Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

If my hon. Friend writes to me giving the specific details, I will ensure that the ministerial team and the civil servants involved look into it as a matter of urgency.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Does the new Secretary of State—whom I welcome to his place—still agree with his statement that cutting maternity rights will be good for business?

[Mel Stride]

Given that I never made that statement, I do not agree with it, no.

Cost of Living Increases: Pensioners

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I have secured my first U-turn in the role, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does that not just show that we in the Opposition stand up for Britain’s pensioners? I asked the Secretary of State a very simple question earlier—whether she would commit to the triple lock—and she did not say yes. I am pleased that she has now cleared up the muddle she got herself in earlier, but given the other commitments—[Interruption.] The Pensions Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman)—says Ministers have said it repeatedly, but they all stood on a manifesto saying they were going to keep the triple lock. I say to him that his commitment to the triple lock might not be worth the paper it is written on, given that he broke his manifesto commitment.

While I am talking about the Pensions Minister, he told the House in September, in seeking to justify breaking the triple lock, that the Government would

“ensure pensioners’ spending power is preserved and that they are protected from higher costs of living.”

Does any Tory Member really believe that that ministerial promise has remotely been met? Of course it has not.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could secure another U-turn from Ministers, on the national insurance rise for working pensioners.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Pensions Minister, who will sum up the debate later, promised—these are his words—that the Government would preserve pensioners’ spending power and protect them from the higher cost of living. On the same day that the Government broke the triple lock, they introduced the national insurance increase, a proportion of which, for the first time, will be paid by working pensioners. Indeed, a working pensioner on average earnings will lose out by £1,400 over two years. That is not protecting pensioners’ spending power or protecting them from the higher cost of living.

Have pensioners been protected from the higher cost of living through energy bills? Next month, we will see energy bills rise by 54%—£700 on average. In October, there is likely to be another 25% rise. All the Government are offering is a £150 rebate this April—although it is not clear whether they will guarantee that for pensioners who do not pay council tax or who get council tax benefit—followed by a loan that has to be paid back through a £40 levy. That £350, £200 of which has to be paid back, will be totally wiped out by the £388 real-terms cut to the basic state pension. That is not protecting older people from the higher cost of living or preserving their spending power; I suggest it is more like daylight robbery.

We have already said that pensioners are going to be paying more in tax, but what about pension credit, which featured in the exchanges earlier? About 850,000 pensioners eligible for pension credit are going without it. That is £1.7 billion unclaimed—something like £1,900 for every qualifying household that is losing out. As Members across the House have pointed out, pension credit often unlocks other benefits, such as free TV licences—obviously, the Government cut those and changed their financing—council tax benefit and so on. Now Ministers are praying in aid the pension credit guarantee as justification for their real-terms cut in the value of the state pension. They do not mention very often that pension credit was a Labour policy, which they criticised when we introduced it. Indeed, if my memory serves me correctly, they also opposed its precursor, the minimum income guarantee, and even voted against it. They do not mention that, but given that pension credit uptake is so poor, if they drove it up they could lift 440,000 older people out of poverty.

Cost of Living

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the cost of living in the UK.

I am delighted to have secured this debate today. It is very timely, and I honestly do not think that anything occupies the minds of constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran or indeed any other constituency more than this issue. It affects everyone. Everyone has noticed that their monthly outgoings are rising. Energy costs are up. Food prices are up. Fuel prices are up. Clothes prices are up. In that context, it is no surprise that consumer borrowing is also up, which will throw many into unsustainable debt as they struggle to keep up with essential bills. There can be no doubt that we are caught up in a genuine, biting cost of living crisis. It is simply not good enough that while our families, our communities and our pensioners are suffering, the Government are eating themselves alive over whether the Prime Minister knew he was actually at a party when he attended a party at the address where he lives.

