“Get Britain Working” White Paper

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I reassure my hon. Friend that it is the same for me and my city—we do not have a devolution deal. We are overhauling our jobcentres, and tackling economic inactivity with local “Get Britain Working” plans and our youth guarantee. Regardless of whether people are part of a mayoral or combined authority, that work will be led locally, including through the local council. We are determined to deliver in every corner of the country, because we believe that everybody deserves an opportunity to work. That is what our country needs to get growing again.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Steven Tysoe from east Devon used to be a Metropolitan police officer in London, and he showed me footage of his involvement in the riots in the capital over a decade ago. He was severely injured and was regarded by the DWP as disabled. Under the new right of disabled people to work, will the Secretary of State ensure that public servants who have been injured in the line of duty will not get hounded repeatedly by assessors?

[Liz Kendall]

I do not want to see people being hounded. If they are able to work, I want them to get the support they need to do that. That is the big challenge that we face. There are more disabled people working than ever before, but for many others their conditions might fluctuate and the world of work and the benefit system need to understand that. I am interested in providing people with support not hounding them—there should of course be conditions and responsibility within the social security system, as has been the case since it was set up—and I hope that is not happening to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. If it is, perhaps he will write and tell me more about it.

Carer’s Allowance

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was on the radio this morning, and I listened to her on the BBC describing how

“the benefit system can have a real impact on whether you incentivise or disincentivise work.”

I heard from her that this new Government intend to incentivise work, and in that we wish them well.

I wish to highlight the case of a constituent of mine, Amanda Jennings from Ottery St Mary, who reached out to me pleading for support. She is a mother and a full-time carer for her adult son who has severe autism. Amanda was recently notified by the Department for Work and Pensions that she owed almost £2,000 dating back to 2019, due to carer’s allowance overpayments. To compound that stress, a civil penalty was imposed. Her problem was that she had been receiving wage slips giving an hourly rate, and the payments were processed by an external payroll agent, so she did not have a reliable monthly income like we do.

Despite raising queries and assuming that the DWP was receiving up-to-date information, she was accused—wrongly—of misreporting her income. The consequences for her family have been severe. Her son, who had re-entered education after years of disengagement, has dropped out, and her own health has deteriorated. She is not alone—more than 40,000 people nationally face similar financial penalties for minor income discrepancies. The Liberal Democrat stance is plain: carers should not be punished for minor unintentional breaches of income thresholds. The current system is rigid and punitive, with a cliff edge that does nothing at all to incentivise work.

Earlier, I heard the former Secretary of State talking about the business of clawback, and whether it could be done retrospectively. Looking to the past, perhaps he needs to be reminded that with the furlough scheme, the previous Government failed to claw back millions and millions of pounds—indeed, the Public Accounts Committee reckoned £2.3 billion—that was incorrectly paid to employers whose employees continued to work while they were receiving furlough money. It is just like the former Government to go after the people at the bottom of the pile who are most in need, when it is the people who have been described today who most need the support. I hope that the Government will make the most of the independent inquiry that I am glad they have set up, and ensure that any changes incentivise work and make work pay.

Cost of Living: Pensioners

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

There are 2 million older people living in poverty—that is one in six—and another million are sitting just above the poverty line silently struggling to make ends meet. Together, a quarter of older people are in or at risk of being in poverty. In recent years, the phrase “heating or eating” has become shorthand for the cost of living crisis. It rhymes, and it is easy to say, but it is the reality facing too many of our pensioners. Age UK research found that 4.2 million people cut back on food or groceries last year, while a survey by this House’s Petitions Committee of those engaging in petitions on pension levels found that three quarters were worried about affording food.

Health statistics always worsen in the cold winter months, with mortality rising in all parts of the UK last year compared with previously. As we face an even colder winter —in my constituency we often reach minus temperatures overnight—there are real consequences when older people cannot afford to properly heat their homes. The reality is that heating or eating is not a catchphrase, but a decision about survival. It is our duty as policy makers in this place to ask why that is a reality for so many of our older people and to find solutions.

