Universal Credit Roll-out

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Neil Gray]

The hon. Gentleman knows better than just to regurgitate the Whips’ interventions notice, and he knows that the Scottish Government are responsible for 15% of social security powers and that they have already mitigated more than £400 million of Tory cuts. How much more does he expect the SNP Scottish Government to clear up this Tory Government’s mess?

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise the figures that show a 17% increase in rent arrears, a 15% increase in the number of people getting into debt with loan sharks and a 87% increase in crisis grants from the Scottish Government in universal credit areas?

[Neil Gray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The evidence is there for the Government to see.

Is the 3% uplift in employment rates really worth the rise in in-work poverty we see in universal credit areas, the crippling rise in rent arrears or the disgusting rise in foodbank use? There is no data on the quality of the jobs the 3% are managing to pick up, but we know that work coaches are forcing universal credit claimants to sign conditionality forms that force them to take any job, regardless of its security or suitability, and that the threat of sanctioning is forcing them to take it. We know that in general there is a rising prevalence of insecure and low-paid work, which is crushing morale and harming the UK’s productivity rate. The threat of sanctioned destitution is forcing people into accepting precarious and unsustainable work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I will not give way at the moment.

The Opposition are scaremongering rather than talking about the benefits of universal credit in helping people move into work and making it easier for claimants in the long run. Universal credit is a good step forward in how benefits are delivered to the people who need them. Claimants who need these advance payments because of their particular circumstances will receive advances within five days, which is quicker than for new claimants applying for the old jobseeker’s allowance.

[Dr Whitford]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that these have to be paid back once universal credit is received, which means that people will already be spiralling into debt? It is just a loan.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but there is an assumption that everyone on universal credit will already be in debt, which I refute.

For Labour to suggest that this Government want to deliberately disadvantage people when they need help from the state is frankly appalling. I am also amazed by the indignation of the Opposition about the outcome of last Wednesday’s debate, which was just that: it was an opportunity for the Opposition to debate an issue that they wanted to bring before the House.

However, over the last few weeks since returning from recess we have had some major pieces of actual legislation from Government passing through the House, but where were the Opposition in these most important debates? Why were they not in the Chamber debating and questioning the Government? Notably on the Finance Bill, we would have expected the Opposition to be doing exactly that. Was the reason for their absence that that would not have generated sharp headlines? The Committee of the whole House on the Finance Bill did not even run to its full allotted time. That is unbelievable, since the Opposition have complained not only about not having enough time to debate important issues, but we have also debated not debating in this House. The first piece of Brexit legislation had a Second Reading in the House last Monday, too, and where were the Opposition?

If the Labour party truly believed what it was saying—that it does indeed support the principle of universal credit—it would be working with the Government to make sure that the roll-out is a success, rather than scaremongering and trying to block this good reform to our benefits system.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)]

I believe our welfare system should do three simple things. It must be compassionate to those who need our help, it must be effective in getting them the help they need, and it needs to be fair to those who pay for it. Simply put, universal credit is a rare example of a policy that delivers on all three counts.

To start with compassion, rather than recipients having to make calls to up to three different agencies when something in their life changes, universal credit simplifies the system and ensures that nobody misses out on a benefit that they are entitled to because of a bureaucracy that is simply too complicated to navigate.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that people trying to claim universal credit have reported being on the phone for an hour trying to get their case dealt with? At 55p a minute, that cost is astronomical.

[Rishi Sunak]

I am sure that the hon. Lady was here and heard the Secretary of State make the point that the calls that have been made were all to local rate numbers. It is not right to say that they were premium rate numbers. As of today, those calls have been made free for all claimants, although they were offered the opportunity to be called back for free if the call charge was difficult. I am aware that the average wait time is two minutes, and of course a wait time of an hour is unacceptable. I am sure Ministers have heard that and will be doing everything they can to ensure that everyone across the country benefits from a prompt and cheap response.

At the same time as simplifying the system, universal credit humanises our bureaucracy by recognising that those who need our help do not have exactly the same needs. Instead of a faceless homogeneity, for the first time personalised work coaches can compassionately take into account the specific needs of each individual and their specific circumstances, tailoring the approach to them and ensuring that they get the specific help that they need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris]

I do recall those remarks, and I do not think it is possible. It would be incredibly instructive if Government Members actually lived on benefits and experienced what it is like.

[Dr Whitford]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern, which I am sure is the concern of many Members present who are due to face roll-out in November, or towards the end of November, that we might end up with constituents with no money for food or heating over Christmas and winter?

[Grahame Morris]

That is precisely the point that I am trying to make. I am afraid that the heat of the moment has tempted me away from the three things that I wanted to say.

As currently constituted, this system will penalise the poor and do nothing to resolve the underlying issues of low pay, housing costs and insecure employment. In my constituency, the Walkers crisp factory is closing down a month before Christmas. One Member on the Conservative Benches said that fewer than 300 people were unemployed in her constituency. I have more than 300 unemployed people from one factory closure.

The East Durham Trust, which is a tremendous initiative in my constituency, is making up food parcels because the Trussell Trust cannot keep up with demand. It is currently raising money to cook food, because some poor people do not have access to cooking facilities. I want to encourage all the good people—not just those on the Opposition Benches and in my area, but on the Government Benches—to donate to such organisations. The East Durham Trust is trying to raise the modest sum of £10,000, which will be matched by Comic Relief. I was at its 10th anniversary event, celebrating the achievements of the community and voluntary sector.

This terrific event was addressed by the chief executive of the East Durham Trust, Malcom Fallow. He spoke to me about a young boy who was attending the community barbecue, which was trying to feed some of the most deprived and vulnerable families in the community of Peterlee in my constituency. He said that the young boy put a burger in his pocket. When he was challenged about it, he said that he was taking it home to feed his hungry sister. That is an indictment in 2017. It is shameful and it should shame this House. It shames me that, in this great country of ours in 2017, children are going hungry because of a flawed benefit system. It is a system that can be fixed, and we have an opportunity to do that tonight.

Communities such as mine are being forced to create their own food banks to feed their neighbours because the current benefit system—I might say the personal independence payment system as well—is not working. I commend the work of the East Durham Trust; it is a fantastic organisation. However, if this Government showed some compassion and reviewed the system, such organisations may not be so necessary.

UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Thursday 12th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock]

In a moment.

I have no doubt that the Minister could add to the lament were she so minded. This river of human misery should shame the Government and every legislator who stands in this Chamber, but it does not. Instead, the atmosphere of persecution creates fear and distrust, leaving people isolated and alone, which is a form of psychological damage that may be even more cruel than the physical damage.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

This week, we noted World Mental Health Day. One of the biggest contributors to stress and mental ill health is poverty and the desperation brought about by the changes my hon. Friend is describing.

[Deidre Brock]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is another thing about which we have heard just too much in our surgeries in recent years. Unfortunately, there is no sign of it ending. Two of the three disability premiums that were included under employment and support allowance are missing from universal credit, so severely disabled people could lose £78.35 per week—around £340 a month—from their income. Research carried out by the citizens advice bureau in East Lothian showed that disabled recipients of universal credit will lose up to a fifth of their income.

Against that background, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities reported in August on the progress that the UK has made towards fulfilling its obligations under the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. It is fair to say that the committee was not complimentary to the UK Government. It praised the Scottish Government and gave some praise to the Welsh Government, but it did not feel able to say much in favour of the UK Government’s efforts. I really hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that there will be better news in future reports.

