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.

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%?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Future of Work

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

You are very kind, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) for setting the scene, and everyone who has contributed. This is the second time that I have followed the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) in Westminster Hall. I do not know whether we are a pair—one speaks and then the other speaks—but I have always followed her. That may be how life is, but there we are.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. These are incredibly worrying times for the nation—for those with vulnerable family and loved ones, for those with small businesses, and for those with jobs in various industries. The minimum wage is really a minimum for those who have had their hours reduced; they cannot even pay their bills. We do not have all the answers in this place, and we do not know what tomorrow will bring, but we know that we need to work to give opportunities no matter what comes with the new days. We look with expectation to the Minister in relation to that.

Unison has given me a briefing, and I want to use some of those facts in my speech. We are facing the worst jobs crisis in a generation. Up to 1 million people on furlough are in jobs that will not return after covid-19. Those people are significantly less likely to have qualifications than the general population, which will have an impact on the jobs that will be available to them. Some 130,000 of those people do not have an equivalent to a level-2 qualification, and a further 250,000 do not have a level-3, so the ability to support people who lose jobs in such sectors depends on the support available to them.

We always look to the Government and the Minister for help because that is their job. They have been voted in by the people and tasked with providing support, and I believe that they have a responsibility to do so, so how can we help people in those sectors? The number of young people experiencing long-term unemployment has tripled over the last quarter—some 33,000 of 18 to 24-year-olds. A further 65,000 have been out of work between one and two years, with the risk of long-term unemployment should the job climate persist.

That is all very concerning given that we know the scarring related to long-term unemployment for young people. It may impact their future job opportunities, earning potential, and physical and mental health. Take the effect of coronavirus in my own area. The Library’s provision of constituency claimants shows, using what they refer to as the alternative account, that there were 3,035 unemployed claimants in Strangford in August 2020, which is some 1,400 higher than in August 2019. That trend is worrying—even more so when we realise that those who are on furlough will potentially be added to it. It is 5.4% of the population aged 16 to 64. That was what it was when I came to this House in 2010, and we are back there today, unfortunately. It is deeply disturbing.

The furlough scheme extension is welcome. We thank the Government for all that they have done. We will not be churlish about it because many people are in jobs today because of the commitment that the Government made, but we must do more to ensure that people have jobs to come back to. Small and medium-sized businesses in particular have vulnerable staff who are so stressed about going back to work that they are unable to return. Again, I believe that the Minister and the Government must take steps to invest in job protection and in future jobs.

I am thinking of the plethora of small, independent shops and businesses. I will give one example, because it comes to mind: a small kelp shop. Kelp is basically seaweed. This person has found a market for it, made a business out of it, and then came a cropper due to covid-19. There were many one-person starters that were full of hope for the future. I believe that those workers are on universal credit while applying for a new job.

We need more support for the backbone of our workforce: the small and medium-sized enterprises that cannot allow people to work flexibly from home, and depend on the office block buying their sandwiches and coffee. I understand that we cannot tell the future. Oh boy, what if we could? We would all pick the six numbers for Saturday night. We would do many other things, of course, but we would do that if we had the opportunity. However, that does not mean that we do not have to future-proof. That must begin with support for owners of SMEs, to give them confidence that their business will survive, that they will come out the other end, and that we will be here to support them.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

We now come to the Front-Bench speeches. The guideline limits are 10 minutes for the Scottish National party, 10 minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition and 10 minutes for the Minister. Then Kirsten Oswald will have three minutes at the end to sum up the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

It is an absolute focus for us to drive forward local needs and support where they can change the local labour market and local opportunities. Earlier, the hon. Lady also mentioned working with local mayors and local enterprise partnerships, which this Government encourage.

On automation, we know that the increase in productivity, progression and wages that it can bring if we get it right will be really important as we head into this fourth industrial revolution. It is very difficult, as we know, to predict with any kind of precision what automation will do to the labour market, but it is important that we understand new technology, including the enablement of smart robotics and artificial intelligence, grab it and put it in place as part of our process of change. We know that 60% of the jobs in 2014 simply did not exist in 1990, so we know that things will change imminently.

