

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is impossible, in all conscience, to have any debate about pensions and not mention the plight and difficulties into which the WASPI women have been thrust. Indeed, it would be remiss not to mention them and to pay tribute to the dignified campaign that they have fought and continue to fight.

Let us take pension credit as an example. The uptake of pension credit is only around 60%—a matter that I have raised repeatedly over the years in the House, urging the UK Government to do more to improve uptake. Doing so could play an important part in helping to close the gender pension gap, since women are much more likely to need to rely on pension credit, which is additional support for the poorest pensioners, as their lifetime earnings tend to be lower than men’s. However, the so-called triple lock on state pensions does not apply to pension credit. This means that the poorest pensioners, who tend to be women, do not have the same income protection as those pensioners who are better off.

In addition to this gender penalty, the very lowest earners, who we know tend to be women—I keep saying it because it bears repeating—are excluded from building credit on their state pension. Those who have a job earning below the lower earnings threshold get no credit for their state pension at all, and that applies even if a person has more than one job. This exclusion disproportionately hits women hard as they are more likely to be in part-time work. When the Minister gets to his feet, I hope that he will explain why this stubborn inflexibility in the national insurance system has not been addressed and when we can expect this pitfall—that is what it is—to be removed, as it contributes to the impoverishment of women in retirement. The lower earnings threshold should be abolished so that all workers can claim credit for state pension, no matter the level of their earnings.

The gender pension gap is exacerbated in all sorts of sneaky and labyrinthine ways, some of which most women do not know about due to the arcane nature of the system. The UK Government could fix many of these problems almost at a stroke; why this has not happened is curious.

For example, even if a woman is not currently in paid work, if she claims child benefit for a child under 12, she will get national insurance credit towards her state pension, and is treated as though she has contributed to national insurance while she claims that child benefit, when her state pension is calculated. Even if her partner’s earnings deem her ineligible for child benefit, she needs to apply in order to get national insurance credit. Who knew?

If a woman finds out subsequently about this rather silly and pointless method of gender discrimination—well, too bad. She cannot backdate her claim. In addition, research has shown that huge numbers of women simply do not know how child benefit claims affect their state pension calculation. And who could blame them? It would be fairly simple for the UK Government to address this by allowing all women who are looking after their children to claim state pension credit. Why not? What is the obstacle to this change, which could play a part in reducing the shameful gender pension gap?

Let me turn to the issue of temporarily leaving the workforce to look after children adversely impacting on a woman’s pension. Workplace pensions discriminate against women, who tend to earn less and to have interrupted careers, meaning that they are active in the workplace for fewer years than men. This means that their workplace pensions are lower, as well as their state pensions. This could be mitigated if the Government introduced a family carer’s top-up, whereby the Government would pay the equivalent of the employer’s contribution—at least at the level of minimum wage—into women’s pensions if they are taking time out as carers. This would equate to around £820 per year and would boost pension outcomes for women by 20% if they took 10 years out of the workforce to undertake caring responsibilities and return to the workforce thereafter. Importantly, research shows that this could close half the pension wealth gap that is created by taking time out of work to care for others—so far, so good.

It was always traditionally the case that women were forced to leave company pensions if they married or switched to part-time working. I have lost count of the number of WASPI women who have told me that they were forced out of occupational pension provisions when they married. However, we know that women also tended to be less likely even to be offered an occupational pension in the first place due to the types of jobs women traditionally did. Again, we have inherent bias against women’s workplace pensions.

We also need to remember that some workplace pensions do not aggregate women’s pensions following maternity leave. Not merging periods of pension service means that women have a reduced pension when they retire, relative to their male counterparts. Surely it cannot be beyond the wit of this Government to regulate pension provision so that women’s pension rights can be preserved whilst caring responsibilities are attended to?

If this litany of how women get a raw pension deal and suffer institutional bias seems to be long, I am afraid it is set to become longer still, because we have not yet considered auto-enrolment. This much-heralded programme to ensure all employers provide workplace pensions leaves out, ignores and simply does not take into account millions of women.

How can that be? It is actually very simple. Those who earn less than £10,000—again, disproportionately women of course—do not benefit from auto-enrolment and therefore do not benefit from their employer’s pension contribution. Again, it does not matter if someone has two part-time jobs, because if each pays below £10,000, they miss out on auto-enrolment and the employer’s contribution to the pension.