I want to begin by saying a few words about the cost of energy. Gas and electricity bills are expected to rise significantly in April, when the energy price cap is predicted to reach £2,000 a year or £165 a month. That represents a 45% increase, although there are reports of even steeper rises. It is no wonder that National Energy Action believes that 6 million households will be in fuel poverty by April. That is a 50% increase from last year and it will hit hardest the poorest families, who spend most on energy as a proportion of their income. The reality is that wages are simply not keeping pace with the rise in the cost of living, as the Office for National Statistics has highlighted, with the Office for Budget Responsibility indicating that average real wages will be lower in 2026 than they were in 2008. Instead of a rising price cap, an emergency financial package must be introduced to support the most vulnerable and help families to cope during this crisis. The cost of living crisis is real and will only worsen as energy bills rise, alongside regressive tax hikes and inflation, pushing more and more people into poverty.

In addition the ending of the uplift to universal credit and working tax credit is imposing the biggest overnight cut to welfare in 70 years. The situation for too many of our constituents is critical. The changes to the universal credit taper rate are welcome, but they are not enough to help those who are struggling with this perfect storm of financial pressures. Let us not forget that apart from the suffering that the cut in universal credit will cause for those on low incomes, it will take £460 million out of Scotland’s economy. That money would be spent in local shops, stimulating local economies in communities in each and every town and city.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this vital debate. Behind those headline figures is a 30-year high in inflation. As she rightly stated, that disproportionately affects the poorest in our communities. Jack Monroe, known on Twitter as BootstrapCook, has written for The Guardian and referred to those real-life experiences. For example, a 500-gram bag of pasta that was 29p is 70p today. That is a 141% price increase. And it goes on and on and on. The hon. Member is right to point out that people on universal credit have had that massive cut of £1,000 a year or £20 a week. That money must be restored.

[Patricia Gibson]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the cut to universal credit is beyond words in its cruelty and its insensitivity to the struggles that real people face every day. It is a cruel irony that, just as the Scottish Government introduced the Scottish child payment, the UK Government chose to remove the £20 universal credit uplift across the UK—pulling the rug away from struggling households in Scotland. That example really crystallises a tale of two Governments.

Yesterday, I heard hon. Members in the main Chamber say, “If the SNP is so concerned about the cost of living crisis, it should do more in Scotland to support people who are suffering.” I say to the Minister that in Scotland the hated Tory bedroom tax—a tax, incidentally, that hits the disabled hardest—has been fully mitigated by the Scottish Government. I do not have time to mention all the support that the Scottish Government have brought in, using their own fixed budget, to support those who are suffering. It is deeply ironic that Members in this House talk about how the Scottish Government could do more when they are the very people who imposed the constraints that limit the Scottish Government’s powers to do just that. Give us the powers; if we have the powers, we will do more. The irony of calling for the Scottish Government to do more while tying their hands behind their back is well noted in Scotland.

However, the UK Government have a rich array of powers with which they could help to tackle this cost of living crisis—if the political will existed. They could introduce a real living wage. A real living wage would, as it says on the tin, relate to the cost of living—unlike the current, pretendy living wage. They could increase statutory sick pay, which is among the lowest in Europe. Unless the real living wage replaces the pretendy living wage, more and more people will find that they have less to live on as their pay is eroded by the rising cost of living.

The sad fact is that, shamefully, the UK has the highest poverty rate and the worst levels of inequality in all of north-west Europe, with 11.7% living in relative poverty. Around two thirds—68%—of working-age adults in poverty in the UK live in households with at least one adult working. That figure is at an all-time high. Poverty is driving unsustainable debt, with around 3.8 million households carrying an estimated £5.2 billion of arrears in household bills—a figure that has tripled since the start of the pandemic. People are borrowing more to pay for basics and essential bills.

Further, the Chancellor could cut VAT on energy bills and provide emergency loans to energy companies that are teetering on the brink. He could rule out a rise in the energy price cap and reintroduce the £20 per week uplift in universal credit. If the political will existed—and I fear that it does not—the UK Government could replicate the Scottish Government’s child payment across the UK.

