Child Maintenance Service

Philip Boswell Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Marion Fellows]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Again, I completely agree. When I went to the Backbench Business Committee to apply for this debate, I was aware even there of the consensus across the House on the lack of action and the failings of the Child Maintenance Service, and that is being reinforced by these interventions.

Variation claims place the burden of proof on the parents with care to show that their ex-partners’ incomes are misrepresented. I have constituents who have either hired private investigators or become private investigators themselves to prove to the CMS that their ex-partner is lying about their income. That is not their job; it should be the job of the CMS.

[Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this debate to the House. Does she agree that improvements need to be made to diminish further the ways in which former partners can manipulate and use the system as a weapon of abuse and control? That was the case with one of my constituents, who, as my hon. Friend clearly states is happening commonly, had to prove her ex-partner’s financial status.

[Marion Fellows]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Yes, that is at the heart of what I am trying to get across today. This system is not working, and the bottom line is that children are suffering because of it.

Both parents and my staff have raised concerns about the difficulty of making a complaint. The new system makes the first complaint an “inquiry” rather than a complaint. Parents and even my staff have to be persistent in escalating their issue to a complaint to have it properly investigated. I understand that the CMS cannot utilise the enforcement actions available to it without proper cause. However, I have had through my door numerous constituents who have not received full and proper payments from their ex-partners. Despite that evidence having been shown to the CMS, there is a severe lack of urgency. Parents are required to jump through hoops to get any sort of action taken and to fight their case. That demonstrates the lack of understanding of how important it is for parents with care to receive full and timely payments. It has also contributed to a culture of non-payment, which leads to ironically named “paying parents” not paying at all.

Without wishing to sound dramatic, I believe that the Child Maintenance Service should strike fear into the hearts of parents not making their proper contributions. If the CMS took more seriously its duties to pursue maintenance, parents would perhaps not be allowed to make incomplete, late or non-payments. The UK Government have sanctioned benefit claimants and clawed back supposed overpayments. I would like to see them take an equally enthusiastic approach in ensuring that “paying parents” actually pay.

In addition, parents must pay the maintenance that reflects their income. A major difference between the CSA and the CMS is that parents cannot claim for a variation on the grounds of a “notional income” if parents have assets of more than £65,000 or a lifestyle inconsistent with their stated income. That has removed a vital option whereby parents with care can challenge their ex-partners’ claims.

Furthermore, non-PAYE income such as dividends and rental income is not automatically taken into account when calculating maintenance. I have constituents who know that their ex-partner is earning large sums from rental income, for example, but that is not taken into account, allowing parents to minimise their maintenance payments at the expense of their children. We have to see the CMS take action against non-payment, and a change in the rules is required to ensure that maintenance calculations reflect incomes and that, in particular, wealthier parents with assets support their children.

A closer relationship with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs would be welcomed, especially regarding data sharing. A bolstering of the financial investigation unit would also be welcomed. That would ensure thorough investigations into those who are self-employed or have complex financial arrangements, so that they pay the right maintenance. It is not enough simply to add to parents’ arrears; action must be taken to collect the money.

The Child Maintenance Service is at crisis point. So long as that continues, we are allowing parents to avoid their responsibilities to their children. It is a common misconception that it is the receiving parent who is losing out if a paying parent fails to make proper payments, but it is the children who are paying the price. Proper receipts of child maintenance have been shown to lift one in five families out of poverty. If the UK Government do not take proper action to secure children their rights, they will be allowing that to happen. The risk of poverty for children in single-parent households is almost double that for children in a household with two parents. Child maintenance is therefore a vital source of income for those families. Some single parents are working themselves to exhaustion to provide for their children while non-resident parents and the Child Maintenance Service allow them to. The Minister must publish the new maintenance collection strategy with set targets for collection; a dedicated enforcement team focused on arrears collection and the collection of current maintenance; and greater use of enforcement powers.

Before the process of coming under the child maintenance system, a parent must pay a £20 charge, and when they come under collect and pay, receiving parents are taxed 4% of their payments. Responses from Ministers have revealed that that is to raise money to fund the maintenance service and to encourage parents to make family-based arrangements—arrangements between themselves—rather than having an application to the CMS as the default option.

