ESA Underpayments

Stephen Lloyd Excerpts

Thursday 19th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

Yes, I can give that assurance. The permanent secretary has been scrutinised and questioned by the Public Accounts Committee. He has made all sorts of commitments to improve the internal processes of the DWP, and, as I outlined in a previous answer, those processes are up and running. This summer I will visit the operating centre that is undertaking this administrative exercise, and I will be reinforcing to the staff on the frontline not only the importance of their work but how important it is to speak up and speak out if they experience any problems. I will be listening.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I thank the shadow disability Minister for bringing the urgent question to the House. The Minister will know that the fact that at least £390 million is owed to tens of thousands of sick and disabled people—the most vulnerable people—is a shocking revelation. I have two questions. First, will the Minister give an estimate of how long it will take for the people affected to receive the money that they are owed? Secondly, with respect, apparently the DWP learned about this 12 months ago but it is only the media that has brought it out into the open. How does the Minister respond to that?

[Sarah Newton]

It was not the media that brought this out into the open; there was a written ministerial statement to this House. We have been acting at speed to make sure that we identify people we have underpaid, and we have already started to make payments. In the original statement, we said that we hoped to complete the exercise within the year, which takes us up to next spring. We are absolutely working as fast as we can to make these payments.

Universal Credit

Stephen Lloyd Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

That is always a challenge, Mr Speaker, but I will try.

Regrettably, I believe that the Secretary of State gave only a partial apology, because she did not take account of the fact that her own Department confirmed to the NAO on 6 June that its report was based on the most accurate and up-to-date information, yet the other day she indicated that the NAO report could be out of date. I think that that is unacceptable.

[Ms McVey]

Again, if I may correct the hon. Gentleman, we had agreed that that information was coming forward. What we have said is that the changes this Government have made were done in January, February and April, and therefore those changes could not be taken fully into account—those impacts are still being felt—because the period of checking was from last year to April of this year.

Universal Credit and Welfare Changes

Stephen Lloyd Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

We are making it a much simpler system, by taking six benefits and turning them into one. Instead of the hon. Lady’s constituents having to get housing benefit from the local council, get tax credits from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and also go to the DWP, they can get it all under one roof, because it is streamlined. If she would care to go into a jobcentre with her constituents, they could see how it now works.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to ask a question, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I was unavoidably detained and missed the early part of the statement.

Listening to the Secretary of State’s answers, it appears that she agrees with anything positive the NAO report says, but the whole stream of things that the NAO says are a real problem with universal credit are completely dismissed out of hand. That is unwise. I powerfully and fiercely supported the £3 billion per annum that was put into universal credit under the coalition, despite putting caveats on the record about some issues with universal credit. Does she agree that, if that £3 billion per annum were still within universal credit, work really would pay, and it would be a substantially successful benefit?

[Ms McVey]

We have said that the NAO report sadly was out of date and therefore has not taken into account all the changes that have been made. That is unfortunate, because it means that the report is not a true reflection of what is happening. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman was not here for the statement, but if he reads it in Hansard tomorrow, he will have his answers on how well the system is working.

Personal Independence Payments

Stephen Lloyd Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

My hon. Friend raises the good point of how we can make the assessments better: how can we make sure they are consistent and the best we can possibly do? We are constantly reassessing them and trying to make the service even better, whether through videos to help people, improved guidance for GPs and healthcare professionals, improved communications, or special software so that people with disabilities can read about the service. Those are the sort of constant improvements we are carrying out, and we will continue to do that so as to make sure we have the best system possible.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Mr Justice Mostyn in his ruling on Motability, which the Government also accepted, said of the 2017 regulations:

“The wish to save nearly £1 billion at the expense of those with mental health impairments is not a reasonable foundation for passing this measure.”

The Secretary of State has made a welcome second U-turn, so do the Government recognise that not cutting corporation tax might have been a fairer and more honourable way of balancing the books?