I welcomed the Government’s eventual decision to keep the triple lock this year, but the lack of clarity and uncertainty about that decision appeared to be electorally motivated, and I argue it caused a great deal of anxiety for many older constituents.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is talking about the triple lock on pensions. I have heard it said in this House in recent months that the triple lock on pensions was a Conservative proposal, so I went to the Library to find out whether that was true. The 2010 Conservative manifesto talks about

“restoring the link between the basic state pension and average earnings”,

while the 2010 Liberal Democrat manifesto states:

“We will uprate the state pension annually by whichever is the higher of growth in earnings, growth in prices or 2.5 per cent.”

Does she agree with me that the triple lock was a Lib Dem proposal?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I regularly meet Steve Webb, the former Lib Dem Pensions Minister from the coalition, and I know how hard he worked when in government on this policy, so I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and thank him for his intervention.

The triple lock is of no use to anyone if the Government cannot get their systems working to pay people what they are due. Repeatedly last year we learned of pensioners nearing or reaching pension age trying to top up their national insurance records and seeing their money disappear without a trace. It would appear again some weeks later, but often only after chasing by an MP, an adviser or due to media coverage. That was not just in one or two cases; what became apparent were systemic problems of jammed helplines and hundreds upon hundreds of people losing track of their savings as they paid them over to the Government. Will the Minister tell us what he is doing to resource properly the Future Pension Centre?

Autumn Statement Resolutions

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

Last week, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out his autumn statement, there was much anticipation about what kind of rabbit would be pulled out of the hat. Despite the Chancellor’s upbeat delivery, the performance was less Harry Potter magic and more Paul Daniels-style trickery.

Almost all of the Government’s financial headroom—the amount they have left over after their commitments—was blown on a small tweak to national insurance contributions. The Chancellor lauded the changes, suggesting that they would save people hundreds of pounds every year, but he failed to mention that even with the changes, the average person will pay more in tax overall. I can see that the cost of covid must be paid for, but I object to the spinning of a larger tax burden as a smaller one. That is partly because the Chancellor continued a freeze on tax thresholds—the level at which our constituents start to pay tax. Higher inflation means that many more will be dragged into paying more tax, whether at the higher or the basic rate. That is giving with one hand while taking substantially more with the other. The Resolution Foundation has identified that under the plans, taxes will rise by the equivalent of £4,300 per household in the decade from 2019. Even by the end of this Parliament, it expects that households will be £1,900 worse off than at the beginning of it.

In Government, the Liberal Democrats delivered tax cuts for millions by doubling the amount someone could earn before they started paying tax. By contrast, this Conservative Government are one of the highest taxing Governments in history, allowing increasing numbers of low and middle-income earners to be dragged into paying ever increasing amounts of tax. It is simply not sustainable. We need more efficient spending of public money, with targeted investment, to ease the squeeze and save us money down the line. For example, of the £784 billion of taxpayer money that the UK Government spent last year, £39.3 billion was given to households as an energy subsidy. It would not have been necessary to give away so much of that taxpayer money had Lord Cameron, as Prime Minister, not cut the “green crap”.

There were a couple of welcome measures in the statement. I was pleased to see the extension of the business rate discount, including for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, of which we have many excellent ones in my part of east Devon. The decision to keep the triple lock on pensions was also welcome, and ensures that pensions rise to match earnings, giving pensioners peace of mind and financial security. I called for that in Treasury questions less than a fortnight ago, so it is pleasing to see it rise in line with earnings at 8.5%. But the rest of the autumn statement was notable for what the Chancellor did not say. There was no additional money for the NHS or social care, despite the fact that the winter cold is already starting to set in. I am genuinely puzzled by that. It is a disastrous oversight that risks inflicting real challenges on our dedicated health professionals and our communities in the year ahead.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is lucky: like me, he represents a constituency in Devon. That means he knows how much people in Devon value our community hospitals. In my own corner of Devon, Seaton Community Hospital is at risk of having a whole ward of the facility stripped away to be sold off or even demolished. That is due to the continued squeeze on local healthcare budgets, with Devon NHS alone facing an almost £40 million shortfall. The Chancellor’s statement did nothing to address that grim situation.