New research from the Pensions Policy Institute shows that almost half of single mothers are currently ineligible for auto-enrolment—almost half. Does the Minister think that is acceptable? What will he do to persuade his Government to remove the £10,000 earnings limit for auto-enrolment so that the threshold can be reduced to the very first pound earned? When one considers the part that that measure alone could play in helping to reduce the gender pay gap, I can think of no good reason not to do it.

If that was not bad enough, those who are auto-enrolled into their workplace pension are often forced to pay an additional 25% for their pensions if they earn between £10,000 and £12,000. Again, that situation tends to affect women disproportionately and is due to the type of pension an employer may use, which operates on a net pay basis. That means that the employee has to pay extra to their pension provider instead of receiving the tax relief they could have in a different type of pension scheme, such as a relief at source scheme. Sadly, it seems that most employers use the net pay scheme, so contributions are collected before tax.

However, if the relief at source scheme were used, women would benefit from an additional £8,000 in their pensions over their working lives. We have, quite frankly, a disgraceful situation in which women, who are most in need of help in building up their pension pots, are forced to pay more, usually without knowledge of how they are being financially penalised. If we want pension equality, why are the Government not legislating so that employers and pension providers ensure workers are enrolled into schemes that will qualify for tax relief?

If, after all that, a woman finds herself widowed, her late husband’s life annuity will probably not provide her with any income, meaning that after the shock of being widowed many women are thrown into poverty, financially unprotected. Similarly, if a woman is divorced, she may find herself in poverty in retirement. Indeed, she is more likely to do so. It seems clear that there are institutional, inherent, ingrained and unfair barriers to women being able properly and fairly to build up a pension pot that will offer them protection from poverty in their later years.

The obstacles, problems and barriers have been set out clearly tonight, and the Minister has been listening to the potential solutions. I urge him to respond to each barrier and to indicate what his Government will do to address the shocking and unacceptable gender pension gap that exposes women to poverty and hardship in their later years, because it does not have to be this way.

Covid-19: Statutory Sick Pay

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)]

I thank the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing this debate.

We have been facing the most serious public health emergency in a generation since the beginning of the pandemic, and the whole of the UK has joined together in a great national effort to face this challenge. Throughout the pandemic, the Government have done, and will continue to do, whatever it takes to fight the virus and get our nation through these difficult times. This Government have a strong safety net in place, and we took action to strengthen it for those who need it most. As part of that action, we introduced the coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employment income support scheme, increased the universal credit standard allowance by up to £1,040 this financial year, and extended statutory sick pay to those who are self-isolating or shielding in line with the latest Government health guidance. We also went further and made SSP payable from day one instead day four for anybody who is sick, self-isolating or shielding due to coronavirus.

Taken together, these measures help to ensure that employees do not attend work when they should be staying at home, helping to keep themselves and others safe. Where clinically extremely vulnerable individuals are not able to work from home and shielding advice is in place, they should not attend work. Statutory sick pay is available to those who are unable to work, and is intended to be a safety net in cases where their employer chooses not to furlough them under the coronavirus job retention scheme and does not have other suitable policies in place.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In my constituency, quite a number of employers did not buy into the furlough scheme, and sick pay simply does not cover costs. I understand that the Minister is always very responsive to the issues; he always has been in any debates that I have been in, and I hope that he will be to this one. Will he and the Government consider grants or a help scheme for those who have got into debt just to feed and heat themselves at this particularly difficult time?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank the hon. Member, who I know from several debates to which he has contributed cares passionately about those in most need in his constituency. I am meeting the First Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly next week to discuss a number of issues, including this, and I will set out in my speech the wider support that I know he will be looking to champion, and rightly so.

Clinically extremely vulnerable individuals are currently being advised to shield until 31 March. We expect employers to do the right thing and help their employees in following public health guidance. That is underpinned by the clear guidance issued by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, ACAS and the Health and Safety Executive to help employers make workplaces covid-secure. Where individuals have concerns about their health and safety at work, they should raise them directly with their employers or with staff representatives, HSE or their local authority.

The Government have also provided a comprehensive economic response that is one of the most generous globally, taking unprecedented steps to protect people’s income and support businesses, most notably through the coronavirus job retention scheme. We know that this has been a difficult time for businesses too, with many experiencing increased levels of absence due to employees needing to self-isolate. Any increase in the rate of SSP during the pandemic would have placed an immediate, direct financial burden on employers at a time when we know that many of them are struggling. That could have put more jobs at risk.