[Ms McVey]

We have not saved any money; let me make that point clear now. We spend more money on PIP, and will continue to do so to 2022—more money every year from 2010 than we ever spent on DLA. If I can dispel the myth that anybody is saving any money through moving from DLA to PIP, that will be the best thing I can do today. This Conservative Government will be spending more on disabled people through PIP from 2010 through to 2022.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Lloyd Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

Yes, I can absolutely confirm that under universal credit claimants can get into work faster and stay in work longer than under the legacy system.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

5. What assessment she has made of the effect of the roll-out of universal credit on the number of evictions in the private rented sector.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Kit Malthouse)]

Housing benefit has been paid direct to tenants since 2008. Universal credit replicates that so we would not expect to see a change in landlord behaviour.

[Stephen Lloyd]

I am very disappointed with that answer because, having had meetings with a number of residents associations and landlords, I already know that the private sector is fairly loth to let houses to people on housing benefit. The same applies to universal credit, the reason being that the payment goes direct to the tenant. I urge the Government to at least have a default, if both sides agree, for the payments to be made to the landlord.

[Kit Malthouse]

It is deeply disappointing when Members of this House trade their principles for perceived political advantage, as the hon. Gentleman seems to have done on universal credit, having of course previously been a strong supporter of the coalition Government’s reforms. He knows full well that direct payments to landlords are available. I have myself met the two most prominent residential landlord organisations very recently and, if he looked at the data, he would see that the proportion of working-age recipients of housing benefit and universal credit in the private rented sector seeking support has not really changed over the past 10 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Newton]

I would of course be more than happy to meet the hon. Lady to go through the specifics of that case.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a point of order that flows from his question, and therefore exceptionally I will take it now.

[Stephen Lloyd]

Earlier, in response to my question, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) indicated that I said one thing during the coalition and another thing post-coalition on the issue of rent payments to private landlords. The Under-Secretary was not a Member of Parliament at that time, so he will not know that I am on the record, both as a member of the Work and Pensions Committee and with the then Secretary of State, as having consistently opposed throughout the coalition the idea of paying direct payments to tenants and not to private sector landlords.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extraordinarily grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his perspicacity in raising the point of order, and for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of the gravamen of it. If everybody in the Chamber was not previously conscious of the particular stance taken on this matter by the hon. Gentleman over a sustained period, they all are now. I do not cavil at the hon. Gentleman, but in fairness to the Minister—this is why I think no response is required—my sense of the subject was that the Minister’s critique was collective, rather than applying exclusively or in particular to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that that reassures him. He can reassure the good people of Eastbourne that he has volunteered his views with force and alacrity, and they are on the record.

Universal Credit

Stephen Lloyd Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

You have had your chance, thank you. As I said—[Interruption.] Hon. Members have been told that more than 40 people want to speak in this debate, and I am trying to give way as best I can. The hon. Gentleman has already intervened once; I think that was more than enough.

Those who are just above the threshold would be better off earning less under these proposals. The Government are pulling the rug from under their feet, because once they earn above £7,400, they will be about £400 a year worse off for each child they have in school. So just when did the Government abandon the principle that work should pay? Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell us why she will be voting for a policy that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) said, is twice as generous in Northern Ireland as it will be for her own constituents?

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that although the Conservative party talks about making work pay, it completely demolished that with universal credit through George Osborne’s removal of work allowances, meaning that now work does not pay?

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Universal credit has had add-ons and add-ons ever since the Government proposed it. That has made it very complex and, as I have outlined, work will not pay for some in receipt of it if these proposals go forward.

I would like to make a little more progress and address the issue of free childcare. Once again, the Government have a policy in transition—one that they are seeking to restrict. About 200,000 two-year-olds are currently eligible for 15 hours of free childcare, but there will be more than 400,000 two-year-olds in families receiving universal credit. Ministers have refused to say how many children will be eligible under their policy, so will they finally do so now? I ask that because hundreds of thousands of children may lose out under their plans. Once again, some of the most vulnerable children are first in line for Government cuts.

Disabled People and Economic Growth

Stephen Lloyd Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability. I have been working on this issue on and off for over 20 years, so it is interesting that, despite all the efforts made by many people over the years, we still have just under 4 million people with disabilities who are called economically inactive, which means that they are of working age but not employed.

There has been some progress, however, and I remember working with others many years ago to support the then Conservative Prime Minister John Major in getting the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 passed. The DDA was an absolute game changer and created a regulatory framework to ensure that people could not discriminate against disabled people in goods and services or in employment. The reason why that was such a game changer is that disability discrimination is rather peculiar in that it is quite often tacit, quiet or nuanced. It could be what I call the “poor you” model. People may say, “You poor, brave disabled person. Here, have a benefit and do not worry about working.” We do not mean to do that—it is partly based on human nature and partly on a lack of understanding—but it can be incredibly difficult to break through. It was that way many years ago, and it can still be like that, although there has been some progress over the years.

