Cost of Living

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is an absolute pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on leading the debate and on her important contribution; she knows about this subject, and speaks with real passion and belief. I am always encouraged whenever I hear her speak and, like other hon. Members present, I wholeheartedly support her on this issue. I could not attend a debate on this subject in the Chamber yesterday, because I was speaking here in a different debate—much as I may try, I cannot be in two places at once—so it is great to be present to endorse what the hon. Lady has said and support her fully.

This is a topic that applies to the whole United Kingdom. Although some housing matters are devolved, the issue remains the same across all of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The cost of living has been rising since early 2021, but in December 2021—just a few weeks ago—inflation reached its highest recorded level in decades, affecting the ability of households to afford goods and services. That is what this debate is about: affording the basics of life. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) gave a couple of examples that illustrate the issue of food prices. Consumer prices were 5.4% higher in December 2021 than the year before—just 12 months earlier—making it the highest inflation rate recorded since 1992.

The cost of living combines the prices of housing, fuel, electricity, food and domestic services. First, I will speak about the issue of house prices. The hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) referred to house prices in his area. Prices in Northern Ireland, including in my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), are the highest they have been for ages. It is putting people in real debt. I want to explain that, if I can, in the short time I have.

House prices increased by 10% in November 2021. The average property has risen by £20,000 in the last year—the fastest pace of increase in 15 years. That gives us an idea of how quickly this is galloping forward. Wages are not keeping track. I have been contacted by multiple constituents—young people, in particular—who simply cannot get on the property ladder because of those prices.

There has been a 25% drop in those aged 25 to 29 who have a mortgage because they feel that rent is a better option financially. The thing is, it is not a better option, because their rental prices are going through the roof as well. Houses that could previously have been rented for perhaps £375 to £400 a month now cost £550 to £600 a month. That is an extra £150 that they have to find, which they just do not have. The press has described the housing situation in Northern Ireland as a survival of the richest, as the majority of people simply cannot afford the rising price of houses. That is not the society I want; I want a society where we all have an equal opportunity to acquire a house.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the picture that he is outlining—of escalating house prices, the inflation rate going through the roof and energy prices rocketing—sends a message to the Government that there need to be urgent solutions? We all understand that it is difficult because of the times that we are living in, but those solutions are needed now, not in six months’ or two years’ time. A crisis is emerging that all families, and particularly working families, are going to be hit with.

[Jim Shannon]

I absolutely agree and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We look to the Minister to give us some encouragement. It is about now, not in six months’ time; it is about getting over this mountain that our constituents are dealing with because of the rise in prices. My hon. Friend is right.

We can argue that a wage increase could assist with those payments, but in reality the added finance that people are earning is going straight to paying for the cost of living. Two hon. Members who have spoken today, including the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), have referred to the issue of national insurance contributions. Today, it is being reported in the press that national insurance contributions may not actually be going up in April. I am not sure if that is true, but we cannot ignore the fact that there is no smoke without fire. Whether that is down to the Chancellor or the Prime Minister, I am not sure, but if that is the case, at least it would be something that we could take as help for our constituents—things we can do now, not later, as everyone is referring to.

Last week, I spoke about the rising prices of fuel. The fact that the Government and, back home, the Northern Ireland Assembly are having to provide additional schemes for people to avail themselves of shows that people are struggling to cope. The Communities Minister brought a scheme to the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly to be endorsed: a £200 payment right away for those who are financially squeezed at this moment, and for those on benefits. We are doing it in Northern Ireland and I am sure that others are doing it elsewhere. Energy bills have already risen by a considerable amount and are set to rise to £2,000 per year from this April.

On my way to work each morning, I pass one of the oil companies in Newtownards, and they have prices up on the wall. Only about three months ago, the price of 900 litres of oil was £370—I remember, because I bought it at the time—but now it is £510. That is in a matter of months—my goodness! Those figures cannot be ignored. That is the reality right now. Such price rises will be detrimental to those already in fuel poverty. Recent statistics from National Energy Action estimate that between 1.2 million and 1.5 million households across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will struggle to pay their electricity or gas bills, adding to the cost of living in the UK.

On pension increases, a wee lady came to me to say, “Jim, tell me this: how will I spend the extra 25p I have in my pension?” What can I say to that honourable lady, who is a very good supporter of our party and of me individually? Twenty-five pence, my goodness! I have mentioned the price of oil and the price of food—as the hon. Member for Weaver Vale did, and as we all have. Twenty-five pence would not buy a loaf, a pint of milk—not even half a pint of milk—or a bar of chocolate. Twenty-five pence is a drop in the ocean, a ping on the ground; it is really nothing. I plead with the Minister for our pensioners. He is not ultimately responsible for this, but we need to have the discussions about what we need to do going forward.