When I tabled a question asking what percentage of those who applied to the CMS were parents with care and what percentage were non-resident parents, I was dismayed to find that those figures were not available. It makes sense to assume that the vast majority of people who make the initial application are parents with care. Many of those parents will be applying to the CMS out of necessity; they will pay the £20 application fee and be taxed at 4% of the maintenance that is collected simply for accessing their rights.

Of those who applied to the CSA, one third had already had a failed family-based arrangement. Although charges may encourage some parents to make family-based arrangements, they can also deter people from going into the child maintenance system in general, leaving them entirely without assistance or recourse. That is particularly true for people on low incomes, who require support the most. Two fifths of receiving parents on direct pay said that they found the application fee difficult to afford; so, too, did half of those on very low incomes. One quarter of receiving parents who moved from direct pay to collect and pay said that they found the 4% collection fee difficult to afford also. Astonishingly, 16% of parents with an FBA said that being unable to afford the fees was one reason why they did not apply to the CMS. Instead of supporting families, charges are taking money out of parents’ pockets, food out of children’s mouths and clothes off their backs—through no fault of their own and all for simply accessing their rights.

Pushing parents out of the maintenance system can leave them without any money at all. Some 29% of former CSA parents with care said that the application fee was a factor in not having an arrangement, and the 4% collection charge influenced 24% of those same parents. The charges are actively deterring people from seeking any assistance at all when they most need it.

One group in particular requires special attention and sensitivity: parents who have been the victims of domestic abuse or violence. Of those who applied to the CSA, half had experienced violence or abuse at the hands of an ex-partner—a substantial group, which must be considered with great care. After a year, about a fifth of receiving parents whose direct pay arrangements had broken down or had not even started said that domestic violence was a factor. In addition, 22% of receiving parents said that domestic violence made it difficult to set up a direct pay arrangement. That shows that so many such parents need maintenance services and need them to be effective. I appreciate that the Government have removed the £20 application fee for these parents; however, the same understanding and approach must be implemented in relation to the 4% collection charge. Those parents cannot be expected to interact in any shape or form with their abusive ex-partners. For most parents, the Child Maintenance Service should not be a default starting point but for such parents it absolutely should. Taking simple steps such as allowing for anonymised direct pay could protect those victims. When we consider that many parents on low incomes are deterred by charges, forcing those parents to deal with their ex-partners to save money is a danger to their security and wellbeing, and often, I should add, to the children involved as well. Some parents end up not reporting unpaid maintenance out of fear of reprised attacks or worsened relations. Those parents deserve to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect, and the Government must therefore make urgent provision for that.

Charges can be a barrier for parents and their children. While I believe that parents should seek a FBA if possible, we should not exclude those who have tried and failed. While I appreciate the Government’s need to fund the service, they should not penalise children. In a worst case scenario, the 4% charge should be added on to the 20% charge that non-resident parents incur under collect and pay—they should pay the price for non-compliance, not their children, especially if it can be proven that a FBA is not working or that the paying parent is not making the contributions that they should.

Gingerbread recommends that a means test also be implemented to ensure that those who most need the service are not deterred by the £20 application charge. Taxing children and parents, many of whom apply to the CMS out of necessity because of low incomes or domestic abuse, is not just. They have a legal right to this support, and the Government should not be skimming off the top of what can be a vital lifeline. We must therefore see an end to the 4% tax on maintenance.

I do not want to portray all paying parents as villains. Many pay support for their children both inside and outside of the maintenance service, but the CMS system also penalises them. It is an imperfect system for either parent. Implementing a 25% threshold on a change in income on paying parents can leave many lower income parents struggling, and allow higher income parents to retain more money that could be used for supporting their children. I agree that having the threshold provides payment stability and ensures that the CMS does not incur large administration costs for changes in income; however, it must be set at a level that ensures a more accurate reflection of parents’ incomes—the 25% rule must be looked at. CMS staff have also indicated to Gingerbread that there has been reluctance to move cases from direct pay to collect and pay because of the high 20% charge. Staff therefore need to utilise other enforcement measures to ensure proper payment. There must be a review of those charges to encourage staff to move cases to collect and pay if need be, and not to be deterred by placing higher charges on the payments of non-resident parents.