There was also a distinct lack of funding to help clean up our rivers and beaches. Because of the wayward activities of water companies and the fact that the Government have just left this issue to Ofwat, we are seeing huge levels of raw sewage put into our once pristine local rivers and beaches. That is harming biodiversity and putting the health of people and animals at risk. The scandal also pervades England’s chalk streams. For example, those that empty into the River Itchen near Winchester contain unique biodiversity and ecosystems. Our sites of special scientific interest also see sewage dumping and ecological vandalism.

How would I sum up the autumn statement? Overall, it sums up the current Conservative Government: out of touch. Floundering for a buoyancy vest, their party ship continues to list and sink. Our communities deserve better. Devon deserves better.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 19th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman on the importance of sensitive language, particularly for the most vulnerable and particularly in the circumstances he describes of someone who is recently bereaved. I will most definitely take away the specific issue he raises and look at it extremely carefully.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

The Child Maintenance Service recently wrote to my constituent Deborah to confirm that the father of her children is in arrears by £47,000. Deborah recently heard that the bailiff is potentially unable to collect the debt and, if so, the money she is owed will be written off by the CMS. Can the Secretary of State explain why parents can be left with so little by the CMS when it gives up on collecting debts for parents who work so hard?

[Mims Davies]

The Government are supporting the private Member’s Bill that aims to streamline CMS enforcement processes. The CMS will not hesitate to use robust enforcement measures where someone is consistently refusing to meet their obligation towards their children. I am happy to look at that case and ask my colleague in the Lords to look at it.

Pension Credit and Cost of Living Support Grant

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered pension credit and the cost-of-living support grant eligibility period extension.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am not going to go through all the stats that demonstrate that far too many older people live in poverty. I expect others might do that, but I also think we are all in agreement about it. I know that we are all in agreement that the uptake of pension credit—the social security payment that goes only to the very poorest of our pensioners—is, at around 60%, far too low. I know this because the Conservative UK Government have an annual pension credit awareness day and, whenever we have talked about it in Westminster Hall or in the main Chamber, everyone says something more has to be done.

My ask today is for the Government to agree to something that could see the biggest ever increase in uptake of pension credit. I published an early-day motion to that effect, I presented a petition on the Floor of the House and I wrote to myriad Chancellors and Ministers, so far to no avail. My ask, as the motion says, is to extend the deadline for eligibility for the £650 cost of living payment, because the deadline for that crucial help has passed. Anybody applying after 19 August 2022 may well get pension credit, but crucially they will not get that £650. That, I believe, is what could make all the difference in convincing people to apply. It is not enough, in my view, but it is a significant amount that could act as a real incentive when we are all collectively trying to increase uptake.

I have a few other asks before I come to the substance of the debate. I appreciate that those who successfully apply by a date in December will receive half of the payment, which is £324. Although I will argue that they should get the full amount, I would like to know the exact date in December, because there is confusion about that. What strategy will the Government put in place to raise awareness of that entitlement? I do not mind if they do not know yet, as long as they agree to look at it seriously and urgently.

I am concerned about that, because I question what strategy was in place to make people aware in the run-up to the 19 August deadline. I certainly did not see any evidence of it, which makes it something of a missed opportunity. In my constituency, I had a strategy to let people know; when people knew, four of my team spent a day and a half helping a steady stream of constituents make their applications. What did the Government do to raise awareness?

I am sure there are pensioners who would also be grateful if the Minister could tell us what the situation is with the triple lock guarantee on pensions.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

Pensioner poverty is a significant issue, particularly in my constituency, where 25,000 people receive the basic state pension. I am very concerned at how hard it is to find out how many of those 25,000 are eligible for pension credit but are missing out on that vital support, which could be the difference between putting food on the table and turning the heating on this winter or not. At one time, the Department for Work and Pensions monitored eligibility for pension credit—

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. This is an intervention, not a speech. Would you bring it to a conclusion?