The DDA worked well around goods and services. For example, if I have a restaurant and do not put a ramp outside, the disabled person in a wheelchair who cannot get in can sue me. It is very straightforward, and the situation is easy to fix. There may be cost implications, but most businesses got over that quickly, and as the chair of the APPG will know, when a business makes itself accessible, it often makes more than enough money to pay for the costs of improving accessibility.

Things are much harder, though, with employment, particularly if someone who is disabled is applying for job. If someone works for a company and acquires a disability, the DDA and broader knowledge in general mean that businesses, whether in the public sector or the private sector, are much more likely to make the necessary effort to keep them in a job. It is much harder for someone with a disability—they could be blind, visually impaired, deaf or have autism—to get over the threshold and get a job. I struggled with that issue many years ago with some good disability consultants, and I will mention them in the House because they have done so much over the years: Phil Friend, Simon Minty and James Partridge, a former chief executive of Changing Faces, which is a charity for those with a facial disfigurement. The four of us worked for many years in this area with the Business Disability Forum to try to break through, and it was difficult.

After losing my seat at the 2015 election, I went away and have now come back, and the APPG is still going great guns under the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow. However, when I read the Government’s “Improving Lives” report, I still feel a little downhearted, which is not my nature. Anyone who is a Liberal and downhearted is in the wrong party, because we need to be optimistic, but progress is hard. However, I want to offer a little story of when things work, which can be game-changing for both disabled people and businesses. About 10 years ago, I was working with one of the big utility companies, and it had a large call centre in north London. I am sure that Members know that the turnover in call centres is always high, because it is a difficult job. The utility company had about 100 staff and, along with several others, I worked with the company to persuade it to take on 15 people with disabilities as call centre agents. It was hard work, but, to give the company its due, it did agree.

As I said earlier, the difficulty is not about people being anti-disabled; it is about fear, anxiety and people not knowing how to deal with circumstances that they do not understand. People often just lift the carpet and sweep people with disabilities under it, which I have always found frustrating. It makes me angry, and I know that other Members share that view.

Going back to the call centre, the company did finally agree, we found the right number of disabled staff to be interviewed, and 15 or so were hired. A year later, 14 of them were still there. Two years later, there were still 14 there. The point is that one of the fundamental advantages of hiring disabled staff is that they are often much more reliable than non-disabled staff for several different reasons, some of which are plainly evident. That makes the business case for hiring disabled people very strong, but they will need some guidance and support, not least because of their disability. My disability is hearing loss, so I need an induction loop, which I use in the Chamber, and a phone with a special volume control. It is just a matter of providing the right facilities, which is where Access to Work often comes in, to allow disabled people to shine.

Quiet discrimination is the much bigger issue. Disabled people may be viewed as not really capable, or employers may not know how to deal with a situation, so they may again sweep such things under the carpet. All those sorts of things are incredibly difficult to change, so where are we at? The Government’s Green Paper on improving lives was good because it highlighted some of the figures: 3.7 million disabled people are economically inactive. Another figure I have read is that if 1% of disabled employment and support allowance claimants gain employment, it would save the Exchequer £250 million and boost the economy by a further £260 million—that is £0.5 billion—which seems an awful lot of money from making an extra little effort to help people get jobs.

Every Government face disability challenges. It is hard for people to get back into work if they have been out of work for many years, but with the right levels of support, work is transformational for those individuals and families. A 2016 report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that half of all households in poverty have at least one disabled member.

One of the reasons why many of us are MPs is that we know that helping people to get a job breaks the cycle of poverty, and that is certainly one of the main reasons why I got involved in politics. It just takes something focused. It is not enough just to say well-meaning things. I have been involved in this for years, probably more than anyone in the House, and well-meaning is not enough; regulation is needed.