Both groups of parents will undoubtedly have had major issues with actually dealing with the Child Maintenance Service. That is one complaint that every parent who comes to my office has in common. The main complaint is that they are passed from pillar to post and every time they call the CMS they are given a new caseworker who has no previous knowledge of their case, requiring the calling parent to provide lengthy explanations of often complex arrangements within a complex system. Staff often provide parents with conflicting information depending on the call handler. One caseworker told a staff member from my office that due to a lack of resources, oral responses were given rather than written responses. That often leads to contradictory information being given to parents by different caseworkers. My staff have said that it is even difficult for MPs’ staff to receive a written response from the Child Maintenance Service. In one instance, it caused one of my constituents to accrue thousands of pounds worth of debts. He was not notified of that over the phone and was only informed in writing several months down the line. However, when letters are sent, and they still are, they can be misleading. The most ridiculous issue brought to my office was when a constituent received a letter outlining his maintenance for his three children. Imagine his surprise—or horror, rather—considering he had only ever fathered two children.

I have already outlined how receiving parents lack awareness as to what options are open to them to pursue maintenance, and that staff are reluctant to enforce action. However, parents who are aware have reported to Gingerbread and my office that they feel they constantly have to pursue the CMS to pursue their ex-partner. Rather than a game of cat and mouse, this is a game of dog, cat and mouse. When we look at how much is spent in total each year on the collection of child maintenance, that is not surprising. From 2013-14 to the forecasted projected spending for 2016-17, the total spent on the CSA and the CMS has decreased by 21%. That reflects what has been heard from staff—that the service is underfunded and unable to deal with its workload properly. As a result of poor customer service, satisfaction rates among both groups of parents have dropped significantly over the years.

“Dissatisfied” would perhaps be an understatement for how people feel about the Child Maintenance Service. Both groups of parents are suffering from the CMS’s administrative and operational inefficiency, which makes any dealings with it unbearable. Complaints are not taken seriously and communication on rights and actions is almost non-existent. I welcome the Government’s reviews, but the CMS is rife with problems, requiring a radical overhaul of how it operates.

With £4 billion of uncollected maintenance, and parents being allowed to renege on their current liabilities, the Child Maintenance Service is failing parents and children. Yes, implementing arrangements to deter and minimise non-compliance are welcome, so long as they do not deter parents with care. What is inescapable, however, is that the best way to secure for children their legal rights is for the Child Maintenance Service to get in there and secure those rights for them.

The Government need to take steps to strengthen enforcement teams to enforce payments and forge a closer relationship with HMRC to see parents’ actual incomes accounted for in maintenance calculations. The UK Government have taken an approach to welfare that promotes self-reliance while shrinking the welfare state. What better way to ensure self-reliance than to ensure that parents pay to support their children? If those children are not the responsibility of the state, they are the responsibility of their parents, who must pay their contributions.

The system of charges needs urgent reform. It is unacceptable for parents who turn to the CMS out of nothing other than necessity to be taxed for doing so. Children should not lose out on a single penny or pound—or shilling, in my memory—due to their parents’ non-compliance. Implementing reforms to abolish charges and collect maintenance properly would benefit parents with care by allowing them to receive maintenance in full and on time, and also provide a lifeline to lift low-income families out of poverty.

A culture of non-payment has developed. Parents are failing to make full and timely payments, because the Child Maintenance Service and the UK Government are allowing them to. As Gingerbread says, children living in single-parent families are at almost twice as much risk of poverty as children in coupled families. The UK Government should protect victims and survivors of domestic abuse, not punish them financially for their inability to engage with their abusive ex-partners. It is clear that the UK Government remain wedded to austerity, in stark contrast with the Scottish Government’s determination to create an inclusive, equal Scotland.

I call on the Minister to follow up on the Gingerbread recommendations. I will not go through them again, but they are easy to access, and there are not a lot of them. They would make a huge difference to parents with care and, more especially, to children. The CMS is insufficient, inefficient and incapable. Our children deserve better.