Many of those earning below the lower earnings limit who are not eligible for SSP are already in receipt of benefits, meaning that the welfare safety net is the most efficient way of providing targeted further financial support. Statutory sick pay should not be looked at in isolation. It is the minimum level of income replacement that employers must provide to eligible employees, and the majority of employees receive above the statutory minimum. Those who require further financial support while unable to work have been and will continue to be supported by the Government. For example, where someone’s income is reduced while on SSP, they may be able to claim universal credit. Where they are not eligible for SSP, they may be able to claim UC and new-style employment and support allowance. For ESA, we have removed the seven waiting days for claimants affected by coronavirus, so it is payable from day one of the claim.

For the millions of hard-working people who are self-employed, we continue to provide generous support through the self-employment income support scheme. The minimum income floor in universal credit has been relaxed for the duration of the crisis, which means that where self-employed claimants’ earnings have fallen significantly, their UC award will have increased to reflect their lower earnings.

Beyond the welfare safety net, we have also introduced a number of unprecedented packages of support to put money directly into the pockets of those who are in most need. We are providing financial support to self-isolate to those on low incomes through the £500 test and trace support scheme, alongside £35 million being made available to local authorities for discretionary payments to support those on low incomes who cannot work from home if they are required to self-isolate because they have tested positive for coronavirus or have been identified as a contact of someone who has.

We have worked closely with local authorities to monitor the effectiveness of the scheme since it launched in September 2020 and have listened to feedback from charities and support groups on the frontline. I welcome the changes to the eligibility criteria to include a parent or guardian who is staying off work to look after a child who is self-isolating. We will also be making an additional £20 million available for discretionary payments every month from March until the end of the scheme, which has been extended until the summer. Employers can also furlough employees who are on long-term sickness absence or have been advised to shield.

At tomorrow’s Budget, the Chancellor will set out the next phase of our economic support package, reflecting the Prime Minister’s road map to ease restrictions published last month and tailoring support for individuals and businesses to reflect the changing public health restrictions. The actions that this Government have taken were the right ones to respond to the immediate short-term pressures that the pandemic presented, but it is right that we also think about the longer term.

As the Minister for Disabled People, I welcome the opportunity to highlight the “Health is everyone’s business” consultation, in which we sought views on the rate of statutory sick pay and the role that employers can and should play in supporting employees who are disabled or have long-term health conditions to stay in and thrive in work. We have explored how long-term reform of SSP could support the Government’s ambition to reduce ill health-related job loss and drive transformational change, so that those managing long-term health conditions can live and work well. I cannot stress enough the importance of that work. One in five people in this country have a disability or health condition, and the vast majority of them will get that while they are of working age. It is therefore absolutely right that we review and look at the ways we support both employees with changing health conditions and employers to do the right thing.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for giving way again. One thing that is very much an issue in my constituency—it probably is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) as well—is mental health. When it comes to accessing all those benefits, there is absolutely no doubt that mental health and anxiety issues are one of the greatest crises we have had for a long time. Can the Minister and his Department offer help to those people with anxiety or depression or wellbeing issues?

[Justin Tomlinson]

The hon. Member, with laser-like precision, has identified one of the key issues. For those employees who have a fluctuating health condition—for example, mental health—one of the inbuilt challenges of the system is that someone is presumed to be either 100% fit for work or 100% sick, which stops them dipping in and out or having phased returns to work. Also, while society’s awareness of issues around mental health and mental wellbeing is significantly improving, there is not an easy guidebook that any employer—particularly small and medium-sized employers—can simply take off the shelf and then know exactly what to do. Therefore, we must look to address the issue of 100% fit or 100% sick to allow for that phased return as well as significantly improve the guidance and support for employers to ensure that people do not drop out of work. We recognise that work is good for people’s health, and it is significantly harder to help somebody back into work, dealing not only with their health condition but with the loss of confidence from losing their job, than it is to provide that support earlier on.

SSP maintains an important link between the employee and their employer during sickness absence while providing a level of income replacement for such a period. That is why the consultation set out that we are minded to extend SSP to those earning below the lower earnings limit, who are not currently eligible for financial support from their employer during a period of sickness absence. I think this is an area where the Government and the hon. Member for Leeds East would agree: it is important that there is a link, regardless of the number of hours that an employee works with their employer, because it is a partnership to deal with short-term, medium-term or long-term health conditions for the benefit ultimately of the employee but also the employer. We know that good work is good for one’s health and that work can play an important role in a recovery.