I am tremendously appreciative of the fact that the Conservative Prime Minister John Major and his Government introduced the DDA—I do not often stand up in the House and compliment Conservatives—because it forced people to change. People with emotional attitudes often do not realise that they could be wrong or that they could be discriminating, which is why, even as a Liberal, there are certain times when I believe that we need to legislate. The DDA was one, and seatbelts was another. I am old enough to remember the uproar when seatbelts became compulsory—people said it was the end of the world as we know it. What happened is that people had to wear seatbelts, and they got busted by the law if they did not. Since then, as we all know, the number of people dying in car accidents has plummeted. It is the same with disability.

What needs to be done now, further to the DDA? All these years later, we still have not made enough progress. There need to be specific incentives for businesses to recruit disabled people. As the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow mentioned, there needs to be specific action on procurement. We need to be that prescriptive to break the logjam. The need is greater than ever because with Brexit, whatever side of the divide we sit on, we know that there will be substantial staff shortages over the coming years. In fact, a recent report identified that there will be 32 areas of staff shortages in tier 2 occupations. It has become ever more relevant to try to square this circle.

I will not let the Government off the hook completely. It was not the decision of the current Disabilities Minister—this is not personal—but this Government’s decision to change the work-related activity group of ESA so that people receive a lot less money is foolish and short-sighted. There are three areas of ESA: the support group, which is for people with a disability such that they cannot work; basic ESA, at the front end; and, in the middle, for many years there has been WRAG.

WRAG recognises that a claimant has a disability and pays them a bit of extra money, above and beyond the normal jobseeker’s allowance, because those claimants face extra costs due to their disability, but WRAG also recognises that those claimants are ready to work with support. That is really important, because it got people into the frame of mind of being ready to take a risk and leave the structure of the support group of ESA.

After the coalition, after the Liberals were defenestrated, George Osborne quickly cut WRAG by 30%. I was really depressed about it when the change came into effect in April 2017, because I knew what would happen. It is human nature. We should never underestimate the strength of fear for a person in the support group who has been disabled for years and who has been outside work but who is ready, with a little encouragement, to step into WRAG and to try to go for a job.

If I were that person, having been promptly told that my allowance is being cut by 30%, I would do whatever it takes to stay in the support group, because that is human nature. It is not rocket science. It is not bad. It is what people would do. It is what I would do. Even someone as intrepid as you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would do it because at least they would then be secure, with money for the roof over their head, for their children, for food and the rest. Reducing WRAG was such a foolish idea, and I am bitterly disappointed that the Government did it. It is a classic case of the Government cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Since being re-elected, I have had shedloads of post from disabled people trying frantically to get back into the support group, and I am supporting them. I would like the Minister to address that, and perhaps to take back to the Chancellor the fact that reducing WRAG was a bad idea. Perhaps we can change it.

Finally, where are we at? Again, I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow for securing this important debate that affects hundreds of thousands of people across the country. There is not an MP in this House who does not have hundreds, if not thousands, of disabled constituents. This is so important, as we know from our casework and from how many people with disabilities come to see us for help and support.

I would love to see this Government, or a Government, step up and do a DDA part 2 on employment that says businesses, the private and public sectors, organisations and charities across the piece have to do x to employ x number of disabled people, or at least to show that they have systems and processes and that they have interviewed the requisite number of people with disabilities for every job. I do not want it to be tokenistic, as a lot of people with disabilities have tremendous skills—they just need the opportunity. If that happens, it will transform the employment opportunities for disabled people and it will transform many millions of families living in poverty in which one or both parents are disabled. It will be the game changer that this nation deserves, and it might just possibly be something positive to come out of Brexit.

State Pension Age

Stephen Lloyd Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

With respect, this matter has been debated since 1995—long before the hon. Lady and I arrived in this House—and successive Governments have taken a similar view on the appropriateness of the action, based on affordability, workability and the applicable equality legislation.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Even though there is a shortage of time, I crave your indulgence, Mr Speaker, so that I can give two tiny bits of context. First, I believe that all parties are at fault here: the Conservatives, Labour—the Labour Government did little for 13 years—and the coalition. No party has a clean hand. Secondly, I urge the Minister to address three possible options. One is Labour’s cost-neutral option for retirement at 64. The second is the indication of some kind of transition. The third is that the Minister could accept some change if the parliamentary ombudsman took some WASPI cases and concluded that the communication from Governments of all parties had been shocking.