The United Nations report criticised the austerity fetish, condemned the cuts to funding offered to people with disabilities for independent living and called on the Government to backtrack. The tally of the committee’s recommendations for the UK exceeded 80 and covered a huge range of areas in which we have simply failed people with disabilities, in which Parliament has not protected them and in which the Government have assaulted them. It is, as the chairperson of the UN committee said, a human catastrophe. The Government have totally neglected people with disabilities.

At the end of last year, the same UN committee said that UK Government policies and cuts amounted to systematic violations of the rights of people with disabilities. The Government’s response appears to have rested on saying that the committee misunderstood and that they were improving and building on the support available to disabled people. I hope that the Minister will offer us a little more than that today.

The Government have not acted on the previous report from the committee, so I hope we get some commitment to action on the most recent one. I am not asking for an answer to every point in the committee’s report—I am sure that a team of civil servants is already working on that and that responses will come in due course—but I would like an indication of whether the Minister and the Department intend to press ahead with addressing the concerns raised by the UN.

The UK is going backwards in respect of far too many critical rights for people with disabilities. The concluding observations in the committee’s report contained probably the highest number of recommendations from the committee for any state so far. I appreciate that it is a bit difficult to turn a Government around to point in a different direction, especially when so many senior members of that Government seem to have other things on their minds, but will the Minister give a commitment that she will at least work towards addressing all the committee’s recommendations? I hope that she will be able to give such a commitment and that she will apply some honest endeavour to get her colleagues in government to pay some attention to the issues. Will she give us that commitment that she will seek to address each and every one of the recommendations?

Will the Minister also give us a commitment that she will include deaf and disabled people’s organisations in the work to address the recommendations—and I mean fully, not just a quick consultation and then carrying on regardless? Will she have the DDPOs in the room, as part of the process and a fully functioning part of her efforts, as recommended by paragraph 53 of the report?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)]

I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) for securing the debate and colleagues who have contributed. She raised a number of points, largely on the domestic agenda, which I will go through in detail. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has also raised a number of issues in the wake of the report. All the issues raised by the commission and the hon. Lady are important and legitimate, and I will take them each in turn. I also want separately to address the UN process and why its credibility is so important, particularly to me personally, as the hon. Lady placed great weight on that and on me in her speech.

We are committed to the convention and to the progressive realisation of the rights for disabled people that it sets out. The UK supported the development of the convention and was one of the first countries to sign it and ratify it. We are one of the few nations that has also ratified the convention’s optional protocol, which allows individual complaints to be raised and permits the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to investigate alleged violations of the convention. For this reason, it would be quite wrong to conclude that time spent in scrutiny of a particular nation is an indication of its standing in the world on these matters. The fact is that we allow the UN to do this.

We enable our nation’s record to be examined and the full participation in that by civil society. That is a credit to the UK and an example that I hope other nations will follow. It is also a sign of our commitment to this agenda. To pretend otherwise undermines the UN’s processes and core aims, particularly those of promoting social progress and human rights. Globally, disabled people have often been the last to have those aims focused on them. They are the most discriminated against and face the greatest obstacles to reaching their full potential.

[Dr Whitford]

The Minister and I have previously discussed a case where a gentleman in my constituency with complex post-traumatic stress disorder was treated really quite poorly. One of the areas where people are really suffering is under PIP, and it is simply by design. Will she commit to looking at that? We talk about parity of esteem, but it does not exist in PIP.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and perhaps I can just digress to answer it. From memory, in the case that she raised on the Floor of the House, she alleged some unacceptable behaviour by one of our call assistants. In any case that any hon. Member raises with me, I will investigate fully. I obtained a transcript of the conversation, and it was absolutely not the case that what was alleged to have occurred did. I do not in any way criticise the hon. Lady, because she had this third hand, and she was quite right to raise the concerns that she did. However, where hon. Members raise issues with me as the Minister or with any of the Department for Work and Pensions team, we will investigate them fully, and any unacceptable behaviour will be dealt with.

[Dr Whitford]

Does the Minister not recognise that, with the obsession with mobility, PIP does not recognise mental ill health? It gives far too much weight to those with a physical disability. Therefore, there simply is not parity of esteem.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I will happily come to the mental health issue later, but, as hon. Members will be aware, PIP is a better benefit by quite a dramatic degree for those who have a mental health condition, when we look at the number of those with a mental health condition who are on the highest rates of the daily living and mobility components of PIP and compare that with DLA. Let me make some progress, but I will come back to mental health.

With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to set out briefly why this agenda and particularly the international agenda are so important to me. Twenty-six years ago, I worked in the hospitals and orphanages of post-revolutionary Romania, in what could only be described as medieval conditions. Most of the children in my care were disabled and all were neglected, to the point that some 14-year-olds were still being bottle-fed, half had HIV, and many had been deliberately infected and had had medicine withheld to hasten their end. Some 50% were babies with a 12% chance of making it to adulthood.

Two things stuck out for me from that experience. First, in that socialist republic, villagers who lived only a few hundred metres from those children had no caring thoughts towards them and could not understand why aid workers had come to assist them. Secondly, with the exception of the occasional visit from a healthcare professional from one of the Scandinavian nations, all the aid workers were British.

Today, I am part of a Government who, in their international aid efforts, have prioritised the 15% of the world’s population living with a disability. This agenda is the most under-prioritised and under-resourced in development. We want to establish the UK as a global leader in this field and to build on our experience and projects in Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya, Tanzania, Nepal, Burma, the Syrian refugee camps in Jordan, and elsewhere in the world.

In 2014, the Department for International Development published the disability framework, with the objective of ensuring that people with disabilities are systematically included in, and benefit from, international development and humanitarian assistance. The following year, the framework was revised to include an enhanced focus on economic empowerment; jobs and livelihoods; tackling stigma and discrimination; and expanding the work on mental health. In addition, DFID is setting out to be a global authority on disability data. The UK can also boast of being the home of the Global Disability Innovation Hub. The inquiries that come to me from my opposite numbers around the world are not about how to stage the Paralympics, but about how to set up welfare systems and improve accessibility, employment and representation.

As I turn to the domestic agenda, which the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith focused on, I want to emphasise that I am keen to promote what we are doing because it is a catalyst for change elsewhere in the world. We have shown what can be done to facilitate disabled access, both physical and service-based, and how that can be achieved in co-operation with business and the third sector. Our work promotes change elsewhere in the world, which is why we would like the UN to recognise what we have been doing.

We have already responded to many concerns raised by the UN committee that oversees the convention through our published written response and during a face-to-face dialogue with the committee, and that is the standard reporting process for all conventions. We were active in promoting the review process with civil society, and we were extremely pleased to note how engaged they were with this process. I will set out our long-term reporting plans shortly.

The immediate next step will be a response to correct some of the factual inaccuracies in the UN report. In line with the convention, disability is mainstreamed. Every Department is responsible for considering disability in the development and implementation of its policies. That responsibility is made clear through the legislative duties placed on all public bodies by the public sector equality duty in the Equality Act 2010 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. As a general principle, we do not incorporate international treaties into domestic law. However, the UK Equality Act 2010 enshrines the right of people in Great Britain with any of nine protected characteristics to live free from discrimination, harassment or victimisation, and have equal opportunities in domestic law.