[Jim Shannon]

In my contribution—perhaps the Minister was about to come on to it—I said that the indications are that about 1 million people will lose their jobs after covid comes to its end, and those are generally people with low educational achievement. I gave two figures that together almost come to 400,000 of that million people—those who have two GCSEs or equivalent, and those who do not even have a level 3 education. So, although I know that it is not the Minister’s direct responsibility, is it possible for her to look at those people who do not have many qualifications but need extra help?

[Mims Davies]

I was coming on to the interventions that we need to make. At DWP, I have introduced a new sub-brand for our jobcentres: “jobs, community, progression”. It feeds into my passion to shape the future of the labour market, to deal with its structural problems and to reflect the breadth of what we do in our jobcentres, so that people understand that they are there for the reskilling and upskilling of individuals.

That is a key priority for us in the next decade and it is applicable not only to individuals displaced by the pandemic. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, it is also to deal with a structural problem in the labour market, to make sure that the occupational skills base matches what is needed in the labour market, so that people are not left behind and we match businesses’ needs. We recognise that this approach cuts across Government departmental boundaries, but we also recognise that collective action is vital when it comes to jobseekers being able to adapt to changes in the workplace.

Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 16th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. We were asked to suspend the House just to ensure that there was a little bit of extra cleaning. I do not have any further information other than that, but I am sure that it is precautionary, and if there is anything further that Members need to be informed of, I am sure that they will be.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, let me thank all those who have made contributions, which have been excellent. I thank the Minister for his response and the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies) for the contribution he made just before me. It is a pleasure to speak on this issue. Although I know that this is not the purpose of this Bill, I cannot in all good conscience let the occasion go without raising the issue of the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—women, who still want their pension scheme. Once more, I look to the Minister for a response on that.

I want to speak to new clause 1 and some of the other amendments, ever mindful of the fact that the Bill provides for territorial extent, as set out in clause 117 and schedule 8, clause 120 and schedule 9, clauses 118, 119 and 129 and schedule 11. Pensions are a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, but this is an area where Northern Ireland has long maintained parity with Great Britain. There is, in effect, a single systems of pensions across the UK, with many pensions schemes, and indeed the regulator, the pensions ombudsman, the Pension Protection Fund and so on operating on a UK-wide basis.

Devolved government has now been restored in Northern Ireland, and we are pleased to have it in place. On 1 June, the Northern Ireland Assembly approved the legislative consent motion on the Bill, as introduced, and a further LCM will be necessary to cover amendments to the Bill, which the Northern Ireland Minister for Communities has agreed will be done and should extend this to Northern Ireland. So some things are positive on that.

I have been in contact with a number of pensions bodies that have expressed concern about the proposals in the Bill. We all know how essential a good pension is, and it is becoming more important with each month. I am sure that I am not the only one to have seen the losses in pensions in this year’s statement. I have a decent understanding of how my pension pays out, but I was listening to the girls in my office and it is clear that, although my staff members in their 40s and 50s have a grasp on their pension, the two staff members in their 20s and 30s do not and they do not seem to be able to understand just how it works. The older girls say, “I wouldn’t swap my pension but I like to see what is in it,” and they have already had a look at their pensions to know what they have. Many people are wise and astute enough to do that, but others are not and they have no understanding of what can be done. There is more to doing our best to secure our financial future than simply opening a letter—there has to be more than that.

The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) referred to new clause 1, which underlines the importance of an easily accessible, easy to navigate pensions dashboard that is easier to understand than an annual statement. The Association of British Insurers has said:

“Pensions Dashboards are a necessary addition to Automatic Enrolment. More than 10 million people have now been automatically enrolled into workplace pensions through inertia, and will need to find their pension pots and make decisions about them.”

We are all probably at that age, Minister, when we have to think about our pension pots, and if we are not doing so, there is something seriously wrong, because we should be. The ABI went on to say:

“Already 1 in 5 adults admit to having lost a pension pot and latest PPI research suggests that there is at least £19.4bn held in pots that consumers have lost track of.”

It is horrendous to hear that.