Backbench Business

Philip Boswell Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) for securing the debate, and all right hon. and hon. Members who contributed.

It is vital that we stand up for workers’ rights in these times of austerity. It is critical that the Government engage with unions in a meaningful way and include them in the determination and resolution of any appropriate issue such as office closures. My hon. Friends have covered the lack of interface with the Scottish Government; their points were well made and I will not repeat them. My constituency of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill is affected by the cuts to jobcentre locations, as are the constituencies of many other Members present. I commend them for their attendance; appropriately, given the debate’s cross-party nature, we have adopted a collective response.

Coatbridge is a local DWP back office that employs about 250 people and is facing closure as a result of these cuts. I have been in contact with union representatives about the closure since the announcement was made and I recently attended the annual general meeting of the local branch of the Public and Commercial Services Union to discuss the impact of the closure on its members and on the local community. I was particularly concerned to be informed by the union that the DWP’s announcement was made without any consultation with the workers or the union at all. The DWP did not inform me of the lack of consultation when I was contacted about the closure. Although the DWP has stated that the closure will not involve any job losses, it has indicated that the jobs in question will be moved to alternate locations in central Glasgow or Motherwell, both of which are approximately half an hour’s drive away—and that is if we assume no traffic delays.

Coatbridge is a community filled with young families. Many people base decisions about who they work for on the location of their potential workplace: they choose to work in locations that allow them to drop their children at school in the morning or be near an elderly or poorly relative. There is also the issue of additional travel costs for the predominantly local staff to and from Glasgow and Motherwell—again, colleagues have covered that well, so I will not repeat the points they made. For many workers affected by the cut, the loss of that essential proximity to home, the additional travel and the associated costs may mean that they need to seek alternative employment. I can hardly see how a Government can describe themselves as pro-family when they put so many in such a precarious position.

The union members I spoke to were concerned about the dilution and inevitable reduction in the quality of services provided to service users that the cuts will cause, as was well articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan). The closure will affect not only current employees and their families but local businesses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) articulated well. The DWP facility that faces closure is just off the main street in Coatbridge and, like many town centres throughout the country, it suffers from massive reductions in footfall, and subsequently business, for high street retailers and service providers. It seemed as if things could not get any worse for our main street retailers, but the facility’s relocation out of Coatbridge town centre will be yet another blow for the businesses in and around it and for the other businesses, such as childcare businesses, restaurants and takeaways, that support the local workforce in my constituency and the surrounding constituencies.

Unfortunately, the announced closure is only one of a decades-long series of ideologically driven cuts to services in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill from a London-centric UK Government. It gives the lie to the claim we hear from London about caring conservatism. Nothing could be further from the truth. I urge the Minister to focus on the decentralisation of services if he and his Government are truly serious about a more inclusive Britain for all. Like my colleagues, I ask the Minister to reconsider, to halt the closures and to review them after proper assessments and a proper consultation process have been carried out.

Social Fund Funeral Payments

Philip Boswell Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I thank the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for securing this debate on such an important matter. Like many hon. Members here, I participated in last year’s debate on funeral poverty and am pleased to see that the Work and Pensions Committee has since conducted an inquiry into the matter. I agree with the Committee’s recommendation that the price of a basic funeral should be agreed with the industry and that social fund funeral payments should be set at that level.

As others have noted, the level of state support via social fund funeral payments has been frozen since 2003. According to research by the Fair Funerals campaign, the average award of £1,225 covers only 35% of the cost of a funeral. For those who do not meet the qualifications to receive the payment, finding the money to cover the difference is incredibly difficult—many Members mentioned that in this debate and in previous debates.

As indicated by research conducted by the Fair Funerals campaign and others, for various reasons many do not shop around for funeral quotes. Oft times, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) said, they are initially offered higher-priced services by funeral directors rather than being given lower-priced services.