[Guy Opperman]

The hon. Gentleman walked through the Lobby with me in 2011 to pass the Pensions Act when the Liberal Democrats was a party of financial discipline, and I believe that we took the right decision at that time. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the so-called cost-neutral option is far from it—it is neither workable nor cost-neutral. The Government are sticking to the position that has been in place since 1995. The Labour Government took the same position for 13 years as did the coalition Government in 2011.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Lloyd Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

T6. One of the challenges in the design of universal credit is that it does not take into account the fluctuating incomes of people who are freelance. They can earn a low amount one month and a high amount the next, but universal credit does not manage that properly. A self-employed person who has earned £15,000 in a year will get less under universal credit than an employed person who has earned the same amount. Will the Government commit to fixing that anomaly?

[Alok Sharma]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, universal credit works on a monthly basis. When someone earns a large amount in a month, we apportion that over the following months. It is worth pointing out that it is entirely possible for people with those kinds of earnings to budget over the year, just as many businesses do.

Social Security

Stephen Lloyd Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

It is a privilege to respond to the social security benefits uprating order on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. As the Minister knows, the Government have been obliged by law since 1992 to increase the value of certain disability benefits in line with inflation, and I am pleased to see that attendance allowance, carer’s allowance, disability living allowance and the personal independence payment will be going up by 3%. My colleague from the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), also noted that the Government have recognised that they made a tremendous mistake over PIP for people with mental health issues, and I am glad that it is being increased by 3%. However, over the next few months while this absolute shambles is sorted out, I doubt that the many people on PIP who have mental health issues will appreciate that increase as much as they might have done if the Government had not been so foolhardy in the first place.

I value the fact that pension credit is going up by 2.2% and that the widows pension in industrial death benefit is increasing by 3%. To be fair, I also appreciate the fact that the Government have used their discretion to increase working-age benefits for disabled people in line with inflation, particularly around the support group component. As the Minister will be aware, people who are on support group employment and support allowance often have a profundity of disability which means that they cannot work, irrespective of the support they get. I welcome the fact that the Government have increased that by 3%.

It is always good to see the state pension triple lock. The last time I was here, we were in coalition, and I am delighted to see the Government continuing to implement Lib Dem policy by introducing an increase of 3% this year. However, I also want to flag up my disappointment, as other colleagues have done, that the Government have not used this opportunity to give some succour to the many women born in the 1950s and who are part of the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign. This would have been a good opportunity to send a message that the Government are listening and are prepared to come up with something to salve the frustration and anger of many millions of women across the country. As I have said before in the House, I believe that all the parties are culpable in this regard. The Conservatives originally brought in the changes through the Pensions Act 1995 without telling anyone. Labour did nothing for the 13 years it was in government, and then we had the coalition. As we are all culpable, I hope that we can work together to come up with the kind of transition payment that I profoundly believe the WASPI women deserve. I am disappointed that the Minister has not mentioned this today.

I shall move on to the elements that I am unhappy with. In accordance with the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, working-age benefits will be frozen until April 2020. I will not go through the whole list of benefits, but the consequences of this freeze will be absolutely deplorable. I shall give the House an example. The Child Poverty Action Group and the Resolution Foundation have identified that, from this year onwards and for the next four years, single parents stand to lose an average of £2,380 per annum. That is an enormous amount of money for anyone to lose from their annual budget. I am on a very good salary here—we all are—and I would notice if that amount were suddenly taken out of my salary. For single parents to have to suffer that over the next four years is absolutely wrong. I am very disappointed that the Government are continuing with the freeze despite all the evidence from robust, independent and reputable organisations such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Resolution Foundation. As the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) so eloquently said, the impact of the benefits freeze is simply cruel.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

One of the consequences of this is that people have not been assisted with burials, because nobody ever looks at burial charges, and I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has noticed that the number of pauper burials is starting to increase in this country. Surely that is quite an indictment.

[Stephen Lloyd]

The hon. Gentleman might know that an additional aspect of the benefits freeze is that the bereavement support payment is frozen. That is just unacceptable, and I will also keep banging on about the cuts affecting single parents.

[Kate Green]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight how particularly unfair these freezes are to single parents. It is obviously extremely difficult for them, as the sole carer of their children, to increase their family income by increasing their working hours. Does he therefore agree that special attention should be paid to their needs in the benefit system?