As household energy bills soar, fuel costs are rising too. That does not just hit motorists hard; it also has a wider impact on industry because it pushes up the price of food, goods and services. Amid all the pain being suffered by our constituents and communities, we are approaching the highest tax burden since the early 1950s because of the national insurance hike. The consequences for our poorest could not be more stark; they could barely be more harsh. The national insurance hike means that workers earning as little as £10,000 will soon pay a national insurance rate of 14.25%, regardless of income. If student loan repayments are included, graduates earning just over £27,000 will pay a marginal tax rate of 42.25%—and the Tories call themselves the party of low taxation! All of that will act as a drag on recovery. UK consumer confidence is at its lowest level for 11 months, as people understandably worry about surging inflation, which is expected to rise to a staggering 7% by the spring.

It looks much bleaker when we factor in the Brexit effect, which I know the Government do not like to talk about, but let us do so for a minute. The Office for Budget Responsibility—the UK Government’s own forecaster—suggests that the worst is yet to come. Make UK is an organisation representing 20,000 manufacturers, and it has said that Brexit will undoubtedly add to soaring consumer costs this year. Squeezed supply chains are under pressure, with customs delays, border red tape and labour shortages, and additional costs ultimately borne by consumers.

Last month, as the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) indicated in his intervention, we saw £15 added to the average price of groceries. The rate of food price increases is set to increase further this year, just as the national insurance hike is set to bite into pay packets in April.

Let us not forget the promises that were made—the pictures that were painted of the sunny uplands—as we approached Brexit. We were told that VAT on energy bills would be scrapped. Now we are told we cannot do that because it would be a “blunt instrument”. We were told that the price of food would go down. In the wake of Brexit, this message slightly changed to there will be “adequate food”, but we see the price of food rising fast.

It seems that there is one rule for one and one rule for another. As the Minister will stand up and tell us, there are lots of reasons why he cannot do more, there are lots of reasons why the Government cannot do more and hard choices have to be made. In that context, I cannot help but remember the words of Lord Agnew yesterday when he talked about the £4.3 billion of covid loans conveniently written off by the Treasury. He said “arrogance, indolence and ignorance” were at the heart of Government and were freezing “the Government machine”. He said:

“Schoolboy errors…allowing more than 1,000 companies”

that were

“not even trading when Covid struck”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 January 2022; Vol. 818, c. 20.]

to have loans could not be justified. I wonder how much pain people like the ordinary man in the street would have been saved by a cash injection from the Treasury of £4.3 billion.

We cannot forget the poor deal for pensioners in this crisis. The WASPI women—the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—have already been left high and dry as their pension age was increased with little or no notice, throwing their retirement plans into chaos. I want to head off once again the allegation that if the SNP Government are so concerned, they can help the WASPI women. I simply quote that section 28 of the Scotland Act 2016 prevents the Scottish Government from providing support on reserved areas, including pensions assistance or assistance by reason of old age. Once again, we need to burst the myth that the Scottish Government can solve the WASPI problem. It is a problem of the Government’s own making and it is down to them to fix it. If the Scottish Government had the powers, we would be happy to do so with all the levers of an independent country.

Those who have finally reached state pension age now find they are being clobbered again as the triple lock has been abandoned—right in the middle of a cost of living crisis. State pensions have to keep pace with the cost of living, otherwise, we will see older people languishing in poverty as the threat of a rise in morbidity from the cold looms large this winter. I will say that again, because it is outrageous: there is an expectation this winter that the death from the cold among older people will rise. I do not even know what to say about that, it is so appalling.

Pensioner poverty has risen to a 15-year high under this Government’s watch as 985,065 pensioners have been directly impacted by the breaking of the triple lock, despite the fact that UK pensions are the least generous in north-west Europe. Not only are they the least generous but they have been clobbered by this Government in the middle of a cost of living crisis. It is simply not good enough for the Government to fiddle while households, pensioners and one in four children in the UK suffer poverty as a result of the choices the Government are making—and it is a result of the choices they are making. The cost of living crisis is not inevitable, although of course there are factors at play such as global energy challenges and the all-too-predictable consequences of Brexit driving up prices due to supply issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this worthwhile and timely debate. I apologise for not being able to take part in yesterday’s debate, but it is really important that we talk about how we can help households and families in our constituencies that are facing the real pressure of increased house prices, and all the anxiety and difficulties that go with that. I agree that the Government must do what they can to mitigate increasing living costs, particularly for low and fixed-income families.