The rising cost of food prices are contributing to the added cost of living. Food and non-alcoholic drink prices went up by 4.2% in the year to December 2021, on the official consumer price index measure of inflation. They may—they will—rise further in the coming months, and that contributes massively to the increase in families availing themselves of food banks. The Trussell Trust, which is in my constituency, delivered 2.5 million three-day packages over 2021. That was one of the highest figures in recent years.

In my constituency, the Trussell Trust in Newtownards indicated that it has done a third more food bank referrals. I know that we did it through our office by massive amounts on a year ago. That tells a story. People’s generosity to the food banks, with churches and individuals coming together, is massive, and we thank everyone who made contributions. However, we need to address the issues now.

At a time when many are struggling, I urge the Government to step in—because that is what we do. We do not always have the begging bowl out; it is about helping our people right now. I wish I had more time, but I do not, to go into detail about how badly the rise in the cost of living is impacting people. All too often, families struggle to make ends meet and the rise in prices for the most basic of daily needs is disheartening for so many. It depresses us no end.

To look towards the future, I also urge the Government and the Minister to remember that there will be a rise in national insurance, although I hope that today we will get an indication that that may not happen. We need such steps taken to help our people. The great thing about today is that all of us—all parties—are here together, but now we look to the Minister. His fellow Conservative, the hon. Member for St Ives, spoke convincingly about the issue. I think we have consensus across the Chamber on it, and we look to the Minister for encouragement to our constituents, and to ensure that the help that comes will come now and not later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship in this important debate, Mrs Cummins, and I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on having secured it. It is a fairly obvious truth that there are things that really matter to our country, and the subject of today’s debate is one of them. There are also things that are embarrassing and we wish we did not have to talk about, and frankly the sorry state of Downing Street is one of those, so I am glad to be here in this debate, talking about something that really matters.

The cost of living crisis that we are facing is going to come to a crunch this year, but let us be honest: it has been a problem for the past decade. When a country has had slow or no growth for a decade, and when wages are held down while prices rise, that will cause a problem for the vast majority of families in that country. Those who are in the worst financial situations face the indignity of having a food bank parcel where their shopping should be, unlike every other normal family in this country. It is outrageous that 2.5 million of our fellow citizens, including half a million children, are in that position. That is not the product of events that have happened in the global markets in recent times; it is the product of 10 years of lost economic growth, and 10 years of lost progress on tackling poverty in this country. That is why we are here today.

[Jim Shannon]

As we look at the rise of referrals to food banks, it is important to note that a different category is increasing: those in the middle class are also squeezed now. We are finding that more and more people are under the cosh of prices. We all know how important the role of food banks is, but the Government have to recognise that this crisis is greater than it ever was before.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and to a degree, I agree with him: any of us could end up needing to go to a food bank. This can happen to any of us, but important though food banks have become, I want a Government that seek to end the need for them. Is that too much to ask? Do we just have to accept food banks as a permanent feature of our country now, or might we one day have a Government that set out to end the need for them?

As much as I agree with some of the points made by colleagues from the SNP, I have to challenge them. How are they going to meet their own goal set in 2017 of child poverty reduction? It was made without qualification. We all want to see an end to child poverty and therefore it is important that that goal is met. I feel strongly that the Tories in Westminster made the wrong choice in getting rid of Labour’s national goal to end child poverty and wiping the Child Poverty Act 2010 from the statute book. It is equally important that those who have made commitments to the people of Scotland stick to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

There are more vacancies available, and we are encouraging people to take them up across the country, in Scotland as well. The scheme has seen real success in turning people’s lives around. There are further opportunities in the months ahead for people to get involved with that important programme.

It does not stop there, because we want to ensure that we help address some of the gaps in the workforce that were highlighted yesterday: in hospitality, health and social care, and technology. Sector-based work academies help people to get new skills and a guaranteed job interview at the end of their placement.

I also recognise, along with many others here, the immense value that older workers bring to the workforce. That is why the DWP is providing specific funding for that cohort. There is funding available for the over-50s to get tailored Jobcentre Plus support, to help them find work and build on skills to get into the workforce.