[Stephen Lloyd]

I heartily agree with the hon. Lady. There are more than 2 million single parent families, which must involve many millions of children, and the effect on them will be devastating if the Government do not address this matter very quickly. If they leave it for another four years, I can barely comprehend the damage that it will do to many of those children.

I am also disappointed about the employment and support allowance work-related activity group benefit—the WRAG—which is for disabled people whom the DWP recognises as having the capacity to work but who need a certain amount of support in order to get back into work as a consequence of their disability. This is an area that I have been supporting for many years before I came into politics, because I totally share the view of many others in the Chamber that work is the best way out of poverty and the best way to boost self-respect. However, after the coalition—the Liberals would never have allowed this—the Government cut the WRAG payment by 30%. I see that that has not changed. In fact, the Government are looking at removing it completely.

I ask hon. Members to imagine that they have a disability, that they have been unemployed for six or seven years, and that they want to get back into work. They will be supported by their local Jobcentre Plus and by the DWP, but because they have been away from work for a long time, they might lack confidence. They will therefore be gently directed, guided, assisted and mentored into work. I now ask them to imagine what would happen if the DWP then said, “Oh, by the way, we are going to reduce your income by 30%.” What would that do to their self-confidence, and to their determination to stay in the work-related activity group? I can tell them that because human nature is what it is, more and more disabled people will try to move into the support group as a result of this cut, and that will cost the state more. This shows the Government’s complete lack of understanding of disability and of human nature. Bad move!

Turning to the work allowance, one of the first things that George Osborne, now editor of the Evening Standard, did after the Liberals were defenestrated in 2015 was to slash £3 billion per annum from the work allowance. When I was on the Work and Pensions Committee, along with the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, I was so supportive of universal credit because, despite all its clunky bits, the work allowance meant that work really did pay. By removing £3 billion per annum since then, which will continue for the next four years, work no longer pays, which is completely counterproductive. The Government have kept all the worst elements of universal credit and have dumped the best element: the work allowance.

I pointed out in DWP questions earlier that universal credit is not working for the self-employed due to the minimum income floor. People who are self-employed may earn x amount of money one month and y the next—it could be less or more—but the way that universal credit is designed can mean that, at the end of 12 months, someone who is self-employed and earned £15,000 will have received less in benefits than someone who is employed and earns £15,000 or £20,000. The Conservative party, which always trumpets itself as the aspirational party, is specifically working against the self-employed, which is absolutely daft. As we know, the Government have abolished housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-olds, and housing benefit payments in the private rented sector have been frozen since 2016.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the cancelling of benefits for under-21s leads to a perverse incentive? If young people are in supported accommodation, it does not actually make any sense for them to leave and go back into ordinary rental housing, because they cannot afford it.

[Stephen Lloyd]

I thank the hon. Lady, who makes such a good point. Again, it is a false economy, because the situation just leads to more dysfunction and challenging circumstances for families. It will prevent younger people becoming independent, and it will cost the state more money.

In drawing my remarks to a close, I want to return to the issue of single parents once again. I urge the Minister to take responsibility for his Government and to listen to these figures. There are more than 2 million single parents in this country, who will have x million children, and they stand to lose nearly £2,500 a year in benefits under the benefit freeze. Those people do not have a lot of money; they are just trying to bring up their children. The situation is unacceptable. I urge the Minister not to ignore that important issue when he responds and to say something that we can perhaps take back to those many hundreds of thousands of single parents.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I rise to focus on the pensions aspect of this debate. We would all agree it is the duty of the United Kingdom Government to make sure that pensioners fully understand the impact that pension changes will have on their retirement planning. This is, of course, an extremely complex matter, and we know that many people struggle to understand the impact that changes to their pensions will have on their pension pots. The movement from a basic state pension and a state earnings-related pension scheme—commonly known as SERPS—to a one-off calculation is far from straightforward, and it will have an impact on people’s ability to understand their pension pots. Indeed, some people who have been extensively contracted out will get just the basic state pension figure.