The UK has a long-standing tradition of ensuring that rights and liberties are protected domestically and of fulfilling our international obligations. The decision to leave the European Union does not change that: in fact, it affords us the opportunity to enhance that agenda. It is perhaps more important to focus on how the Equality Act and other legislation, such as the Care Act 2014, are enforced. Hon. Members will know that that has been a focus for the Office for Disability Issues under my tenure.

I turn to the issues raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith and by the EHRC, including the claim that some of the Equality Act provisions applicable to Great Britain are not in force. We take note of the concerns about those provisions and we regularly review the scope for introducing further provision, including the duty to make reasonable adjustments to common parts of rented properties, as the Minister for Equalities promised the Lords Equality Act 2010 and Disability Committee we would. We are looking at the implementation of the requirement for political parties to publish diversity data. We will report back to Parliament in due course on all those issues.

The EHRC also raised the issue of Northern Ireland currently providing weaker protection than other areas in the UK. The Northern Ireland Executive’s draft programme for Government 2016-21 includes a proposal to amend the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to increase statutory protection for disabled people, and that remains subject to review and approval by future Ministers and the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I hope that that will be progressed.

The EHRC also called for a co-ordinated, UK-wide action plan to implement the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, which the hon. Lady also mentioned. The Office for Disability Issues is currently reflecting on how we take this work forward, and we are carefully considering our approach, which we will discuss with stakeholders in due course. I can give the hon. Lady assurances that I am keen to use the process that we go through with the UN to help to speed up progress on a range of issues. We will report on that in due course.

The UK has some of the strongest legislation in the world to protect the human rights of disabled people. Current OECD data puts the UK’s public spending on supporting disability above all G7 countries bar one. Disability benefits spending will be higher than in 2010 for every year until 2020 and is currently at a record high.

The hon. Lady raised concerns about PIP and mental health, in particular. We will respond shortly to Paul Gray’s second review of PIP. The House does not have long to wait before we publish that and, as part of that, we undertook to look in particular at mental health, in part because of the issues raised here and in the other place about those regulations. If she will bear with me, she will not have long to wait on that.

The Department has also undertaken work on conditionality and sanctions, initially looking at those with a mental health condition. We will make announcements on that shortly, but I am not able to do so this evening. We have also been recruiting to set up user rep panels for ESA and PIP. I very much agree with what the hon. Lady says about not just occasionally consulting, but embedding the opportunities for disabled people to shape, continually and in real time, improvements that we want to make to the welfare system and other areas, and to inform proactively any future reform that we may wish to undertake.

Last year, we launched “Improving Lives: The Work, Health and Disability Green Paper” and the associated consultation. With more than 6,000 responses, we successfully sparked a national discussion on how better to support people with disabilities and health conditions to get into, stay in and progress through work. We are carefully considering the responses and our next steps for longer-term reform, which we will set out this autumn. Our goal is to get a million more disabled people into work, so that more talent is utilised and more people can reach their full potential.

I can tell the hon. Lady that there are no plans to amend minimum wage legislation. The employment rate for people with learning disabilities is less than 6%. Given the right vocational education and independent living support, that could rise to 86%. That is what we should be concentrating on if we want to assist those people into the workplace. Whether someone has a learning disability or not, if they work a day, they should be paid for a day.

The issues concerning deaf and hearing impaired people have been raised in a couple of interventions. The needs of those people have been a particular focus, especially in the health and work Green Paper. The issue of guide dogs and assistance dogs was raised. As it is Guide Dogs Week, the Office for Disability Issues has led a project working with all assistance dog charities with a view to reducing the waiting time that people may face to get one of those vital dogs and with the aim of agreeing a national standard to enable them to use their resources better.

In our work with the joint Health and Work Unit, we are looking at opportunities to ensure that disabled people’s organisations are at the heart of shaping, evaluating and setting the agenda for the kind of employment support we should be providing. Many of the things that we have been doing chime with what the hon. Lady has on her wish list.

The agenda is much wider than that, however. In February, my Department announced 11 new sector champions, who will help to tackle the issues faced by disabled people as consumers. These champions represent a range of sectors and business areas—from banking to aviation and from sport to retail. They are using their influence to drive improvements in accessibility and the quality of services and facilities within their sector. I pay tribute to them for their outstanding work.

Through initiatives run by the ODI, we are harnessing the power of technology, with new opportunities to enforce the Equality Act better and to improve accessibility. There is much more I could say about the work of the ODI and the Government on tackling hate crime; on building regulations and housing; on the provision of critical facilities, such as changing places and loos, on which we are in discussions with the Department for Communities and Local Government; on tackling the extra costs of disability; on changes to education and extending opportunity; and on the additional provisions of the Equality Act that are coming in and which we wish to bring into force.

As we develop our UN reporting process, I hope that further engagement on these issues will be possible with colleagues in this place and the other place. I hope that the UN will recognise not just the progress that the UK has made—and is making—and our ambitions on this agenda, but our humanitarian desire to help other nations to achieve more. I know the difference that the UK makes in many of the DFID-run projects that it has been my privilege to have seen, as it did 26 years earlier in the former eastern bloc. The UN’s support is not a necessary condition for our success, but it would be welcome and helpful.

Question put and agreed to.

State Pension Age for Women

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful for that intervention, and I was just about to come on to that point. These are not just my opinions; the former Pensions Minister Steve Webb said the same things. He said:

“I accept that some women did not know about it, and not everybody heard about it at the time.”

In fairness to him, he said that

“it was all over the papers at the time”.—[Official Report, 13 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 54WH.]

However, I do not think that is good enough. The Government have failed to contact anyone affected by the pension increase.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Morris, you can see how many people are trying to get in. You have been very generous taking interventions, but the more interventions we have, the longer your speech and the fewer people who will be able to get in. It is entirely up to you, but you may not want to be too generous with interventions.

[Grahame Morris]

Thank you, Sir Edward. I will give way one more time.

[Dr Whitford]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Would it not be reasonable for women facing a change in pension age of up to five or six years to expect a direct letter? The responses are, “You could have asked”, and, “We had a leaflet”, but why would women ask when they thought they knew what the retirement age was?

[Grahame Morris]

That is an excellent point, well made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Let me correct the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). If he reads section 28 of the Scotland Act 2016, he will see that the Scottish Government are prohibited from doing anything about pensions or relating to age.

The key issue is communication. The Work and Pensions Committee said that people should have 15 years. The Government said, “Well, you did. It changed in 1995”. But they wasted 14 of those years by not informing women. They only started to write to women in 2009, one year before the first batch of women found that their pension age had changed. Many only discovered in 2011, when they were informed of the second change, that they were being hit by a double whammy.

The problem, as I mentioned earlier, is one of communication—an article in the Financial Times is not an acceptable way to inform women such as me, born in the 1950s, that our pension age is changing. HMRC and the DWP can certainly find us when they want to, so I would have thought they could send a personal letter. The idea that we should have to ask for our pension age is ridiculous when we have known what it was for our whole lives. The Government owe those women a duty of care; those women who have suffered the gender pay gap, raised children and cared for the sick—

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Whitford]

I will give way.