[Guy Opperman]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the House, as this is the first opportunity I have had to do so. He is rightfully regarded as an institution in this place and long may that continue. I hope that he will understand that a combination of the pensions dashboard, as set out in clause 118, which will give people online access to their pensions, simpler statements, which the Department is taking forward in respect of written statements, and many other pieces of work we are doing to trace individual pensions will make tracking down past pensions an awful lot easier.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for that response. The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that 50 million pension pots will be lost or dormant by 2050, and people are vulnerable. We hope that the intervention he made may allay some of the fears people have. The ABI continued:

“Pensions Dashboards will not only help to find lost pensions and reduce the cost of financial advice, but should also prompt people to engage more closely with and save more into their pension, aiding consumers to make informed retirement decisions.”

That is really what we have to be doing—the thrust of this debate should be to try to focus that attention. The ABI went on:

“Pensions Dashboards are now woven into nine different Government and regulatory policy strategies, including the Government’s UK Digital Strategy, the FCA’s Retirement Outcomes Review and the Cabinet Office’s Dormant Assets Commission.”

The ABI also tells us that 60% of 25 to 34-year-olds would be most comfortable viewing their pensions through their mobile banking app—because that is the nature of the future—compared with only 11% of those aged 65-plus, which is probably my generation and thereabouts; 20% of those aged 65-plus would be comfortable receiving their pension data via post, compared with only 4% of 18 to 24-year-olds; and 61% of those aged 55 to 64 would find it most convenient to view their savings through the pension provider’s website, compared with 30% of 18 to 24-year-olds. What does that tell us? It tells us that people have different ways to access their pension, to look at what it means to them and to get the answers that they need.

More people in Northern Ireland feel that they have low financial capability—indeed, Northern Ireland has the lowest proportion of all the regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Fewer Northern Irish people describe themselves as “confident and savvy consumers”, with 43% saying so, versus the UK average of 52%—so we do fall behind—or as highly confident in managing their money, with 26% saying so, against the UK average of 37%. Fewer consider themselves to be highly knowledgeable in financial matters, with 10% saying so, against the UK average of 16%. We in Northern Ireland need the necessary advice so that we can decide, collectively, what our pension pots are worth.

The figures I have outlined suggest that pension savers in Northern Ireland may appreciate the benefit of a Pension Wise appointment even more than their counterparts elsewhere in the UK. Sadly, the DWP, FCA and Pension Wise data does not split user stats by location, so we do not know user stats for Northern Ireland; we know only the headline UK-wide stat that just 14% of pension pots were accessed after the Pension Wise service was used. The Northern Ireland proportion of current retirees whose main income is the state pension is the same as that for the UK as a whole; however, that proportion is predicted to fall back to 37% for those aged 45 and over and not retired.

I was reading through some of the briefings, and one of them said that the DWP had recently confirmed its intention to base new guidance and regulations on a “stronger nudge”. I am of a generation that can remember Monty Python and the story that went, “Elbow, elbow, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more,” but in this instance we need to say a whole lot more. We look to the Minister for more than just a nudge when it comes to the key points. We hope that Pension Wise guidance sessions will be available, and I think it will be good for people to take them on. In a survey of some 1,000 defined -contribution pension savers aged 45 to 54, nearly eight in 10, or 77%, said that they wanted impartial guidance to help them to understand their pension access options, yet a larger proportion, 81%, did not know that they were entitled to receive free, impartial guidance from Pension Wise. Fewer than half said that they understood enough about pensions to make decisions and just 4%, or one in 25, said that they would opt out of a pre-booked guidance session. I welcome the Minister’s response to the intervention; I feel that that might just make the difference for a great many people.

In relation to the workplace—[Interruption.] My voice is starting to go; it is going to crack up shortly. It is significant that greater numbers of people will have defined-contribution pension savings as a result of being auto-enrolled into workplace schemes. For these people, achieving financial security and wellbeing in retirement will depend on making well-informed decisions. This is a much greater challenge for those who do not get impartial guidance or regulated financial advice. I can well remember when my mother took me down, as 16-year-old—that was not yesterday, by the way—to open my first bank account, and she had me in a pension scheme at 18. That is many, many years ago—

[Ms Angela Eagle]

Surely not!

[Jim Shannon]

I am afraid it is. My mother was very wise—she still is: she is 89 years old now and is even wiser today than she was whenever I was 18. It is always good to have your mum to tell you what to do, even though you might be a lot older. But that is by the way.