I have recently been made aware of a case in my constituency of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill about a local funeral home that, notably, had not signed on to the fair funerals pledge. My constituent had requested that a non-essential component of the funeral not be included. However, they were billed for it and later told that they owed the money, because that non-essential service was standard. Furthermore, they were significantly overcharged for services that, because of the circumstances of the death, would have been impossible for the funeral home to provide at all. I do not have time to go into the detail, but when a family member of the deceased attempted to discuss the discrepancies in the bill with the funeral home, they were ignored and forced to pay the bill.

In the light of that case and others that have been reported, I welcome the Work and Pensions Committee’s recommendation that an index of local funeral directors and their comparative costs for a fair funeral should be publicised. I further suggest that the industry-agreed price of a basic funeral—the price at which the social fund funeral payment is to be set—should also be publicised, with a breakdown of the services included in it, as other hon. Members touched on. Easy access to that information would be most helpful, and I would welcome the introduction of an eligibility checker.

In North Lanarkshire, the council area in which my constituency falls, funeral costs rose by 13% between 2014 and 2015 alone. According to Citizens Advice Scotland, the total cost of a funeral for those living in my constituency falls somewhere between £2,600 and £8,000. As more than half of households in North Lanarkshire have an annual household income of under £20,000, the cost of a funeral in my constituency can represent more than a third of annual household income.

The cost is particularly acute since a third of the UK population have savings of £250 or less. Recent reports have found that not only are many unable to pay for the cost of a funeral, but 40% of people find themselves forced to incur high-interest credit card debt or forced to take out a high-interest short-term loan to cover the shortfall. According to a finding published in The Guardian on 20 October 2014, Jobcentre staff have actively been encouraging individuals to take on such debt to pay for funeral costs.

A defence that funeral providers often use is that users have a choice of services. But, given the urgency of the situation, the lack of transparency in the options and costs that many funeral services provide, the cultural and social pressures to provide a good send-off and the difficulty of dealing with any administrative issue while in grief and often shock, some funeral providers are clearly taking advantage.

Given the rising cost of funerals and the number of people forced to take on short-term high-interest debts such as payday loans to pay for them, I suggest that an extension of the eligibility requirements for receiving a social fund funeral payment should be taken into consideration, to limit the number of individuals forced to take on debt to cover the shortfall. The social fund funeral payment is essential for those on lower incomes. However, it is set too low, the administration is bureaucratic and cumbersome for people at their most vulnerable, and the current qualifications for receiving it are too strict. I therefore urge the Minister to work to eradicate funeral poverty through amending the funeral payment; to take those providing funeral services to task; and to consider the recommendations of the Work and Pensions Committee and the points made by hon. Members today.

Benefit Sanctions

Philip Boswell Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) for securing the debate and for his insightful and informed speech on the subject. We represent neighbouring constituencies, and I see he has become as aware of and concerned as I have about the extent of benefit sanctions in the North Lanarkshire area and their far-reaching impact on not only the individual being sanctioned but their family, who are also affected.

I welcome the contributions made by all who have participated in the debate. I think I can safely say that every Member in this Chamber will have met constituents who have faced unfair benefit sanctions. The other week, I heard from a constituent who was faced with a four-week sanction after failing to attend a jobcentre meeting. The reason he missed the meeting was because he had a job interview—ridiculous! He is currently in the process of appealing the DWP’s decision, but in the meantime, he is faced with the prospect of trying to get by in the run-up to Christmas without any income whatever.

As has rightly been stated by many hon. Members, benefit sanctions have made a direct, substantial contribution to the increased use of food banks. From October 2014 to October 2015, the Coatbridge food bank has seen a 35% increase in referrals. According to Chris Baxter, the food bank’s manager, a substantial contributing factor to that increased use is benefit sanctions. I thank Chris and his staff for their efforts.

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. Please make your key points. You have a few minutes each. You cannot deliver your speech, I am afraid, because the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson cannot respond to your points.

[Philip Boswell]

Sorry; I was cutting out large sections of my speech, but I will be more ardent in my efforts.

[Emily Thornberry]

On a point of order, Ms Dorries. I do not know if this will help with your chairing, but may I make it clear that the Labour party sees entirely eye to eye with the Scottish nationalists on this issue? There is unlikely to be anything they raise that I would want to argue with them about.

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Thank you very much for that.