[Norman Lamb]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitford]

Those women have also faced discrimination while they were working. As a Member said earlier, they have been in poorly paid jobs—part-time or flexible work was not available. Women still occupy the bulk of low-paid jobs; women have faced and suffered 86% of all the austerity cuts since 2010. Those women have paid and paid and paid, and some of them are losing almost £50,000 of pension in the move from 60 to 66. That is utterly unjust. The Government could correct it. They should sit down on a cross-party basis to work it out, to deliver some justice, fairness and dignity for the WASPI women.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

The hon. Lady will know that that is not within my gift; it is for the usual channels. It is not correct to say that the regulations will affect 160,000 people. [Interruption.] No, there is no policy change. There is no change to the budget, and there is no change to the guidance that we have issued to our assessment providers. It is quite wrong to raise fear by saying to people that they will be affected. No awards will be affected, and we are operating exactly the same policy and guidance in our assessment practices as we have done before.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

4. What assessment he has made of the effect of recent personal independence payment changes on the income of people with mental illnesses.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

14. What estimate he has made of the number of disabled people who will be affected by the changes introduced by the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017.

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)]

Recent changes to the PIP regulations clarify the original criteria used to decide how much benefit a person receives. This is not a policy change or a budget change, and it will not result in any claimants, regardless of their health conditions, seeing a reduction in the amount of PIP they have been awarded.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

Former Sergeant William Bradley, who is one of my constituents, developed severe PTSD and depression while serving in the Gulf war, and he was medically discharged from the Army in 2003. He had been on the enhanced PIP rate since 2014, but it was cut to the lower rate last year. Following an appeal, it has now been removed completely. The reply from the PIP hotline was that someone with mental health issues can work, and that this is really a benefit for people with severe physical disabilities. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this awful case, or, if PIP is not the right benefit for those with mental illness, can she explain what is?

[Penny Mordaunt]

What the hon. Lady tells me has happened is truly shocking. I would be incredibly surprised if somebody who was manning that hotline said those things to the hon. Lady. I am not saying that I doubt her story, but I would like to see that and I would like to know, if possible, the exact time that that conversation took place, because that is quite wrong. I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady.

The statistics show that if someone has a mental health condition—if they have PTSD, dementia, a psychological disorder or another mental health condition —they are better served under this benefit. It is important that people know that.

Digital Equipment Ltd: Pension Scheme

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

This is a particular issue for Ayrshire. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Corri Wilson) pointed out, a large Digital site there got taken over by Compaq and then by Hewlett Packard. The problem is that this is not like the BHS scenario—it is not that the company has ceased to exist. The company does exist, but it is choosing not to upgrade these people’s pensions. As was mentioned, under HP, in 15 years, those people have had a miserly two upgrades of their pre-1997 contributions. The problem with that is that their buying power is almost cut in half—as was mentioned, they have lost £24,000 each.

Currently, the guidance basically says that pensionable contributions after 1997 get the consumer prices index rate or 5%, whichever is lower, and those after 2005 get CPI or 2.5%, whichever is lower. All those people want is to change that bit of wording so that everything before 2005 qualifies for 5% or CPI, with 2.5% for everything after. They are talking about CPI, not even RPI, and, as was mentioned, they are not asking for it to be backdated. Their pensions are withering on the vine and, as they get older, they will continue to wither. As the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) said, it is indeed the older pensioner who will have a larger chunk of pre-1997 pension and therefore find that it does not give them the return they counted on.

HP is not skint. HP is a big company, making a lot of money. It sells a lot of IT in the UK and it accounts for 25% of public IT contracts. Along with other FTSE 100 companies, it pays much more out in dividends to shareholders than to correct its deficits—five times, it is estimated, what it puts in to cover deficits. Perhaps the Government should be looking at that. We hear that defined-benefit pension schemes are struggling because the companies cannot afford to put the money in. If they would be willing to pay 20% into correcting deficits and 80% to shareholders, that seems to me already a pretty generous solution, rather than leaving the pensioners to struggle.

That brings us back to situations we have debated multiple times in the Chamber, such as Equitable Life, the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign and BHS. People at the start of their working lives are investing, whether in state or private pensions, and they do so on trust that, when they reach whatever the retirement age is, they will be able to live in dignity. They have taken the trouble to open a pension. We are now making people enrol. What will happen in 20, 30 or 40 years’ time? Will we be discussing auto-enrolment pensions that people were forced into that still do not give a return? It is our role as legislators to ensure that the goalposts are set and dependable so that people who sign up to pensions know what they will get.

To call for pre-1997 contributions to be treated the same as those between 1997 and 2005, without backdating, is a reasonable request from the pensioners. I call on the Minister to respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr McCabe. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Corri Wilson) for securing this important debate, and the HP Pension Association for its work and all it has done to highlight the issue, particularly the indexation of pre-1997 defined-benefit schemes. I am here on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), our pensions spokesperson, who unfortunately is in the Chamber and unable to attend. Hon. Members will have to forgive me if I do a bit more reading normal.

On defined-benefit and defined-contribution schemes, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) covered the issue of trust nicely. If we expect members of the public to be opted into those schemes, they should expect a reasonable return, and they should have trust that their pension scheme will pay out what it said it would. That is particularly true of young people coming into schemes, with the possibility that the state pension may not kick in at 65 or 67 in the future—it may be 70 by the time I get there. We do not know what the state pension age will be at that stage. We need to ensure that people pay into private pensions, so we need to keep up the level of trust in private pension schemes, which has been eroded in recent years.

The UK Government recognise that it is important that the state pension keeps up with inflation. That is why they have committed to the triple lock, and there has been support for that from throughout the House. However, it is not right that we have that for the state pension, but elsewhere there is effectively, if not an ability to dodge that, then almost a loophole. There is a gap, with a lack of legislation committing organisations to sticking to that, particularly in relation to the pre-1997 situation.

Inflation is important. If a pension scheme is not keeping up with inflation, things are less affordable, so pensioners cannot support their retirement in the ways they expected. It is therefore key that the term “inflation” is used, and that we look at that rather than at a certain defined percentage increase.

On the pre-1997 rights and the estimated 3,500 pensioners in the HP pension scheme, as has been said already, according to the HP Pension Association the buying power of their pensions has diminished by almost 50%. That has cost each pensioner an average of £24,000 in cost of living increases compared with those whose contributions were made post-1997.

The HP Pension Association estimates that the average pension paid to Digital pensioners in 2002 was £6,008 per year. If that had kept up with inflation it would now be £9,070 per year—a difference of £3,000 per annum. That is a significant amount of money that people do not have to spend, and it means that people do not have the retirement that they expected. If Brexit causes a period of rising inflation—the current situation has happened over a period of relatively low inflation—the problem will be compounded even further, and it will be even more difficult for people to survive and have the quality of life they expected from their pensions.

Data from the Office for National Statistics occupational pension schemes survey showed that 5.2 million pensioners were in receipt of pensions with pre-1997 rights, of whom 400,000 were not receiving inflationary increases. Some 40% of those with pre-1997 accrued rights received increases of 2% or more, which was down from 85% a year earlier. There has been a significant change, possibly because companies are seeing that they do not have to pay extra. I therefore think it would be sensible for the Government to consider looking at the issue. I understand that there is going to be a Green Paper, in which I hope the Government will touch on it.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is also outrageous that Hewlett Packard pays cost of living rises to its pensioners in Europe but not those here? That shows that this is totally related to the loophole in the UK guidance.

[Kirsty Blackman]

That is a real discrepancy, and it shows that those payments are affordable. Hewlett Packard can afford to pay the increases if it is doing so in other places. The UK Government have a responsibility to consider that and see what changes they can make.