It is clear that the way that we are doing these things is not as effective as it should be. New clause 1 is essential to underline the importance of people understanding their pension and taking control of it, with appropriate advice, rather than simply thinking, “This is for when I’m old.” Take it from me: that time comes quicker than one could possibly imagine.

I conclude with this: the issue is incredibly complex, and it needs a complex answer. I look to the Minister to outline how he believes that issue has been addressed in the Bill. I feel that we need both a robust dashboard and compulsory written statements, and I am not content that that has been provided for in the Bill. I respectfully ask the Minister for that advice and help. We have to get pensions right for everyone, whether they be 18 or 65. We will do it together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank Members and the Minister for their contributions on Third Reading. I look forward to bringing to the Minister’s door issues on behalf of my constituents, which he has been very generous in responding to in the past. I know that he will not be averse to me calling at his door, and that as always, he will respond in a positive fashion. That is the sign of a good Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Covid-19: Disability-Inclusive Response

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I had not expected to be called to speak so early in the debate, but I appreciate your doing so, Mr Rosindell. I thank the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for setting the scene. She and I work together on many disability issues in the House, and it is always a pleasure to support her whenever she speaks in a debate. She speaks straight from her heart; we know it is a good heart, Mr Rosindell.

The pandemic has been hard on every person in the nation, but none more so than those in the disabled sector. I want to speak quickly about some of them. The Royal National Institute of Blind People has told me that 250 people begin to lose their sight every day in the United Kingdom. A lot of people find it difficult to socially distance or to see direction arrows on the ground. Would they be able to negotiate their way into this room? They would have no idea how to do that without an assistant to help them. I have heard about many people being yelled at for not keeping social distance. They were not recognised as disabled—maybe they were not wearing the black glasses or did not have the stick—but they are partially disabled from the point of view of their sight.

The RNIB has made various suggestions, of which I hope the Minister has been made aware and that he can work on them. The suggestions do not mean breaking social distance rules, but being kind and compassionate, and taking time to speak to someone who looks as if they might be struggling to navigate through the shops. People have difficulty because they are disabled, not because there is anything else wrong with them.

Cotters is a shop in Newtownards that sells a range of groceries, cleaning products, hardware and other valuable daily essentials. That is not a plug for them, by the way, although I will send the staff a copy of Hansard afterwards and let them know that they were mentioned in Westminster Hall. The staff noticed that many of their elderly customers were struggling to understand them through their masks. The muffled voices of the staff could not be heard and the customers could not understand what they were saying. Out of their own pockets, the staff ordered masks that have plastic across the mouth to make it easier for those who cannot hear to see.

It took a few months to get that measure in place, but we are all adapting to new regulations and systems put in place because of coronavirus. Local councils could help to direct people in relation to those issues, but it would be more effective if measures relating to those who have hearing difficulties that need to be addressed came from this place.

Northern Ireland has introduced a circuit breaker, but the rules are not easy for many to understand. Elderly people ring or make a journey to my office to try to understand how they can do things. Do you know why, Mr Rosindell? Because most people want to do it right. They want to know what to do. By and large, most people—probably 98%—will do exactly what they are asked to do. We should try to help them. People want to get a lift to church. A lady who had a heart operation and has not been allowed to drive needs to get to church, because that is probably her only contact with other people. That lady needs somewhere to contact so she can sort that out.

There is an 84-year old lady who drives her 86-year old brother’s dinner round to him every night. She asked if she was allowed to stay to tidy his kitchen, as she could not do that during the last lockdown. I am not being disrespectful, and neither is she, but by the end of that period, the kitchen was a mess. The cleaning up she had to do on her brother’s behalf was horrendous—those are her words. Can she care for her brother?

I must ask the Minister for a dedicated phoneline for people to get informal help. Can there be a dedicated line for people to ask a question and get some direction and guidance on what they can do? That would be a great helper.