I regularly host drop-ins across west Cornwall, where people can come along and raise whatever issue they like. I try to do so in every part of my constituency: like many Members present, I represent a large rural area, and it is important that I get to where people are. Many people, pensioners in particular, have come to me in recent months. Those households have worked hard to plan for their retirement, but find that their pension has become less able to meet their basic living costs—a position that they never expected to be in. These are not just pensioners on the state pension who might be getting pension credit: there are those who have a small pension in addition, but are finding that costs are outrunning their income.

I have also come across several families whose rent costs have rocketed over the past couple of years—an issue that I raised in this Chamber last month. It is really important that the Government look at how we can manage and protect housing supply, particularly in places such as Cornwall, which is a very attractive place to visit and possibly an attractive place to buy a second home or bolthole. That forces up the price of homes for the people living there, and that is true for lots of other constituencies, particularly coastal ones. The Government must look more earnestly at increasing the availability of rental properties and homes to buy by protecting them for permanent residents. When we build new homes, it is important that they meet a local need, as is the case in St Ives, which is part of my constituency. This is about the cost of housing and rent.

[Mike Amesbury]

Would not part of the solution be to build homes for social rent, allocated to local residents? Fewer than 6,000 of those homes were built last year. Would the hon. Member agree that homes for social rent must certainly be a big part of the solution?

[Derek Thomas]

I completely would, and I welcome that intervention. However, in parts of the country, including my constituency, families with fairly decent incomes who would never qualify for that list are also seeing their rents rocketing. We are talking about the nurses, teachers and police officers we need to come to take jobs in Cornwall, or stay in the county, and who cannot afford the rents they are expected to pay.

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point. Cornwall County Council, now under a Conservative administration, is ramping up the provision of social rental properties. That meets the needs of a particular group of constituents, but does not reach or solve the whole problem.

In view of the rising costs of housing, Cornish MPs are arguing in favour of protecting new buildings for permanent residents only, which will help to protect those homes for local need. I agree that we need to look at every tool available to ensure that people have secure homes for life that they can feel safe in. Those homes should be built efficiently, so that rising energy costs, which I will address in a minute, can be managed, so that we are not just heating up the planet when we are trying to heat our homes.

I want to touch briefly on energy costs. My understanding at the moment is that the cost of production of energy has not risen. Companies that are producing it, not all of them based in the UK, are making colossal sums of money due to demand. I am interested to hear from the Minister what the Government are looking to do to bring the cost that suppliers pay for energy closer to the cost of production.

Another area to look at is the feed-in tariff. For example, customers are seeing energy prices increase and that is expected to carry on this year, but those who are feeding into the energy supply, through solar panels or wind turbines they have invested in, are not seeing any change in the money they receive for that energy. It seems sensible for the Minister to look at whether the feed-in tariff should be tracked against the energy costs people pay.

There is no doubt that the energy market needs reform, but right now urgent help is needed for households most hit by energy prices. I heard the calls for a cut in VAT, but householders concerned about energy costs have already worked extremely hard to reduce the amount of energy they use, sometimes choosing not to heat their homes in order to feed their families. The VAT element of the bill for those families will be tiny: they might save £20 or £30, perhaps a little more, a year in VAT. If I owned several electric cars, a couple of hot tubs, maybe a swimming pool, and a massive house with lights on all the time, the savings I would make from the VAT cut would be significant. We are not helping the households that most need it with the headline-grabbing promise to cut VAT on energy.

There must be targeted and effective help for the families I have referred to, the pensioners, people on fixed incomes and low-income households. There should be cash to help with energy bills and, at the same time, an effective way to improve people’s homes. We have had lots of schemes recently where large amounts of money have been made available for people to retrofit their homes. In Cornwall, builders—people involved in construction—were already run off their feet with building homes and looking after Cornwall’s homes and did not choose to take up those offers. People came in from different parts of the country to retrofit homes, not doing it properly or effectively, and often going bust before they got found out.