We have heard tonight from my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) that it is good that there will be a minimum guarantee linked to the consumer prices index, but there will also be some adverse impacts. We know, for example, that those who were contracted out were not necessarily aware and did not necessarily understand what it meant, and certainly could not and would not have anticipated that their future retirement income would be negatively affected by the Government’s changes to the state pension. Those without savings to fall back on, such as the WASPI women, are hit very hard. They face a significant loss of income and real hardship.

Many of us are tired of saying it, but I hope that the Minister is not tired of hearing it—he is hearing it, but he and his Government do not seem to be listening. The UK Government should have better communicated the impact of these changes on those who were contracted out. It is absolutely imperative that the UK Government make sure they adequately inform people of the impact of the new state pension on their pension pots, as they have a duty to do.

That is worth saying because, apart from Government Members, just about everyone agrees that the UK Government have completely failed in this duty with regard to WASPI women. Changes under the Pensions Act 1995 began to be made in 2010, but women were written to only from 2009. Many were simply not told, so they were completely unaware of the changes being made to their pensions. That is an appalling abdication of responsibility, and it shows complete disregard for the impact of such changes on the lives of those affected.

Many WASPI women were simply unaware of the changes, but the Government have not been listening. It is worth remembering that DWP research carried out in 2004 found that less than half the women surveyed were aware of the impact the changes would have on their state pension age, with awareness particularly low among those who would arguably be worst affected—women who were economically inactive.

In addition, the Pensions Commission said in 2005 that

“a policy of significant notice of any increase (e.g. at least 15 years) should be possible”.

In 2008, the Pensions Advisory Service also reported low levels of knowledge about the state pension and said that that “must be addressed” by the Government. The warning signs were all there, despite how much the UK Government insist that they did enough to inform women of changes to their pension age.

This whole episode has undermined the social contract that the state pension represents. If Members do not believe that, perhaps it is worth spending five minutes with a WASPI woman. With the impact of contracting out, it is extremely important that the Government tell the House what provisions are in place now, and have previously been in place, to ensure that people are fully informed of the impact on their pension pots. If some people are unable to make ends meet due to lower pension payments because of contracting out, the Government need to explain what support and advice will be made available to them.

The fact is that pensions are far too important to be kicked about by Governments of different political persuasions. Once again, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts, we in the SNP are asking for an independent pensions commission, and we will continue to do so. Only then can we properly address the needs of pensioners and prepare for the looming pensions and savings crisis that many fear will come to pass. I draw the Minister’s attention to the spike in pensioner poverty, which shows that many of those in the over-60 age bracket are being failed by the Government.

[Stephen Lloyd]

Does the hon. Lady agree that perhaps one way forward is for the parliamentary ombudsman to look at what was clearly poor-quality communication, from the 1995 Act onwards, and to make a ruling on whether the communication was good enough? We would then find out for sure what I think is true, which is that there was poor communication. We rely on the parliamentary ombudsman to give us that steer.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his insight. That idea is worth pursuing, but, rather sadly, I fear that the WASPI women now feel that the only option left to them is a legal challenge in the courts. If that is where the matter finds itself, that in itself is an indictment of a Government who have let these women down. Either way, the WASPI women are not going to go away, and perhaps through the parliamentary ombudsman and perhaps through the courts, this matter is far from over.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said that 300,000 more pensioners have been driven into poverty over the past four years, which is the first sustained increase in pensioner poverty for more than 20 years. That, on its own, should give us pause for thought. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, but he should take it up with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which is a very credible organisation.

There has been a sustained attack on pensioners, and we saw that in the Government’s election campaign with the attack on the triple lock and the threat of a dementia tax. Thankfully those threats have receded, because they cost the Government their majority, but the matter requires the Government’s full attention. The Government should reflect on the electoral consequences, as well as the moral consequences, of these attacks.

According to the European Commission’s 2015 research, the UK has a wider than average gender pensions gap. We are trailing behind the rest of Europe on how we treat our pensioners, which is a matter the Government should take seriously. After the WASPI fiasco, confidence in pensions has been undermined at a time when we are trying to encourage younger generations to plan for their future. Those two situations do not sit side by side very comfortably.

An independent pensions commission would ensure that employees’ savings are protected and that a more progressive approach to fairer savings is considered, as we move towards a period when the new state pensions take effect. An independent pensions commission is needed more than ever. It is time for the Government to consider it seriously in the long-term interest of pension security, and I urge the Minister to do so.