The consultation also proposed changes to SSP rules to allow for fully flexible phased returns to work, as I have set out, with SSP being paid alongside an employee’s wage. That can be beneficial for both the employer and the employee. We know that many employers are already taking positive action to support their employees to remain in work, but many businesses—particularly small and medium-sized organisations—need access to improved information and advice on how to better manage health in the workplace. We want to ensure that employers are supported and equipped so that they can do the right thing by their employees, and many of them wish to do so. We will publish the findings shortly.

Crucially, as we begin to build back better, employers will have a vital role to play in creating workplaces in which all employees can thrive. It is by working together that we can truly transform the lives of disabled people and those with health conditions. The benefit of that will be felt by all, so we must each play our part. I welcome the points made by the hon. Member for Leeds East. This is something that we will all continue to focus on.

Question put and agreed to.

Social Security

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Since coming to the House in 2010, I have spoken on this issue on each and every occasion, and I wish to do so again today. I have spoken on it over the years because I have had constituents—other Members have said the same—both during the past 10 and a half or 11 years as a Member of Parliament and when I was a Member of the Legislative Assembly, who have been affected by or died as a result of pneumoconiosis and mesothelioma. These were people I knew personally, so I was very concerned about them. I was pleased that Government responded during that period of time to make sure that the moneys that were necessary were put in place. Some of those people have died, but those who are left still live with the severe health problems, including some who worked at Harland and Wolff, the shipbuilders in Belfast. Many of my constituents worked there over the years, and that is where they ended up having their health problems from. Harland and Wolff used to employ some 30,000 people at one time, which gives us an idea of the magnitude of the number of people who could be touched by this.

I wish to echo the points about the equalisation for relatives that were made by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), because I fully support that, as others have done. Perhaps the Minister might respond on that. I welcome the increase, but may I gently ask the Minister what rationale was behind the decision to uplift this by a mere 0.5% during a pandemic, when most homes, especially those with old people who are shielding, have been put under a large amount of pressure? Instead of being able to shop around for cheaper goods, those people have to do their orders online and to accept whatever products are available. Most of their purchases have increased by 0.5%.

As the Minister is aware, I know him as a compassionate, considerate and assiduous Minister. Does he not agree that these payments, made to the most vulnerable of people, in these most difficult of days, should see an uplift that is appropriate? I ask, even at this late stage, that this amount of reconsidered, taking into account the additional pressures on not simply those who are ill, but their entire households. Not only those who are suffering from mesothelioma, but their families collectively are under health and financial pressure as never before seen in our lifetimes. Minister, I am not being churlish, far from it, but I would appreciate a response to the question: why an increase of only 0.5%?

Pensions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 1st March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]]

It is clear that automatic enrolment for pensions has been a good thing for many people, so I am pleased to add my support for the measure. The Library briefing puts it succinctly:

“The policy has reversed the decline in workplace pension saving. The rollout of automatic enrolment from 2012 onwards has led to a tenfold increase in total membership of defined contribution occupational schemes, from 2.1 million in 2011 to 21 million in 2019.”

That is a success story if ever there was one. The briefing continues:

“Actively contributing membership rose from a low point of 0.9 million active members in 2011 to 10.6 million members in 2019.”

Success indeed! Employers who had to furlough staff because of coronavirus could claim help for pensions contributions before 1 August 2020. Since then, however, they have had to meet costs themselves both for furloughed hours and hours worked. May I ask the Minister whether that will be looked at and changed or reviewed, as it has left some employers in a difficult position? While many have been able to access grant schemes for their closed businesses, anyone who owns more than one shop in Northern Ireland only receives a grant for one business—no matter that their staff could be employed in four shops or even more.

There is absolutely pressure on employers at this time, which will increase if staff earn less than the required lower limit. I personally believe that while we should look at the lower earnings limit, as other Members have said, I am thankful that that is reviewed annually. That is important, and it is good to see that in place. This is not the time to put more pressure and obligations on employers, and I believe that this year we should keep the limit as it is. Some companies will need help to get back on their feet for the next six months, and will find themselves in completely new circumstances next year. Making a small employer’s contribution for a staff member on low hours should not be a final nail in the coffin.

I support everyone who works to have access to a private pension scheme, but I truly do not believe that this is the time to implement a change. I hope that the Minister will confirm in his response that the Government will support employers in every possible way over the coming months, knowing that we will reap the rewards with thriving businesses in the years to come if we sow and till now. Never has that been more necessary, as the covid-19 pandemic has illustrated.

Social Security

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]]

It is always a pleasure to follow right hon. and hon. Members, and indeed learned Members, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. He is very intent on and interested in his portfolio.