The vulnerable people who hear “circuit breaker” fear that, for them, it will be a life breaker because of the impact the regulations would have on their heads. We must have more information for our disabled and vulnerable and step it up on their behalf. For guidance to be issued a week before might be fine for you and me in this place, Mr Rosindell, but it is not okay for someone to feel for a month like they cannot see or speak to another living person or for someone not to be able to care for those who depend on them. That is happening to people in my area and yours. We must address it quickly.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again in Westminster Hall, Mr McCabe. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who has a long-standing reputation as a proactive, constructive chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability. I have had the pleasure of attending many meetings, including one this week virtually, as we embrace new technology. She is held in high regard across Government and that was reflected in the nature of this debate. It has been good-natured, conducted with good spirit, and has highlighted the important concerns that we collectively have to address as we navigate the unprecedented challenges of covid.

I also pay tribute to the former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) pan-disability, have benefited hugely from.

I will try to respond to as many points as I can, in particular where MPs have raised specific points, but first, a sense check: I am the Minister for Disabled People, but the Department for Education leads on special educational needs, for example, and the Department of Health and Social Care leads on care easements. However, I have attended a Women and Equalities Committee hearing that covered those things, so I have a reasonable understanding of them. As the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, I have two primary roles. I am responsible for all things related to disability in the Department for Work and Pensions—predominantly the provision of disability benefits—but I am also responsible for our Disability Unit, which was launched last year and which is based in the Cabinet Office.

The unit is the eyes and ears of disability issues across Government, making sure that disability issues are embedded in policy development. It is personally supported by the Prime Minister, which makes my job much, much easier. Disability issues are brought up at Cabinet and in interministerial groups, where I get to instruct other Ministers about their importance. We are an asset across Government, because we spend—I in particular spend—a huge amount of time on stakeholder engagement. In the past seven days, just as part of my ongoing work, I have met representatives of all the national charities that have been mentioned in the speeches today. I enjoy talking to people with real lived experience, and we then flag up that experience with the relevant Department if it is not DWP, and it makes a tangible difference.[Official Report, 17 November 2020, Vol. 684, c. 4MC.]

Many people today have talked about the challenges of accessing food during covid. Actually, the Royal National Institute of Blind People was one of the many charities that we were able to link up with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which allowed its representatives to bring their real lived experience to bear, and that sped up the process of improving the situation. The DEFRA Minister was then able to share that exchange as best practice with other Ministers and tell them to look at Disability Unit as a helpful resource, because we can signpost people to experts, who speed up policy development and make sure that it is right first time.

Looking at the broader points that were raised, one was accessible communications, and it is absolutely vital. Again, through interministerial groups and with the support of the Prime Minister, we have been reminding cross-Government Departments and public sector organisations outside Government that they have a duty under the Equality Act to ensure that communications are accessible. Using the RNIB again as an example, it has proactively helped us to look at communications and put them into Easyread and braille. In my own Department, we have launched our deaf-signed YouTube channel, which explains benefits through British Sign Language. There is a lot more best practice that we have to share, but again, through the Disability Unit, we are keeping a very close eye on what the Government and other connected organisations are doing.

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

[Justin Tomlinson]

I will take some interventions in a bit; let me just clear a few things first.

I also believe that we need to be smarter about how we use our stakeholders in future announcements regarding the difference in guidance on tiers 1, 2 and 3. What we should do is to make sure, as quickly as possible, that we communicate to our extensive network of stakeholders the potential impacts or opportunities as guidance changes, so that they can then share that very quickly with their members. That is because a lot of communication is reliant on people watching the news and following our powerful speeches in Parliament, but sometimes they do not do that, so we need to rely on our network of stakeholders, who have much better reach than our Twitter channels. Both my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington South (Andy Carter) and for Southend West (Sir David Amess) highlighted the trust, expertise and reach of good local organisations. Again, if they are part of sharing the communication, we know that those who are most in need of good communication will be able to get it.

On social distancing and hidden disabilities, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) is absolutely right about the sunflower lanyard. The dilemma for the Government is that technically it is produced by a commercial organisation, because it can sell these lanyards, and Governments do not normally publicly endorse a commercial organisation when it has competitors, because we are not supposed to pick winners; we are supposed to do open exercises. However, my personal view is that these are unprecedented times and that of all the different schemes—there are many very good schemes—that is easily the best known one and I think that we absolutely should get behind it.