We are all aware of the widely reported challenges that defined-benefit schemes are facing, including from increased life expectancy—companies did not expect to have to pay out such amounts of money for such a long period of time—and the impact of declining yields, while the increase in many schemes’ deficits has been highlighted in the past. The UK Government and Parliament have discussed changes to the rules that govern those pension schemes and to uplifts, but we do not want a situation in which we are putting the schemes before the people. We need people’s rights to be protected and the schemes to continue to be affordable. It is important that we take the pensioners into account first.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber tells me that the Government’s Green Paper will offer an opportunity to examine this issue. He asked me, on behalf of the Scottish National party, to commit to working constructively with the Minister, to see whether we could find an affordable way to offer protection to those with pensions with pre-1997 rights. We are keen to have that constructive conversation, and my hon. Friend, who is our pensions spokesperson, would be keen to go ahead on that basis.

As has been said, in the case of the Digital pensioners we are talking about the difference between pre-1997 and post-1997 contributions. The Government could specifically consider that in their Green Paper. Many recent debates have focused on reducing the statutory minimum contribution requirements, and as I have said, we need to make sure that do not further erode those requirements and that we put pensioners first.

This is the kind of issue that ought to be looked at by a pensions and savings commission. The SNP has called for that before and will continue to do so, because this issue will not go away. Pensions will be ever-increasing in importance, as both inflation and life expectancy increase and as possible future changes to the state pension come through. It is now time for a pensions and savings commission to go ahead. That would benefit not only the pensioners in the Digital scheme but pensioners in all schemes and in no scheme. I appreciate the Minister taking the time to listen to the debate, and I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock for bringing the debate to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

I certainly wonder the same thing; I have something to say to the Minister specifically on that—not about my personal choices or the hon. Gentleman’s, but about the Government’s.

Hewlett Packard can hide behind the law, and has for years, but that does not mean that what it is doing is right. When we—a group of north-east England MPs—meet representatives from Hewlett Packard a week on Monday, I intend to challenge them specifically on the decision. Despite being a large company with a substantial UK turnover, it is clearly shirking its responsibility to ensure that people who worked for a company that it took over receive the same level of support as before. Another parallel between this case and the plight of the WASPI women is that there has been no real opportunity for the people affected to make up for the shortfall in the value of their pension.

How has Hewlett Packard dealt with other pensioners in its group? Much, much better. Pensioners in all of Hewlett Packard’s European subsidiaries, except in the UK, have received regular cost of living increases. This is a case not of a business being unable to increase pensions in line with the cost of living, but of a large international corporation using a loophole in UK legislation to give it a window to not fulfil what is a moral duty. I wonder what its problem is with treating its British pensioners the same as others.

As we have heard, Hewlett Packard is not a struggling business that cannot make ends meet. It is actually the Government's largest IT supplier, and makes sales of more than a £l billion a year to the Government alone. It is a company that, in 2015, had revenues of $139 billion—not million—and profits of $7 billion. The UK Government spent £1.2 billion with the company in 2014-15, which was 25% of Hewlett Packard’s British turnover. Its highest-paid UK director received £1.64 million in 2014 and £920,000 in 2015. It would cost that company about half the cash paid to that one UK director to pay a cost of living increase this year—half the cash that one person earned in wages last year.

The pensioners affected served their time working for HP and the companies it took over. They thought they were safe in the knowledge that they had a pension and were doing everything they were supposed to. I believe the Minister should put pressure on Hewlett Packard, as I will a week on Monday, to fulfil its moral responsibility, although not a legal one, to ensure that those workers are treated fairly in retirement.

Are the Government really content with doing more than £1 billion-worth of business a year with a company that has cocked a snook at this group of British pensioners? I hope the Minister will agree that even though companies are not legally required to pay annual cost of living increases in line with inflation for workers who made contributions prior to 1997, it is a scandal that there are thousands of pensioners in this country right now whose pensions’ value has dropped significantly, and who are probably now relying on social security benefits to get by.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, this is not a legal failure of Hewlett Packard but a moral one. Does the responsibility not therefore lie in this place to ensure that the law and guidance are very clear? It is our job to protect the pensioners.

[Alex Cunningham]

I certainly agree with that. Dealing with the situation retrospectively is extremely difficult, and I do not think that is possible, but we have various Green Papers coming through the system in the near future, and I hope the Minister is listening carefully about the problems we have seen. There are so many schemes out there, and we have schemes that are not operating effectively for the people who have paid into them, whether they are turkey sandwich makers or whoever.

As I said, some of the people affected may be relying on state social security. Why is the British taxpayer having to foot that social security bill, while the Government are handing out such lucrative contracts to a company that makes vast profits from them? Clearly we need to ensure that legislation will never again allow a company to shirk its responsibilities, and I would welcome the Minister’s view on that. I hope he will also take action to resolve this injustice by sending a direct message to Hewlett Packard that if it can afford to pay cost of living increases to pensioners in other European countries, it can pay the same increase to pensioners in the UK.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Pensions (Richard Harrington)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Corri Wilson) on securing this debate and am grateful for everybody’s contributions. I quite understand that the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), who is the SNP’s spokesman on this issue, is probably on Front-Bench duty in the Chamber at the moment. I always listen to him very carefully, as I did to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who eloquently stood in for him.

This debate is about making retrospective changes to pension legislation. Doing so, we contend, would have significant financial implications for the schemes involved. I read in preparing for this debate the information provided by the HPPA, which has been used by Opposition Members. It is a very well argued paper, but I must say that I picked up one inconsistency in it. The briefing paper says, as indeed Opposition Members who have spoken do, that the effects of making these changes retrospectively would be minimal. As far as I can see, a few schemes would fit into this, but I see no evidence from any of the figures that the effects would be minimal.

I intend to do some further work and would be grateful for further data, to assess what the actual cost would be. I have not seen anything in the information provided. That is not a criticism of the general information at all; these things are just very difficult to work out. Of course, expressions such as “minimal” or “a lot” can mean different things to different people. I am not trying any political tricks or pretending something is the case that is not, but I do not know, for example, what it would cost Hewlett Packard to make this change.

The Government have a broad principle in legislation, which I think is generally fair, of not imposing such retrospective changes, because of uncertainty. There is no doubt that this kind of change—this is not the only one we are lobbied about—will place unexpected and significant costs on employers. We all know that in the defined benefit world, schemes and businesses are at risk at all times because of pensions. It is part of our whole policy, and of the policy of Governments of any political party, to try to bring some stability to defined benefit schemes, which involves considering the interests of employees and pensioners and of the sponsoring employers. However, I accept that Hewlett Packard is a very substantial company—a point made clear by all speakers.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

That is one of the points—Hewlett Packard could carry this on its shoulders an awful lot more easily than individual pensioners. Frankly, it is individual pensioners who are facing retrospective changes. They think they are signing up to and investing in a secure retirement, but when they get there, they find that it has disappeared.

[Richard Harrington]

I fully accept that point. However, what matters to individual pensioners is quite clearly the amount of money that matters to them, but as far as a company is concerned—be it Hewlett Packard, which I accept is very substantial, or a small company—it may be a very significant amount of money. If there were to be legislation, it would have to cover all of them, to be reasonable. No Government could select one company and not another one because it is one of the world’s biggest companies, but I take the hon. Lady’s point.