Lots of Government money was wasted while the homes were not actually improved. The Government need to look carefully at how we retrofit homes, probably through local authorities, where that can be targeted and effective. Ultimately, not now but in the near future, the Government with their sizeable majority could properly reform the energy market so that the poorest families paid hardly anything—if anything—for energy, and those more demanding homes paid more.

Pensions Update

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I appreciate that this is a statement about the uprating, but let me just remind the hon. and learned Lady of the situation relating to the change in state pension age. It was voted through by Parliament in 1995, and there have been changes in the last decade. The Supreme Court made a ruling. We have been through the cases, and the right of Parliament to set the pension age has been upheld, so we will not be reviewing anything to do with the state pension age in response to the WASPI campaign.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Given that the Secretary of State and every other Tory MP stood on a manifesto commitment not to increase national insurance contributions and hit the lowest paid—whom people gladly applauded every Thursday some months ago—and also affirmed the retention of the triple lock, how on earth can the people of Weaver Vale and people across Britain trust a word that the Secretary of State or any Members on those Government Benches utter in this place?

[Dr Coffey]

I think that the people of this country are very wise. I think that they will have seen the £407 billion package provided by this Government to support taxpayers. We are doing our best to protect lives and livelihoods, and I am absolutely convinced that our pensioners will not want to statistical anomaly to be the basis of a pension uplift when they recognise the challenges that this country has faced and what it has been through. I strongly believe that we are doing the right thing, and I hope that it will gain the support of the House when we present the legislation.

Bill Presented

Misuse of Fireworks bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sarah Owen, supported by Rachel Hopkins, presented a Bill to make provision about offences relating to the misuse of fireworks and penalties for such offences; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 156).

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

The way universal credit works is for people to have payments in arrears, but 85% of eligible childcare costs are covered, compared with 70% under the legacy system. It is also important to stress that the flexible support fund can be used to help with those sorts of costs, but we need to ensure that people are paying according to their salaries, as opposed to our simply giving grants up front.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

According to the Department’s own figures, the majority of households hit by the two-child limit are in work but on low incomes. This policy pushes working families further into poverty, when our social security system should be giving people a route out. Will the Minister have a strong word with the Chancellor and end this pernicious policy in this week’s Budget, and why not support the Daily Mirror’s “Give Me Five” campaign while he is at it?

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that child benefit continues to be paid for all children, as well as an additional amount for any disabled children. He is hitting the wrong note here, as is the Daily Mirror, when it comes to the “Give Me Five” campaign, as this is not a targeted policy to reduce child poverty. I simply say that, by keeping the two-child policy, providing support for a maximum of two children ensures fairness between claimants and those who support themselves and their families solely through work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Tomlinson]

It will give us greater flexibility to try out new ideas that will be identified in the Green Paper, ensuring that we put claimants first.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Before Errol Graham was found dead after his employment and support allowance was stopped, he wrote a letter to the Department for Work and Pensions, pleading with officials. He said:

“Please judge me fairly. I am… overshadowed by depression.”

That letter was revealed to the public weeks after the National Audit Office published a damning report showing that the Department has investigated 69 suicides linked to social security, which are just the tip of the iceberg. Will the Secretary of State finally make a statement on that report, and will she now commit to an independent inquiry into the deaths related to social security?

[Justin Tomlinson]

The Secretary of State is absolutely passionate about the need to make improvements in this area and is leading very important work. On the specific point of the NAO report, we are working at pace to drive forward improvements and learn the lessons from any cases. We have already improved support and guidance for staff on how best to support vulnerable people. The NAO report notes action that the DWP is already taking, but we are now carefully considering the NAO’s findings and how they can help to further improve our excellence plan.

[Mike Amesbury]

That passion certainly does not seem to be demonstrated in recent tribunal cases—the Department for Work and Pensions has lost more employment tribunals for disability discrimination than any other employer in Britain. Is the Secretary of State shocked by her Department’s own disability tribunal record, given that it should be, as the Minister said, leading by example? What will the Secretary of State do to rectify that?

Pensions

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his comments.