Article 6(2) sets out that the full rate of the state pension is to be amended from £175.20 to £179.60. I would be most obliged to understand that consideration has been given to the fact that this additional £4.40 per week would just about cover the cost of the BBC TV licence. I make this point because today a number of constituents have contacted me about the BBC TV licence. We have all got our reminders about it today, as indeed have many pensioners. Pensioners must now pay, never mind the cost of living increases. Surely we would be better placed to increase this before that reaches final approval.

Again, this is not the Minister’s portfolio—it is not his direct responsibility—but I would respectfully and gently ask: has he had any opportunity to talk with a Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Minister about perhaps approving free TV licences for those over 70 years old, because there are many who fall into that category? I am always very mindful at this moment in time that we have had an increase in poverty in all age groups, in particular families and those who are elderly.

I have some concerns about the uplifts in benefits. The most vulnerable in receipt of PIP are seeing uplifts, under article 16, of anywhere from 10p per week to a grand amount of 45p per week. I am not against the increase, but before I could consider voting for the motion I would like an understanding of how the cost of living increase is factored into this. I think it is important that we understand how these increases, while in many cases nominal, have the cost of living factored into them.

In Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland protocol is seeing individual products increase by more than this—it is something that I would be aware of and my colleagues would be aware of—never mind a whole week’s shop-worth. While these provisions exclude Northern Ireland, perhaps an outline of the rationale can be given as to the uplift amount.

On the state pension uprating, as pertains to part 2, article 10, maternity pay has an uplift of 77p. It is difficult to comprehend, as this would not even pay for a litre of milk. Again, I say respectfully and genuinely to the Minister: is he able to explain the rationale to expectant parents who, when hearing of the uplift, will believe that their life is to be made easier, only to understand that these uplifts will cost more to process than the actual increase to a family?

Every one of us, as elected representatives, is very aware of those in poverty. We have been confronted with a greater number of those who are subjected to poverty in all spheres of life, but more so due to the pandemic, and all the stats and figures indicate that that is the case. So when it comes to increases in pensions and benefits, I think the rationale for how they are considered and how they are agreed is something that we all wish to understand better.

When we take into consideration the difficulty that lockdown babies are facing with their social skills and the need for parents to be able to afford to take them out to baby classes as soon as it safe to do so, it seems that their maternity pay uplift will not help them increase the quality of life for their child. I know that the Minister is keen to ensure that they are helped, affected and assured, but again, my constituents ask me: just how does it work?

Has consideration been given to the effect of the pandemic on maternity leave? I referred to that just a few minutes ago. I think it has been the extra that has pushed people very much to the breadline. I am aware that, in my constituency, among many of the people who are under pressure financially, there are more referrals to the food bank in my constituency. The one in my constituency was the first food bank in the whole of Northern Ireland. Over this last period—the Christmas period—it handed out 870 individual assistances to those people. That again tells me that there is real financial pressure. I would ask: has consideration been given to the effect of the pandemic on maternity leave and is that a consideration that we can make at this stage?

I conclude by saying to the Minister that I ask these questions genuinely and respectfully, but I do feel, on behalf of my constituents, that I need an answer.

Pensions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]]

I welcomed in March 2016 the Government’s announcement that those reaching state pension age between 6 April 2016 and 6 December 2018 would receive a fully indexed public service pension for life. I further welcomed the Government extending those arrangements in January 2018 to those reaching state pension age by April 2021. The Government are currently consulting on a further extension of the full indexation policy, and I look forward to seeing the outcome of that, especially in the light of the McCloud judgment.

The right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) and the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) referred to frozen pensions. As the Minister will be aware, the 2020 report by the all-party parliamentary group on frozen British pensions revealed that the Australian and Canadian Governments have been calling on the UK to end this policy for many years. Since then, the Canadian Government have formally requested a reciprocal social security agreement covering the uprating of pensions with the UK. Some would refer to this as an immoral frozen pension policy. For the 150,000 UK pensioners affected who live in Canada, the impacts of this policy can be devastating. Since Canada pays Canadian pensioners residing in the UK their full pension, the agreement would simply provide UK pensioners in Canada with the same rights as their counterparts in the UK.

Other Members have referred to this, and I feel that it is important to put it on the record. One such pensioner is 96-year-old world war two veteran Anne Puckridge, who served in all three armed forces but receives a meagre £72.50 a week of the £134.25 a week state pension she is owed, all because she moved to Canada at 76 to be closer to her family. Peggy Buchanan, who served the UK at Bletchley Park, where she helped to break the German Enigma codes, is also denied her full UK pension because she now lives in Canada. As the right hon. Member for North Thanet said, had Peggy’s family settled 2 miles further south in the USA, her pension would not be frozen.