Normally it is not appropriate or right for Ministers to talk about individual companies’ schemes, so I will try to circumvent that as much as I can. I have listened carefully to what has been said. I listen very carefully to what the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition spokesman on pensions, says, as indeed I do to the SNP’s spokesperson. Like the hon. Member for Stockton North, I was not aware of this issue until it was brought to my attention quite recently. I therefore cannot say that I have considered this for weeks or months, but it is important. I will come on to the Green Paper in a moment.

I strongly believe, as I am sure hon. Members in this Parliament or indeed any others do, that employers should stand by their pension promises unless there is very good reason not to and that schemes should have to act within the law. It has been accepted in this debate that the legal position is clear: pensions accrued after 1997 have a level of inflation protection, and pensions accrued pre-1997 have indexation requirements only in relation to certain contracting-out arrangements, but not generally. In fact, the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock confirmed that the company had broken no law.

The argument seems to be that the company has a moral responsibility, but that it is for Government to change the law if the company will not accept that. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) is not in his place; he explained perfectly well why. As he said, it is very legitimate for institutional shareholders, which may include trade unions or pension funds—everything is very circular in pensions, with them owning a lot of shares in it—to use pressure on Hewlett Packard.

The hon. Member for Stockton North represents the former seat of Harold Macmillan. I just read his biography. I look forward to the day when Harold Macmillan’s successor one nation Conservatives take the constituency back, but the hon. Gentleman is doing an excellent job in the interregnum. He said that the fact that the Government spend significant amounts of money with Hewlett Packard could be used as a point of pressure. I cannot really comment on that. I do not have anything in my office, to the best of knowledge and belief, from Hewlett Packard, but I know that the Government have strict rules about things they can and cannot use as investment criteria.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

Is that not, therefore, why this issue should go into the Green Paper and we should consider tightening up that loophole in our law? It is not just Hewlett Packard; it is 3M, Chevron, Unisys—it is other big multinational companies who know that here they do not have to do that for the pre-97. As we heard, 90% of them do, but there is obviously a cohort of companies that are just not bothering so we have to tighten it up.

[Richard Harrington]

I agree with the hon. Lady that the company’s obligation appears to be a moral obligation—that point has been made clearly. The Government’s obligation is to pass laws that have to take everybody’s views into consideration. As I have learnt, because it has dominated my life since last July, with pensions and defined-benefits schemes, particularly on the private side, there are the interests of employers and the interests of employees and pensioners. As Governments of all political complexions—all three, if we include the coalition—have done, the Government have had to find ways to take consideration in from the others. I will come to the Green Paper a bit later on.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

8. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the potential effect of the autumn statement on his Department.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

12. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the potential effect of the autumn statement on his Department.

[Stuart Blair Donaldson (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (SNP)]

16. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the potential effect of the autumn statement on his Department.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

No, I do not agree. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the tremendous successes we have achieved in getting people into work. We have employment at historic high rates. Very specifically, because of the introduction of the living wage, the latest Office for National Statistics data show that the group whose pay is going up the most—more than 6% last year—are the lowest-paid workers. I think that that is the system working exactly as it should.

[Dr Whitford]

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that with the fall in the pound since the Brexit vote, prices are being pushed up by about 2.6%. This means that there could be a rise in inflation that would coincide with this Government’s benefit freeze, adding even more pressure on low-income families. Does not the Minister agree that in view of that situation, we should get rid of the benefit freeze in the autumn statement?

[Damian Green]

I am sure that we shall receive a list of bids from members of the Scottish National party. I repeat that it is not for me to pre-empt my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s autumn statement but, as I said to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), the purpose of the various benefit changes—and, indeed, the whole benefits system—is to enable people to get into work so that they can not only earn more money, but take more control over their lives. In that respect, the system is working historically well. We have more people in work, more women in work, and fewer children growing up in workless households than ever before, and that is a huge achievement.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He will know this, but let me tell the House that I have met a number of colleagues who, quite rightly, want to know more about the White Paper. In relation to the changes that will be made, they have expressed concerns about the content and direction of the White Paper. I want to make it clear that this is an ongoing dialogue. I will continue to engage with all colleagues in the House, as well as stakeholders and charities, which have a valuable contribution to make and are interested in this area. In particular, my hon. Friend and my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) and for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) have raised with me their desire for the reforms to produce the right outcome. I and the Government share that desire. Importantly, we will work together to make sure that we get the right outcomes.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Priti Patel]

I will not give way. We are pressed for time, so I want to make some progress.

As the Secretary of State said last summer, the purpose of the reforms is to ensure that we give people with disabilities and health conditions all the appropriate and necessary support that they need to move them closer to the labour market and to support them into work. We are basing all that we do around what works for them. Importantly, as applies to the other amendments, we are focused particularly on life chances.

I will, if I may, move on to the debate in the other place. I can report that, since we last met, the other place has chosen not to insist on its amendments 8 and 9, which removed the changes to the ESA WRAG and the UC LCW element. However, it has agreed what is in effect a wrecking amendment, because it could in practice prevent the provisions from coming into force, despite the fact that my noble Friend and colleague Lord Freud committed to several additional measures to help those affected by the change, which addressed a number of the specific requests raised in the Lords.

Let me set out the extra measures we have committed to in the other place. First, the additional measures include an additional £15 million in 2017-18, when the changes to the ESA WRAG and the UC LCW element come into force, to increase the local Jobcentre flexible support fund. The money, which will be set aside specifically for those with limited capability for work, represents a 22% increase in the overall fund.

Secondly, in response to the concerns that were raised about claimants with progressive conditions, we have committed to improving the awareness of the reassessment process and the guidance for claimants and disability charities about reassessments. We will provide additional support and training to jobcentre staff to ensure that they are aware that they may need to talk about requests for reassessments with claimants with deteriorating conditions.

Finally, we will improve the work incentives for those who continue to receive ESA even further by removing the 52-week limit that applies to permitted work for those in the ESA WRAG. That will allow claimants to gain skills and experience and to build their confidence, while still receiving the benefit over a longer period. We will support these individuals to get back into work.

As I said earlier, despite those additional measures, the other place proceeded with amendments that ignore the clear voice of this democratically elected House, which has supported the changes to the ESA WRAG and the UC LCW element, and the fact that we have voted on this measure five times. Although, on the face of it, the amendments may appear to be reasonable, let me set out how they are, in effect, potentially wrecking amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate once again. I know that time is very short, so I will keep my remarks short and speak to Lords amendments 8B and 9B.

I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for the movement she has made so far on the flexible support fund and scrapping the 52-week permitted work limit. That is very welcome and a good move in the right direction. Although I disagree with the Government on this issue and I voted against the Government last week, I am concerned that this ping-pong is evolving into petty politics that is constraining the issue we should be discussing, which is the reform of welfare on a very technical point.

The Lords amendments are based on the amendment my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and I tabled on Report. I would have welcomed that amendment coming back last week, as opposed to this week. We have spent a lot of time on this amendment. I will be voting against the Government tonight, but I feel we should be putting this behind us and moving forward to discuss the White Paper. I want the Minister to be aware that I will be publishing a Green Paper and inviting colleagues who are also concerned to contribute to it, so we can broaden the horizon out on what we would like in terms of welfare reform.

I want to reiterate the fact that the Conservative party considers it its proud duty to look after the disabled in our community. The Conservatives are very happy, ideologically, to provide a welfare state that helps those in need. When people fall on hard times, we will look after them. Nobody is trying to punish anybody in the Bill or in the amendments we are discussing. The reality is that my Conservative colleagues and I want to get to the same position as the Government, which is to help as many disabled people as possible who want to work to get back into work.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen McPartland]

I am not going to give way, simply because we are short of time.