On the uprating of the state pension in line with the triple lock, we are pleased that the Government have kept to this despite some voices on the Conservative Benches arguing, at an early stage, that the triple lock should be scrapped. This comes at a time when pensioner poverty is on the rise for the first time in five years, according to the recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, “UK Poverty 2019/20”. The shadow pensions Minister, my hon. Friend—my good friend—the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who cannot be with us today, is correct to assert that the Government have failed to encourage take-up of pension credit, which is down from 70% in 2010 to 64% in 2016-17, and have introduced new rules on eligibility that put a young partner at potential risk of being sanctioned and could leave couples over £7,000 a year worse off.

The other point I would like to pick up on with the Minister and the Government is that they have failed to address the financial hardship faced by millions of women born in the 1950s due to the hurried and unfair changes in pensions policy. I do hope that the Minister and the Government rectify this to ensure that these millions of women get justice over the duration of this Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 27 January, be approved.

Social Security

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

This uprating order will increase a range of social security entitlements and pensions. As a result of the Government’s Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, most working-age benefits and tax credit elements have been subject to a four-year freeze, covering the period 2016-17 to 2019-20. It is a basic human right to have security and stability in our lives, secure housing, reliable income, and support when things get difficult. Society’s choices about benefit levels help to determine the levels of inequality and living standards, sometimes for the most vulnerable in our society.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, especially as I did not have the opportunity to intervene on the Minister. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the fairnesses that we have to consider is intergenerational fairness? We are seeing a widening discrepancy between the protection for pensioners—rightly—through the rise in the basic state pension, and what is provided for those on working-age benefits. If people on working age benefits are kept in very difficult financial circumstances, they cannot save for their old age. Is not this really politically motivated, rather than a genuine policy to achieve better equality and protect the most vulnerable?

[Mike Amesbury]

My hon. Friend makes a very valid and powerful point.

For too many of our citizens, there is no such security. The responsibility for this situation lies firmly at the door of the Government, whose lack of compassion and cruel social security policies have afflicted those who are most in need.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the cuts have been self-defeating, and current decisions are self-defeating as well? Research by Alma Economics shows that if the Government decided to restore the local housing allowance rates for the cheapest 30% of rents, that would save local authorities, the health system and many others billions of pounds in the long run. Surely the Government need to look at that.

[Mike Amesbury]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will come on to that later in my speech.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I am listening very closely to the hon. Gentleman, and, having skim-read the order, I concede of course that some of the increases are very modest, but my hon. Friend the Minister set out the overall cost of even those increases. What would the Labour party do? How big would its increases be and what would the overall cost be to the taxpayer?

[Mike Amesbury]

Unfortunately, the Labour party is not in government, but I will say to the hon. Gentleman that the cuts have amounted to £4.7 billion per year, so the so-called investment that the Government propose pales into insignificance against that.

As we have heard from the Minister today, the Government intend to end their four-year freeze on benefits by proposing to uprate working-age benefits in line with the CPI rate as of September 2019, which was 1.7%. We welcome that slight step forward. Remarkably, for a range of benefits and not just universal credit, this will be the first cash increase in basic entitlements since April 2015. It is important to point out that there has not been any recent change in policy from the Government: the freeze was always due to come to an end in April this year, as announced by the previous Chancellor.

If we scratch beneath the surface of the increase, we find that, after adjustment for price increases, the four-year benefit freeze has actually meant a cut in the real level of benefits by 6%. In many cases, that has come on top of earlier cuts. The 2015-16 benefits freeze followed uprating by only 1% each year in the three years prior to its introduction. There is, therefore, now a yawning gap between the level of benefits offered and essential living costs. Those political choices have consequences, with child poverty, homelessness and in-work poverty at alarming levels, as evidenced in the recently published Joseph Rowntree Foundation UK Poverty report.

Indeed, under this Prime Minister, children will receive a miserly increase of 75p per week in child benefit, and the second child just 55p per week.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a lengthy and well thought-out speech, unfortunately not reflected by the Government. He mentioned the increase in child poverty and the concerns that so many charities, including the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, have. Their conclusion is that the cuts in social security are driving not only child poverty but disability poverty. Does he agree?