The unjust frozen pension policy that denies half a million UK pensioners who paid into the system their full UK state pension is a national shame that has been allowed to continue by successive Governments for decades. It is not right that UK pensioners are punished with a frozen pension for moving to Canada, often to be close to family or due to health reasons. I am always mindful of the close ties between these countries. As someone who, at the young age of 18, emigrated to Canada and then returned again, I know of the close cultural, historical and social ties that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has with Canada.

The recent inquiry by the all-party parliamentary group on frozen British pensions found that one in two frozen pensioners receive a UK pension of £65 per week or less. Many veterans and former public servants who have given so much to this country are now struggling on a frozen pension. The Government of Canada have now presented an opportunity to rectify a moral injustice that sees thousands of UK pensioners in Canada denied the full UK state pension that they paid into. I believe that every UK state pensioner should receive a full uprated UK state pension, regardless of where they live.

I wish to clarify that this legislation will enable us to continue to do right by those who have worked hard all their lives in the expectation that they will be treated fairly and will not be a stopgap to simply put off doing the right thing for another four years. It has to be remembered that every year we put off doing the right thing is a year in which many die without receiving what they have been entitled to. Surely we must bring forward legislation to address this in a more comprehensive way, and I look forward to that happening soon, now that the consultation has ended. I look forward to the Minister’s response, as I believe that many issues still need to be sorted.

Covid-19: Child Maintenance Service

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on setting the scene so well. It is a pleasure to see the Minister back in his place. I look forward very much to his response. He never lets us down—so there is no pressure on him to give us the answers that we need! I thank him so much.

The Child Maintenance Service is an extremely important service to the lives of so many children. It is always desirable for splits to be amicable and for parents to be able to make decisions on the division of time and finances. That is always the goal, but unfortunately it is not always reached. Too many times in my office, I see parents at the end of themselves due to a relationship breakdown, struggling financially while they await the involvement of the CMS to help resolve their dispute.

As other Members have done, I thank my local CMS team, who have worked with my office. They do their utmost to be open and transparent, and to get back to us urgently. Often, their hands are tied, because they are waiting for employers or accountants to come back to them. The process is long and difficult. Time prevents me from discussing today the many examples my office has seen of people who we would suggest are deliberately avoiding making payments. I think the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) said that there was somewhere special for them; I cannot say, “That would be right,” but we do need them to respond quickly.

Add in the delays that the pandemic has introduced, with civil servants waiting for months to get the appropriate equipment, and cases being put on hold. Although this is understandable, as all our offices have had difficulties, it does not make the situation acceptable. For the parent left at home alone, holding the baby and waiting for financial help—with no way of increasing tax credits, which are reviewed annually—the stress of lockdown has been exacerbated by the lack of financial and emotional support. It is clear that the CMS system needs drastically to alter so that it can help in the short term, not just the long term.

Some parents have used the impact of furlough on wages as a reason to reassess their outgoings and cut payments for the maintenance of their children, and delays in the system have been made worse by the lack of equipment and staff. Press articles have told people to pay child maintenance as usual, and that amounts could be recalculated. Although this is understandable if a hairdresser or leisure centre worker has been precluded from working, the child still needs the same money to live. The Government could and should have made up the difference in the interim, and then worked out the longer-term repayments. That might be one thing that we learn from the process.

The number of food bank vouchers issued through my office has more than doubled, and many single parents have been devastated by the loss of payments, which were not made up for by tax credits or universal credit. We have to learn constructive lessons, so that we can address the essential issue of how we support children in poverty—those who need extra attention. They may be in worse-for-wear clothes or show other small signals of struggles, and yet have a parent who does their very best.

We have heard concerns expressed that these children do not have laptops at home. I am thankful to the Education Minister at home, who ensured that schools were able to take in children who do not have access to reliable internet or equipment. But we need to do more, and perhaps it would go a long way if all the Government Departments worked in tandem.

My heart is for children. The more I speak to those who work with them, the more I understand that there are so many homes with so many more difficulties in these worst of times. We in this place have not made the decisions that would have eased things for many. Getting it right through the CMS relieves financial and emotional pressures in the home. We must find a way of altering the CMS process to help people who are struggling, so that they can provide a steady life for their beloved child. We are in unprecedented times, and we now see the problems in the system and should learn from them. Let us take steps to rectify those problems, knowing that when we do, we will have a positive impact on the home lives and experiences of children, who need this more than ever.