[Richard Foord]

I am suggesting that the Government should pledge not only to keep the triple lock on pensions but to restart monitoring so we can get support to the people who really need it.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. It is really important that we monitor it. We are talking about the people in these four countries who are the very poorest and really need that help.

The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), clearly said at Prime Minister’s questions last week that the triple lock would apply. That seemed to be a little surprising to the Chancellor. Now that we have a new Prime Minister, but the same Chancellor, does the Minister know whether they will renege on that or keep to the Government’s word?

Finally, something that pensioners and others are desperately worried about is the uprating of social security entitlements—or benefits, as they are called here. Can the Minister tell us what is happening with that? Coming back to the main thrust of the debate, I believe that if the deadline is extended and anyone who successfully applies for pension credit by 31 March next year is also entitled to the £650 cost of living payment, it will act as a significant incentive and will enable us, together, to convince people to apply.

Let us look at some of the reasons why 40% of those who are entitled to pension credit do not apply for it, why £7.7 million goes unclaimed in my constituency of Glasgow North East and why £2.2 billion goes unclaimed in the UK every year. On that £2 billion, I appreciate that if everyone took up their entitlement it would cost the Treasury a lot of money. However, failing to deliver pension credit to every eligible person costs the UK an estimated £4 billion a year in increased NHS and social care costs. That is according to research commissioned by Independent Age and carried out by Loughborough University. That sounds to me like we would be almost £2 billion better off. More importantly, it would eradicate pensioner poverty almost entirely.

There are lots of reasons why people do not apply, but I will look at the three main reasons: stigma, a perception that the process is complicated and not knowing about it. I thank Independent Age, Age Scotland and Age UK for all the work they do and for meeting me on Monday to discuss the debate. The one thing that they had all repeatedly found was that many older people who do know about pension credit, and who even know how to apply, still do not because they are too embarrassed. They talk about the stigma and how they believe they should be able to cope. They talk about not accepting charity handouts.

Some politicians and some sections of the media have got a lot to answer for here. I have not heard anyone calling pensioners workshy, greedy or layabouts, but that is how so many talk about other people who are in receipt of benefits. If is rife, it goes largely unchecked and, while they may not be talking specifically about pensioners and pension credit, the impact on pensioners and the resulting feeling of shame among them is real. It is stopping people applying and we need to stop that. The rest of us need to call it out when it happens.

The Government have to say as loudly, as clearly and as often as possible, exactly what I said when I toured bingo halls, lunch clubs and pensioner groups in my constituency in the summer, trying to get people to apply. The Government need to say, “This is your legal entitlement. This is not charity. You have worked for this. You have brought up families. You have made your contribution to society. Thank you. Now please apply for your legal entitlement.” That is what the UK Government have to say when rolling out the awareness-raising strategy I mentioned earlier. Although I did not see any response from the Minister at that point, I sensed agreement that that would happen.

The second issue is that it is perceived to be complicated to apply. Between them, my team applied for around 60 people and found the online process to be fairly straightforward, but that is because they are au fait with technology. Many older people do use it, but many more are frightened by it. I realise that there are other ways to apply, but there is the perception that it will be difficult. We need to work on that, and we need to fund those organisations that help people make their applications when they are struggling.

There are a lot of other reasons why the 40% not apply, but the final one I want to talk about is simply not knowing that pension credit exists. I leafleted thousands of people in my constituency. I focused on some of the poorest parts of Glasgow North East, letting them know about pension credit and offering to help them apply. The phone rang off the hook. We were truly overwhelmed by the response, but also taken aback by the number of people who said, “I have never heard of pension credit. What is it?” There is clearly a massive job to be done to let people know.

I raised this matter in the Chamber in 2020 and was told that there was a poster campaign in GP surgeries, but nobody was getting into GP surgeries then because of lockdown. It did not sound as though anything else was being done to make people aware. A proper professional strategy would look at multiple ways to let people know. Industry professionals will say that someone needs to see something advertised between seven and eight times before it properly sinks in. One day of action a year is not nearly enough.