Other Ministers who have been in conversation about this issue with the hon. Gentleman have also talked to me, and we are trying to work out the best way to promote this scheme, because it works two ways. One, we absolutely need to make things as easy as possible for people with hidden disabilities, and the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) very eloquently set out the importance of that. However, there are also people we rely on to challenge people who are not abiding by the rules, because they do not like it when they get it wrong and they ask a question of somebody with a hidden disability. We have to get it right for both parties. However, this is an issue that I am really keen to push on, and I think that is the best possible scheme.

I pay tribute to organisations such as Transport for London, which have been brilliant at improving communications, so that the general public are more aware about hidden disabilities. I know that lots of other businesses are looking at that issue and I encourage them to do more. I also welcome the fact that the NHS is trialling 250,000 clear masks. Again, there will be lessons to learn from that.

I turn now to care easements, which have been used by only eight of 151 local authorities and are meant to be a last resort. It is not carte blanche, as they are underpinned by the Human Rights Act, but the broad principle is that if covid causes an organisation to have such a depleted workforce, we do not want a situation where immediate urgent care in somebody’s home is missed for the sake of filling in an annual report. That is an extreme example, but that is the sort of reason why, with great reluctance, we all collectively voted for that. Absolutely, the moment when we do not need those emergency powers, they should go. What stakeholders are asking me—many of the stakeholders actually deliver adult social care, so they are saying it from two angles—is to ensure good transparency so that, when a local authority does that, not only the Care Quality Commission but independent stakeholders can keep an eye on it. That is an example of where something came to us, the Disability Unit took it across Government and, within hours, guidance was pushed through and it was easier to be more transparent. Again, we will keep a close eye on that.

I turn now to my responsibility in the DWP in terms of face-to-face assessments. My shadow, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), kindly said that we should continue to improve them, and rightly so. They were introduced under a Labour Government, and we have done over 100 improvements following five independent reviews. One thing about suspending face-to-face assessments and doing auto-renewals is that what limited capacity we had left was then able to concentrate on new claimants, so new disabled people and people with health conditions could access financial support; those whose conditions had changed and who would be entitled to more money; and, absolutely, those with terminal illness, so we could still process those in four to six days.

We brought forward telephone assessments. We had planned to pilot them over 12 to 18 months; we piloted them over about 12 to 18 minutes in the end. As part of the Green Paper, we will be looking at how well received they were. Anecdotally, the stakeholders like them. They are not perfect, and there is more work to do, but stakeholders want them to stay. Will video assessments help? What more can we do to gather clearer evidence that increases the likelihood of a paper-based review and getting the assessment right first time round? Collectively, the improvements we have been making have delivered an additional £10 billion a year to support people with disabilities or long-term health conditions.

Access to Work is changing, and that is a good thing and an opportunity for the future. It recognises, for the first time, that people do not always have to come into the traditional workplace. We will provide funding for people at home and towards additional travel costs if there are links around covid. We are doing proactive webinars through Disability Confident, and I pay tribute to Microsoft, which has sponsored an additional round of those. Our Disability Confident leaders are sharing best practice through their business networks.

On the broader points about disability employment, all the funding for the Work and Health programmes, intensive personalised employment support, Access to Work and Disability Confident has been protected, and all of the £30 billion Plan for Jobs package is open to disabled people. Access to Work can help if additional assistance is needed. We are working proactively with our jobcentres to promote that.

On the final, broader point about the national strategy and the Green Paper, both are happening. The Green Paper focuses on the DWP around improving access to evidence, assessments, monetary consideration, appeals and employment support. We are actively doing pre-stakeholder engagement before we look to launch the Green Paper towards the end of the year. The national strategy for disabled people, personally supported by the Prime Minister, is cross-Government. Each Department has to set out what its ambitious priorities are to remove barriers and be more inclusive for disabled people. We will put that to disabled people for them to audit, and we will then bring forward conclusions on both of those papers.

We are absolutely determined that there will be an inclusive recovery. Disabled people, disabled people’s organisations and stakeholders will always be at the heart of our policy development. We are proud that we have delivered record disability employment and that we are increasing funding for those most in need in society. Covid has given us unprecedented challenges, but we will not be diminished in our ambition to improve the lives of disabled people.