In addition, to support those jobseekers who are out of work for 12 months or more, our Restart scheme provides intensive support to help claimants in England and Wales find jobs in their local area, which I am sure will be welcomed across the Chamber today. Through regular contact with all participants, providers will develop a strong understanding of the individual’s employment history, skills, aspirations and support needs to help each one succeed. That will break down the employment barriers holding claimants back from finding work.

I remind hon. Members that the DWP is focused on helping people to increase their income by progressing in work. We often talk about the importance of getting people into work, but we are equally committed to helping people progress in work and move ahead with their career aspirations. We will shortly respond to Baroness McGregor-Smith’s report on in-work progression and set out our approach. I hope that will be welcomed by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who was concerned about that issue.

Universal credit incentivises work as part of its design. With that in mind, we have gone further to make work pay, as has been referred to, by cutting universal credit taper rates from 63% to 55%, and increasing universal credit work allowances by £500 a year. That is essentially a tax cut for the lowest paid in society, worth around £2.2 billion in 2022-23. That means that 1.9 million households will keep, on average, around an extra £1,000 a year. In addition, from April 2022, we will boost the national living wage by 6.6% to £9.50, which is ahead of inflation and worth another £1,000 each year to workers on the lowest pay.

[Jim Shannon]

A number of Members have asked for confirmation that the national insurance contributions planned for April will be deferred, adjusted or done away with. I know the Minister cannot answer that question, because it is not his responsibility, but can he take it to the Chancellor for his consideration? That would be an excellent step in the right direction to help those who are under financial pressure.

[David Rutley]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point with characteristic commitment and compassion. We on the Treasury Bench note that and will make sure that it gets through. The particular levy he talks about is to tackle the impact of the pandemic on the NHS and to face a challenge that has not been faced adequately across many decades—to tackle social care—but the points he makes have been noted.

Coming back to the national living wage, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) made some points about how we can move forward. Let me reassure her that the Low Pay Commission forecasts that the national living wage will reach £10 next year. That is consistent with the target for the national living wage to reach two thirds of median earnings by 2024. We will not stop at the 6.6% increase.

Underpayment of Benefits: Compensation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

More needs to be done to make those processes simpler. Again, this specific area is not part of my portfolio or brief, but we have made significant progress in getting disabled people into work, and we want to move that forward with the disability strategy and a clear action plan. I know that my colleague the Minister for Disabled People will actively drive that forward across the nations, and will work very closely on that with the Scottish Government as well.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his replies. There is no doubt that the inaccuracy of benefit payments will have a detrimental impact on individuals and their families throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Many of those 118,000 people are vulnerable and face the injustice of arrears. Those moneys belong to those people. Will the Minister confirm a timescale in which those affected are likely to receive their compensation? How many of the people to whom unpaid money is due are from Northern Ireland? What amount of money is due for Northern Ireland? I would appreciate an answer today, but if the Minister does not have the figures, I am very happy to wait for a written response.

[David Rutley]

The exercise to pay the arrears to the 118,000 people is complete. As of 1 June 2021, we have reviewed 600,000 cases. The 118,000 arrears payments were made to those who were eligible, and a total of £613 million has been paid. I will follow up on the hon. Gentleman’s other points.

UN International Day of Persons with Disabilities

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Cameron]

I thank my hon. Friend. That is extremely important and I will move on to speak about many of those issues. We should continually be learning and applying best practice. It is extremely important that measures are taken to improve representation in this House for people with disabilities.

There are 14.1 million people with disabilities in the United Kingdom—one in five people—yet despite making up one of the largest minorities, disability often fails to reach the top of the equality agenda.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this forward; it is something of great interest to us all. Does she agree that watching the Paralympics has reminded us of the superior ability that so many of our disabled people possess and that their contribution to our society should be highlighted and praised not simply on this day but every day?

[Dr Cameron]

I totally agree. That is an excellent point well made. The Paralympics has shown people that those with disabilities have absolutely specialist skills and abilities that shine through. My one caveat would be that having spoken to Tanni Grey-Thompson in the House of Lords just the other week, I know that many people with disabilities now feel that one of their only options in life for employment is to become a Paralympian. While we all hope that people can achieve their full potential, not everyone can be a Paralympian, or an Olympian, so we must create other opportunities for employment for people with disabilities so that they have opportunities in everyday life.