Age UK has a fantastic briefing on how to get the message across to the right people. The Work and Pensions Committee has called for a proper strategy. Wales and Scotland have benefit uptake strategies. Indeed, in Scotland it is a statutory duty: sections 8 and 9 of the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 say that Scottish Ministers must prepare, publish and lay before Parliament strategies to promote take-up of Scottish social security assistance. We need a full strategy for pension credit uptake, and there is no better time to do that than this winter.

That brings me to why I want the deadline to be extended, effectively to the end of winter. When I started talking to people in the constituency about the deadline of 19 August, I got lots of blank looks. A lot of people paid lip service and said they would have a look and maybe apply, but when I mentioned the £650 cost of living payment they would get if they were successful in their application, many of them started to take it more seriously, because they were starting to be concerned about predicted rises in energy costs.

Notwithstanding the fact that so many people do not know that it exists or how to apply for it, for those who do but feel they should be able to manage and are too embarrassed about taking money, it might be only this winter that the message really hits home. If someone is told in the middle of summer about help they can get for heating later in the year, it does not have the same impact as finding out about it in the dead of winter. It is easy when the sun is shining to think, “I’ll be fine.” That is especially so if the mindset, as it often is with this generation, is, “I should be able to manage.” But when someone is sitting at home, so cold that their bones are aching and they have had their one hour of heating, and they now have to hope that the cardigan and blanket are enough to keep them alive, and despite that frugality they are staring at a massive bill they cannot pay, that is when we will be able to get the message across that they could get an extra £650 of help, as well as extra money every week. That is when, for those people who are desperate to manage without so-called handouts, it will stop being a choice. They will have no option but to apply for pension credit—the thing we all say we want them to do.

If the Government do not change their mind, and do not extend the deadline to the end of winter, those people will still be sitting, freezing, in pain. They will still be being frugal, and will still be hit with eye-watering bills that they cannot pay. Then, all they will have is the knowledge that they could have had an extra £650, had they not been too embarrassed to apply back in August.

What about those older people who just did not know? With the pain of the cold reducing them to tears, nobody to turn to for help and no way of paying their bills, someone tells them about the pension credit that they knew nothing about. Then they say, “But you’re too late for the £650.” How will that help to dry their tears? It will not. It will simply devastate people further to know that the money was there, that the Government believed that they needed it, that they had been entitled to it, and that, despite needing it, they will be denied that help. How will that make them feel, and how are they supposed to survive this winter?

What I am asking for is simple. Currently, any pensioner who was entitled to pension credit by 25 May this year and applied for it by 19 August will get an extra £650 to help with the cost of living crisis this winter. Any pensioner who was entitled to pension credit by 25 August this year and applied for it by December will get half that amount—an extra £324. Let us recognise how hard this winter will be, and how much literally freezing will concentrate people’s minds. Let us extend the deadline from 25 May, before the summer, to the end of winter: 31 March 2023. Let us say that anyone who becomes entitled to pension credit before 31 March next year and applies for it by then will also get the full £650. Let us do it without interruption to the payment dates for those who are currently entitled.

Then, let us get in the professionals and get a proper advertising strategy up and running. Let us tell people, “This is your legal entitlement.” I want to hear the Minister say that with passion and conviction. Let us help people to apply. Let us not look back on this year as the year that the UK Government completely neglected the pensioners of our four countries, just when those pensioners needed the Government the most. Instead, when we are through the cost of living crisis, let us look back and be proud that there are hundreds—hopefully thousands—more pensioners receiving the pension credit to which they were always entitled, and which enables them to enjoy life a bit more.

There is no excuse for not extending the deadline. It would make all the difference to whether older people eat, heat and live or die. If the Minister cannot say yes today—I understand that this is a new Government—I implore him to at least agree to give it serious consideration. If he is says no, can he tell us what possible justification he has?