[Mike Amesbury]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. Social security has become a vehicle for cuts and children have borne the brunt, with over 4 million now in poverty.

The 75p per week for the first child will not even buy a loaf of bread in many shops. As a result of the four-year freeze, families living in poverty are now a total of £560 worse off a year on average, equivalent to three months of food shopping for low-income families. Harsh and punitive Conservative policies such as the benefits freeze, the two-child limit and the five-week wait have created a society in which people are forced to turn to food banks in ever-increasing numbers just to get by.

The flagship social security reform of universal credit is not working. The full roll-out will now be delayed yet again until 2024, seven years behind the original plan. It is driving far too many people into poverty, debt and rent arrears. One of its key defects is the in-built and unrealistic five-week wait. At what stage will the Minister apply common sense and change that to fortnightly payments?

According to latest figures available, in 2018-19 the Trussell Trust distributed just short of 1.6 million emergency food parcels, of which 578,000 went to children—the highest level since the charity opened and up nearly 20% on the previous year. In some parts of the UK—Scotland and London and the north-east—the percentage increase year on year was even higher. That represents a depressing 73% increase in food bank use over the past five years, and the Trussell Trust identifies the failing benefits system as one of the main reasons behind that. Behind these devastating statistics are real people, families and children up and down the country, many of them in the constituencies that the new Tory MPs in the north represent.

I turn to the freeze in the local housing allowance. Evidence suggests that it has been a particular source of hardship because of the increasing number of people forced into private rented accommodation by the shortage of social housing. The charity Shelter has calculated that as a result of the benefit freeze, 94% of areas in the UK are unaffordable for people claiming LHA. Recent research by the charity Crisis and the Chartered Institute of Housing found that almost 93% of areas were still unaffordable. There are huge discrepancies throughout the country. For example, an average of £87 a month would be needed to make the bottom 30% of the rental market available in the UK. However, in London a claimant would need an extra £1,398, so the uprate of £10 per month is totally unrealistic.

[Kate Green]

As my hon. Friend knows, Trafford in Greater Manchester, where I am a Member of Parliament, has relatively high housing costs. I frequently see people who are driven into rent arrears because of the lack of generosity in local housing allowance. That means that they have to seek advice to avoid penalties or eviction, but that advice is not available. Eventually, the cost piles up and they arrive at the door of the local authority saying that they are now in housing need because they have been evicted from their private rented accommodation. How can that be sensible?

[Mike Amesbury]

My hon. Friend is totally correct. It is not sensible at all.

The devastating repercussions of 10 years of Tory austerity and the impacts of the benefit freeze will remain for a long time to come. The 1.7% uprate is a token mild thaw at the tip of the iceberg of systematic and pernicious cuts to the benefit system. It is too little, too late, and it does nothing to repair the damage done to people’s lives by this Government’s failed social security policies. It has served to further entrench poverty in society. For those reasons, it is Labour’s intention to abstain from voting on this statutory instrument.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Will Quince]

I recommend that the hon. Gentleman visits his local jobcentre and speaks to work coaches, because they will tell him about the impact of universal credit. More people are getting into and staying in work. Importantly, we do listen to hon. Members from across the House and to stakeholders within the Department. In addition to the measures I mentioned earlier, we now have a two-week run-on for housing benefit and will have a run-on for other legacy benefits as of October next year.[Official Report, 30 January 2020, Vol. 670, c. 8MC.]

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

The reality of the so-called jobs miracle is nothing but a mirage for families up and down the country. Two thirds of children living in poverty are in working households, earnings have not even recovered to 2008 levels, and the use of zero-hours contracts went up by 15% last year. Will the Minister have a word with the Prime Minister and get zero-hours contracts kicked into touch once and for all?

[Will Quince]

Employment has increased by over 3.8 million since 2010; the employment rate is 76.3%; unemployment is at its lowest rate since the ’70s, wage growth is outstripping inflation and wages are increasing at their fastest rate in a decade; and we have around a million fewer workless households and a record low 730,000 children in workless households. That is a record that we should be proud of. The hon. Gentleman talks about zero-hours contracts, but they account for 2.7% of the labour market and work very well for many people.