In my view, the Work programme has failed. One out of 100 people are moving off it. That is our failure, not the failure of the people on the programme. We all want a fix. We want to get as many disabled people who want to work back into work. We just disagree on how we achieve that. I hope our Green Paper will help the Government to publish their White Paper. I genuinely think we would not have been in this position if the White Paper had been brought forward already and we were not having to take on faith something we are not really sure is going to happen, who the Ministers will be, who will be in charge of the money, and how we are going to move forward for these disabled people.

I want to reassure my constituents in the ESA WRAG that the changes apply only to new claimants from 1 April 2017. There has been a lot of confusion about that in my postbag and I want to reassure my constituents on that.

I will vote against the Government tonight, but I hope it will be for the last time on this particular issue.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Frank Field]

The report that I issued made that very point. It said that we should continue to publish the poverty data and that, alongside them, we should have the life chances data.

Of course, there is much more to this debate than what is on the record. Historically, there has been a big divide between those who see money as the only agent to counter poverty—it clearly makes it easier for people if they have more money—and those who ask whether money actually transforms life chances in the way we wish. That is the question that I posed. Specifically, we wanted to know, while taking account of the importance of income and class in determining life chances, whether there were drivers of poverty more powerful even than income and class. The report lists the most powerful factors when income and class are held constant—those factors that enable us to make progress even if we are not making the progress that we would like to see on a fairer distribution of income.

Again, I make a plea to the House. Although we ought to debate the adequacy of the minimum levels of income, Opposition Members and the many Government Members who are disturbed by the growing and gross inequalities in our society must not think that we will deal with those through benefit changes, important though they are. Throughout the western world, there are clearly great engine drivers of inequality that serve up to the rich—particularly to the very, very rich—rewards that are grotesque when compared with the average, let alone with those who earn the least in our communities. There is no debate about that. The debate is about where, at any given point in time, we should put taxpayers’ money. Up to now, everybody has been talking about this as though the Government have money. Governments have to tax our constituents to get money to redistribute it, and we must win people’s support for that.

The House is beginning slowly to accept that it is dangerous to have a welfare system that is more generous to those out of work than to those in work, which is why I particularly welcome the Chancellor’s strategy of moving towards a living wage and implementing that over the life of the Parliament. It is only a beginning, but it is very important. If we are successful in moving to that living wage without big unemployment consequences—I believe that we will be—that will give us more freedom to manoeuvre on where benefit levels should be set.

My plea is that we should not think that this is either one thing or the other. The Government will publish the data, and I am sure that if we had a chat to them they could do so alongside the life chances data. That is not really what the debate is about; the debate is about those who believe that the only agent of change is on the income front, and I do not wish to concede ground to anyone in emphasising the importance of income, especially for those at the bottom of the pile who are working or who are not working. We have the report on the foundation years, and if we are serious about trying to prevent poor children from becoming poor adults, we need a different strategy from the one we adopted until that point. It was all about cash transfers—important as they are—and I thought it was inadequate.

Reception teachers said that by the time children come to school they already know who is going to succeed and who will not. I also started asking other people such as health visitors whether they could tell us which children entering toddlerhood would be successful in later life. Midwives have clear views when mothers turn up for their first scan about who has drawn the short straw and who has not. If we are serious about this strategy—I make this plea to the Government because we will need powers to add these measurements once we have agreed on them—we must measure whether we are increasing life chances by having more parents who are ready for the birth of their child, whether the interventions that we make after that will be successful and see more children successfully enter toddlerhood, and above all whether more children are entering school ready to benefit from the powers of education.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Is measuring at key stage 4 when a young person is 16 so utterly after the horse has bolted that it will not make any impact? Teachers report a year’s difference in a child’s ability to communicate and learn by the time they are five, and we need to change that. No Opposition Members are talking about money or life chances; most of us are arguing for both.

[Frank Field]

The genuineness of the hon. Lady in making that point shows how the debate is changing—it was not always about that issue and I am grateful for her intervention. Let me re-emphasise her point. I was staggered when the Secretary of State said that one of children’s key life chances is at age 16, given that he has done more than anybody in the House to teach us about how crucial life chances are before age five, if we are really to change people’s opportunities and allow them to develop their best selves. I hope that when we conclude the debate, the Minister will say more about how important it is to weight those life chances before age five. By all means we should measure children at 16 and all sorts of other ages if we wish, but if we are serious about changing the life chances of the very poorest children in our constituencies, we must consider a series of life chances long before they reach school. Every reception teacher I met would say that life chances have been decided by the time that children come into school.

I welcome how the debate has developed in the past 10 years, and I hope I have stated clearly why I think the Lords are mistaken with Lords amendment 1, and how much I agree with the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), and by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) who stated her support for Lords amendments 8 and 9.

--- Later in debate ---

I am pleased that the Government are looking to tackle this and bring forward these measures. The details that will come from the taskforce will give us more of a plan. The current system is not working—that is starkly obvious. I am therefore prepared to support the Government in making sure that we have support systems that work in helping people back into work, as well as the right targets to ensure that people can develop their potential and that more sons of dockyard workers and school teaching assistants can end up in this place.

[Dr Whitford]

Following the comments of the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), people in the ESA WRAG have been classed as not fit for work, unlike those on jobseeker’s allowance, so one would not expect the same success rate.

My concern about this change—in essence, this repeal of the Child Poverty Act 2010—is that the policy seems no longer to be about wanting to eradicate child poverty but about airbrushing it out of existence by removing the phrase, the measurements, and not just the reporting but the statutory aim of eradication. We see many measures: a benefit cap being reduced or a benefit freeze, changes to tax credits after having two children, and people in the ESA WRAG losing £30 a week. I dealt with patients like that as a breast cancer surgeon. These people are stuck at home; they do need to keep the house warm and they do need that extra bit of help. They have been classed as not yet fit to work. We have had impact assessments on some of these measures, but we have not had a cumulative impact assessment. Some families will be hit by all these measures, and the IFS is talking about losses of between £1,000 and £1,500 a year. To take that kind of money away from the poorest people will have a huge impact.

Like the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), I had the honour of taking part in the all-party group investigation into the impact of these changes on child poverty. We heard evidence from the Faculty of Public Health and from many charities on the changes that we can expect in child poverty and the impact that child poverty has on health. The University of Liverpool has estimated that we lose 1,400 children a year under the age of 15 because of poverty. That number is equivalent to the size of a big secondary school. If the roof of a secondary school was collapsing every year, we would be out there doing something about it, but we do not. This is about neonatal mortality, infant mortality, accidents, violence, suicide, addiction and alcoholism, and the problem is that we think we can just ignore it.

Earlier in the debate, we talked about mental health. Children in the poorest quartile have three times the incidence of mental health problems. If their parents suffer from depression and stress, which we know is aggravated by poverty, they have a 60% increase in mental health problems. There is a five times higher incidence of infant mortality. The Marmot report estimated that the deaths of one in four children before the age of one could be prevented if their mothers had had the same nutrition, health, chances and lack of stress as the people who are most comfortable.