Over the past 18 months, in my position as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on disability, I have heard from thousands of people with disabilities who have largely felt invisible and forgotten during the pandemic. I have therefore been determined to elevate the prominence of people with disability across Parliament, having most recently tabled early-day motions 607 and 621 respectively commemorating UK Disability History Month and the International Day of People with Disabilities. I commend all Members of the House to sign these as a mark of recognition that, as has been mentioned, people with disabilities play a vital role in our society at every level.

Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), who spoke about the risks of throwing a billion pounds about here and there. I know he was not in the previous Parliament, when the Government were propped up by the Democratic Unionist party, but I recall them having no great difficulty finding a billion pounds down the back of the sofa. Indeed, I think the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was worth about £100 million, which is probably more than Messi.

Unlike the Minister, I am glad to see the Bill back in the House this evening, because the amendments passed by their lordships give the Government an opportunity to perform a U-turn with ermine grace and charm. Before it went back to the other place, the Bill as originally drafted facilitated the British Government breaking yet another manifesto commitment, namely the pensions triple lock, which I remind the House all parties in this Chamber committed to at the election fewer than two years ago. Thankfully, the Bill was amended in the other place, and I am grateful to Baroness Altmann for Lords amendments 1 and 2, which seek to restore the earnings link.

As we are relatively short on time, I will not go over some of the meatier issues that I outlined on Second Reading, including the Government’s repeated breach of their manifesto commitments, the worrying trends in pensioner poverty, pension comparisons with OECD countries and the—at best—disappointing lack of action on pre-existing equalities that are baked into our pension system. In speaking in favour of the Lords amendments, I will outline why the SNP continues to vote to respect its 2019 election manifesto commitment and why the Budget has changed things, which may result in more Opposition Members voting tonight than on Second Reading.

The Minister will have familiarised himself with the House of Lords Official Report, but in the interests of completeness and for the benefit of Hansard, I remind the House of what Baroness Altmann said on the cost of living crisis, which affects all the constituents we seek to represent in this House. She reminded the other place of the Government’s view that

“the 3.1% figure would still protect against rises in the cost of living.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 2021; Vol. 815, c. 1140.]

She quoted the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) who said that that figure

“will ensure that pensioners’ spending power is preserved and that they are protected from the higher cost of living”.—[Official Report, 20 September 2021; Vol. 701, c. 86.]

However, the goalposts have moved, and the fiscal outlook is much bleaker. The Chancellor conceded in the Budget that inflation in September was already at 3.1% and would rise further. The Office for Budget Responsibility has gone further, predicting that consumer prices index inflation will reach 4.4% next year. It went on to say that inflation

“could hit the highest rate seen in the UK for three decades”,

which the House will know is about 7.5%. In reality, the Bank of England’s chief economist is forecasting 5%. To be blunt, the facts have changed and the Government must now change their position at least to reflect the fiscal outlook, if not to respect their manifesto commitment.

Pensioners across these islands are not immune from rising energy and food costs, and we know that inflation is biting hard for some of the most vulnerable people in our constituencies as we approach a harsh winter. Last month, energy bills rose by 12%, and food bills have also risen, so the Government must think again.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The 12% figure is not reflected in Northern Ireland, where energy prices have risen by some 30%, and the cost of living has also risen by 20%. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, for that reason, we must support the Lords amendments for the pensioners?

[David Linden]

I will avoid going into energy policy in Northern Ireland, given previous actions, but the hon. Member is right to place that on the record. His constituents in Strangford should be grateful to him not just for making that point but for backing the Lords amendments when we come to the Division.

The Red Book suggests that, by scrapping the triple lock, the Treasury will save £5.4 billion in 2022-23, £5.8 billion in 2023-24 and £6.1 billion in 2024-25. The Chancellor is clearly balancing the books on the backs of pensioners who continue to get a raw deal from a pensions system that they have paid into their whole lives. I caution the Minister that that is an electorally courageous move for a party that has generally enjoyed higher levels of support among pensioners. Indeed, I will be particularly interested to see how our Scottish Conservative colleagues try to sell this latest broken promise to the electorate north of Coldstream.

The SNP wholeheartedly opposes the British Government’s triple lock betrayal and urges the House to support the Lords amendments. There may be a couple of hundred extra MPs in the Division Lobby with us tonight compared with the last time the House looked at this in September, but we know that the Tory Government will use their majority to plough ahead and vote down their lordships’ amendments regardless. My constituents in Glasgow East will therefore conclude once again that the House does not work for pensioners and it certainly does not work for Scotland. The only way to do things differently is with the normal powers of independence, and I suspect that this tawdry Bill will only hasten that cause further.

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%?