Endometriosis Workplace Support

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) on securing this important debate.

We have heard excellent and powerful contributions from 15 hon. Members about the profound impact that this complex and debilitating condition can have on our constituents—and on Members of the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh). It is extraordinary to think that nearly as many women in the UK have endometriosis as have diabetes, yet the suffering associated with it is often private and unseen. Part of the issue is a still-ingrained culture of silence and even shame when it comes to women’s reproductive health, and the pervasive attitude that serious menstrual pain is normal and natural. It is not.

When such attitudes collide with working life, the effects on women can be profound. For the 30% of women with the disease who have severe endometriosis, the condition can stop them working in the way they want. As we heard from hon. Members across the House, some women report finding conventional, full-time jobs impossible to hold down because of the impact of the condition on the hours they can work—zero-hours contracts have been mentioned—and the tasks they can perform. In some cases, women are literally managed out of work. Recent research shows that such actions can lead to those women who are most severely affected losing on average more than £5,000 in earnings a year, and one in six women gives up work entirely. We cannot afford to ignore this condition any longer.

Workplace attitudes often do not help. Today, we have listened to the experiences of women, and we heard the same stories over and over: when it comes to endometriosis, women are often not believed or supported by doctors, employers or even loved ones. Almost all women who responded to a recent BBC survey on endometriosis felt that their career had been hampered. The knock-on effects of endometriosis on mental health are shocking; almost half of the women surveyed reported that they had experienced suicidal thoughts.

Endometriosis UK provides information and guidance for employers and employees, but workplace guidance from the Government is still lacking. Endometriosis is not mentioned in several mainstream Government resources on occupational health and disability. Government acknowledgement is a vital part of awareness and recognition of endometriosis; in the absence of that acknowledgment, the condition is often framed as a performance issue, rather than a health concern. Will the Minister commit to changing this discriminatory practice? As the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) highlighted, some of that has to do with the Department for Work and Pensions.

Another problem raised by Endometriosis UK is statutory sick pay. The current guidance limits statutory sick pay to three years—much less than half of the average time it takes a woman suffering from endometriosis to be diagnosed, let alone their total time living with the condition. Endometriosis is a chronic, complex and fluctuating condition. Will the Minister do everything he can to ensure that statutory sick pay reflects reality?

Concerns have also been raised by the Work Foundation about how guidance for benefits such as the personal independence payment covers endometriosis. It has been suggested that its potential severity is not accurately reflected in guidance provided to assessors. Concerns have also been raised that references to “lifelong” conditions in disability policy have the potential to exclude women with this condition. Considering the number of women affected by endometriosis, and its impact on working lives, what will the Minister do to investigate that and ensure that women receive the support they need?

In 2017, the main recommendation in the first ever guidance on endometriosis produced by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence was that medical professionals should “listen to women”. I advise the Government to do the same. Listen to what has been said in the Chamber. Listen to research and testimony. Listen to the outcome of the APPG inquiry. Listen to what women, and the organisations that represent them, are telling Ministers about the help that they need, and commit to addressing the unacceptable shortcomings in support for those who suffer with endometriosis.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

My right hon. Friend knows that, if it were up to me, I would love to extend the national living wage down to 18, but sadly this is down to the Treasury; I will question the relevant Ministers accordingly.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Well-paid, secure work is a good route out of poverty, yet far too many young people—11%—are not in education, employment and training under this Government; or they are in low-paid jobs and on zero-hours contracts. Will the Minister press the Chancellor to set the national living wage at the same rate for all young people in work, as Labour has committed to do—£10 an hour in 2020?

[Mims Davies]

Everybody in this Chamber speaking up for our young people does all our communities a great service. We need a mixture of chances and opportunities for young people, including through mentoring. I am particularly interested in the work that we do with schools around engagement with jobcentres. [Interruption.] It is not all about money; it is also about skills and opportunities. I hear the hon. Gentleman, as do many colleagues, and I hope the Treasury will too.