Five times as many children who are in the poorest quartile are likely to die as a result of road traffic accidents, while 15 times as many are likely to die as a result of a fire. Malnutrition is on the increase. There is evidence of low iodine and low folate in teenage girls as a result of poor nutrition. That leads to cretinism and spina bifida. We are going to produce generations of children who will suffer in the future. Marmot said that disadvantage starts before birth and accumulates through life.

I am not against including a measure of life chances. I do not accept that we have to choose between two separate horses. We can measure both. The only life chances that are being talked about are worklessness and educational attainment at 16, which is long after the horse has bolted. Two thirds of children in poverty have a working parent, so they will simply be dismissed. At 16, we have no chance to do something.

I accept the argument of the hon. Member for Torbay that we need to develop measures, but we also need interventions. We keep hearing that there is going to be a focus on changing these children’s lives, but how are we going to do that? There should have been a White Paper first so that we could know what was being offered to change their lives, because they will cost us throughout their lives, through failed education, worklessness, ending up in the justice system and addiction.

It makes sense to invest money in their childhood so that they are not a year behind. American research has also found that their brains do not develop to the same level as others. We need to change that, but we must not simply think that by ignoring the phrase “child poverty” it will disappear. There should be a statutory obligation to report it and we should aim, as was promised, to eradicate it by the end of this Parliament.

Housing Benefit and Supported Housing

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Martyn Day]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend, and not only does it affect the individuals; it can have a devastating effect on the organisations providing the services.

What is the purpose of the reforms? Is it to save money? According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, any initial savings would be “small”. Indeed, not only will there be little saving to the public purse, but expenditure could rise as a result of the unintended consequences of this poorly thought out measure. This is a classic case of robbing Peter to pay Paul: a small saving on the housing benefit bill might be massively outweighed by the rise in costs associated with providing institutional care, funding an increase in hospital stays, the higher cost of private landlord housing and, in the worst case, the increased costs of imprisonment. This must surely be the very definition of fiscal irresponsibility.

The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has identified that associations in Scotland could lose between £5 million and £14 million per year. This is completely unsustainable and will inevitably lead to the closure of accommodation that supports some of the most vulnerable in our society. Top-ups from discretionary housing payments will simply not provide the security that accommodation providers require to continue even the current level of specialised accommodation, let alone plan for additional provision in the years to come.

I am concerned about the potential effect of these changes on vulnerable young people. Open Door Accommodation Project, which operates in my constituency, has nine supported flats throughout West Lothian that can accommodate up to 16 young people between the ages of 16 and 21. The flats are fully furnished and most are shared accommodation. The aim is to prepare young people for their own tenancy. When a young person joins the supported flats service, they are allocated a dedicated support worker who works with them to give personal and practical support, helping them to develop the self-confidence and skills needed to live independently.

The young people being supported are already experiencing issues with the time it takes to receive benefit payments, and this wait can have a huge impact on the likelihood of them sustaining their accommodation. A major concern is that there is no longer a seven-day run-on between accommodation, meaning that young people have to move immediately when they sign up for a tenancy, which gives them no time to set up utilities or apply to the social welfare fund for the most basic of necessities. The uncertainty about the reductions in housing benefit can only exacerbate these issues and, worryingly, might even put this vital supported accommodation at risk. How will such organisations plan for the future when faced with yet more funding challenges?

I come now to one of the most serious of the unintended consequences: the impact on the funding for supported accommodation for people with substance abuse problems. Many such organisations are doing amazing work, especially with ex-offenders, helping people to rebuild their lives and rejoin society. Threats to funding for this type of supported accommodation are intolerable. There is a young offenders institution in my constituency. On leaving it, young people will be dependent on the very supported accommodation that is at risk if these draconian funding proposals are implemented.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Might the reforms not be a false economy, given that prison often costs more than £30,000 per year per prisoner?

[Martyn Day]

My hon. Friend makes her point very well. It is a completely false economy, and I believe it will end up costing the public purse far more than the Government are trying to save. Again, we must look at the fiscal implications of a saving in housing benefit that leads to a lack of supported accommodation for young ex-offenders. How many of these vulnerable young people will end up back in prison—the point she just made—at a higher cost to the public purse?

It is my firm belief that the Government must halt the continuing assault on housing benefits, or at least ensure that supported accommodation is exempt from these future changes. Scotland has already had to mitigate the effects of the unfair bedroom tax—a tax that, given today’s court ruling, might be illegal. Will this reform to housing benefit be yet another botched Tory attempt at savings that simply moves an increased burden on to Holyrood? Only with full power over social security can we fully protect those in need from future housing benefit cuts.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day).

I hope all Members agree that housing and homes are important. The security of a roof over one’s head—be it owned, or rented privately or socially—or of a place of succour and sanctuary, temporary or permanent, at a time of emergency, is important. For that reason, Labour’s position should be condemned. We have heard precisely what we are used to hearing from Labour. I have found this debate slightly annoying. I am annoyed not that the motion has been tabled—[Laughter.] If hon. Members would listen, they might hear a view that sheds some light on their prejudice. I am annoyed not that this important issue is being debated, but by the odour of smug hand wringing and crocodile tears from Labour Members.

Labour Members always purport to have a monopoly on caring. They believe that we are the nasty bunch—that we could not give a damn about anything. But we are not. As I said in an intervention on the shadow Minister, we all have constituents in sheltered housing and we all want to ensure the best provision for them. There is nothing kind or caring about trying to prop up an inflated and unsustainable welfare system.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is the ridiculous rents in many urban centres that are inflated? That is the private system. That is why housing benefit is out of control. It is not the social sector.

[Simon Hoare]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making the kernel of the argument for why a cap on housing benefit is important. The absence of a cap—of any control on housing benefit—has been the fuel to the fire of those who have sought to ramp up rents. A bottomless purse—a pit that always delivers the funding—provides the dynamic for higher rents. We believe that a cap will act as a brake on this runaway train.

Whenever a welfare reform is proposed, the default position of many Opposition Members is to say no. It is their eternal cry, the golden thread running through their political approach. As we have heard from my hon. Friends, Labour has not supported a single welfare reform. It has learned no lessons from last May’s general election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There is no doubt that we need to house vulnerable people in supported and specialist accommodation, and that our homes, hostels, refuges and sheltered housing need such support. They constitute a much more labour-intensive part of the market, involving personal care, supervision and maintenance.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

May I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley)? It costs an extra £18,500 to house those with the most complex needs, and most users of supported living are over 70. In our health debates, we talk about trying to get people into the community. As a result of this measure, people will end up in expensive alternatives.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I accept the hon. Lady’s point. We need to ensure that we protect our most vulnerable people, and that is what I believe we will do.

Many of the providers of supported housing and specialist accommodation are part of much larger organisations which are able to blend reductions across their estates, but we want to ensure that specialist providers continue to supply accommodation. This policy is in its early stages, and is currently the subject of consultation. I welcome the Minister’s announcement of a one-year delay, or interruption, so that we can get it right. However, it has been referred to before. In September last year, my hon. Friend the Minister for homelessness—the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones)—said that specialised supported accommodation was likely to be exempted. I do not think that there is any need for Opposition Members to frighten residents and make them fear that they will lose their homes. That is irresponsible.

It should also be borne in mind that, during the current Parliament, there will be £800 million in discretionary housing payments for the most vulnerable tenants, and £40 million for those who suffer domestic violence.

I suggest that Opposition Members should wait to see the results of a policy which I believe will provide a fair deal for the most vulnerable people.