[Philip Boswell]

In addition to causing a rise in food bank use, benefit sanctions contribute to the rising fuel poverty seen throughout these isles. According to Citizens Advice Scotland, benefit sanctions have directly contributed to the 130% rise in fuel poverty in Scotland, with 40% of Scots now living in fuel poverty—a statistic I find completely unacceptable.

Ultimately, benefit sanctions condemn the individuals faced with them to a cycle of poverty, given the impact on food poverty and high-interest debt, as many individuals take out long-term loans with high interest rates. Benefit sanctions also condemn the children of the people faced with them. We now live in a country where a growing number of people are punished for being poor—poor and paying for it—from the day they are born, and are provided with little means by which to escape poverty, so that they will always be poor. That needs to change, and ending the system of inhumane benefit sanctions is a first step in that direction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

Specific to individuals who have been sanctioned, first, there is a proper process on sanctioning, so we must not lose sight of that. That process includes a tailored claimant commitment and an action plan, so that individuals know what is expected from them, and importantly, the support that they will access and get from jobcentres and work coaches. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned mental health, which I will come on to. With regards to the proper process on sanctions, we have safeguarding and hardship payments, and those provide the support arrangements for people who are subject to a benefit sanction.

[Philip Boswell]

If the proper process is indeed in place, why are 50% of appeals successful?

[Priti Patel]

As I said, a sanctions process is in place. It is a proper process that includes the claimant from the start, so the claimant is fully engaged in the process, the discussions and the claimant commitment or the action plan, which clearly states what is expected of them.

On the overturning of sanctions and appeals, I cannot comment on individual cases, but I emphasise that the claimant commitment and the action plan are undertaken with the claimant from the start. The parameters are there. The individual knows exactly what is required of them. Importantly, it is a two-way process, with work coaches and the jobcentre. They set out not only what the claimant commitment is and what is expected from the individual, but importantly, the support that they will provide to that individual.

I know that a few cases were highlighted. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) mentioned a couple of cases. I am very happy to look into those, if she would like to share them with me after the debate, and to work through those individual cases with her. I will come on to the point made by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts about individuals with particular conditions, such as mental health conditions, or with caring responsibilities or disabilities. Individuals have different circumstances, as we all recognise. It is absolutely right that individual circumstances, conditions and responsibilities are taken into consideration and that claimants are given a full opportunity to provide the good reason for not complying when a decision is made by the decision maker.

Coming back to the point about process, there is, of course, the opportunity to have a mandatory reconsideration, whereby there is a further opportunity, on an individual basis, to provide information and for more facts to be considered.

Funeral Poverty

Philip Boswell Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) for holding this debate on such an important matter, as he clearly highlighted in his worthy contribution. I also thank all Members who have spoken. After a serious piece of slash-and-burn, let me say that recent reports have found that not only are many people unable to pay for the cost of a funeral, 47% of individuals are forced to take out high-interest credit card debt or short-term loans to cover the shortfall.

According to findings published in The Guardian on 20 October, jobcentre staff actively encourage individuals to take on debt in order to pay for funeral costs. The fact that they have done so when individuals have approached them at a time of desperation and emotional turmoil after the loss of a loved one is morally reprehensible and frankly unacceptable. Although the reports do not specify whether encouraging individuals to incur high-interest debt to cover the costs of a funeral is an official Department for Work and Pensions internal policy, I hope that this debate will encourage the DWP to tackle that emerging pattern, and I would appreciate a ministerial response on that particular concern.

According to the 2015 Citizens Advice Scotland report, “The cost of saying goodbye”, which has been mentioned by many Members who have spoken, North Lanarkshire council ranks in the top 40% of the most expensive councils for funeral costs in Scotland. According to Citizens Advice, the total cost of a funeral for people living in our constituency falls somewhere between £2,500 and £8,000. As more than half the households in Lanarkshire have an annual household income of less than £20,000, the cost of a funeral in our constituency can represent more than one third of household income for many.

[Sir David Amess (in the Chair)]

Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he is now eating into the time of his colleague who is about to speak.

[Philip Boswell]

Then I will end my speech.