Disability Benefits: Assessments

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Monday 4th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Justin Tomlinson]

Absolutely. It would be valuable twofold. I talk to a lot of the assessors, and I know we are all going to highlight where there are challenges, but something like 95% of claims go through. Satisfaction is still relatively high for those claimants; as I said, we are spending £10 billion. The vast majority of assessors want to get it right first time and want to have that knowledge and support, so if we can allow some assessors to specialise, they can develop their training with charities and health organisations with specific knowledge of the area. That will increase the chance of getting the decision right the first time.

Not everybody presents with one single health condition, so it may be that people would have a hybrid assessment in two parts. There would be a general assessment, which in many cases would pick up things on the mental health side that people did not realise were having an impact on their day-to-day life; there would also be a specific assessment of the primary health condition. As the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) so clearly articulates, where people have fluctuating health conditions we really need the knowledge to ensure that we are looking not just at one particular day but, as the guidance says, at the typical impact over a one-year period.

During covid, we had a significantly reduced workforce. All our health assessors have a medical background and then have extensive training, and they were the first port of call for secondments to the NHS to provide the covid jab, so we had an incredibly depleted workforce. That really focused our mind on the volume of assessments. At Work and Pensions oral questions earlier today, I raised a point about whether lessons have been learned on extending the severe conditions criteria. When we looked at it, we estimated that about 250,000 to 300,000 assessments, with a change, could be lifted out of the system every single year. That would speed up the process for those who remain and would obviously be beneficial for those 250,000 to 300,000 people.

At the moment, PIP does not look at individual conditions—it is about the menu of health conditions that have an impact on someone’s daily life—but I think that, in some cases, we can do so. We have shown that with the changes to the special rules for the terminally ill, which will look at health conditions. I will give one example, but no doubt there are many organisations that would lobby for a change in respect of particular health conditions.

Motor neurone disease is a horribly degenerative disease, and there is a pretty clear trajectory once someone has been diagnosed, so I have never understood why on earth we assess people who have it. From the moment they have been diagnosed, we should be able to say, “We expect their condition to go like this,” and then provide an automatic level of support. They would start at the lower level immediately after diagnosis and, as their condition, sadly, deteriorated, they would automatically move on to the highest level. If, sadly, their condition deteriorated more quickly, they would be able to contact the PIP assessors, speak to the MND specialist team, have a light-touch conversation—a GP’s note would probably be sufficient—and be automatically upgraded.

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

I am grateful that the hon. Member has brought up MND. Does he agree that one thing that the current system must do is prevent delays? Not only do people with the condition sometimes deteriorate more quickly, but the adaptations that local authorities are making, and so on, mean that we are making the process much more difficult on every front for people with MND.

[Justin Tomlinson]

Absolutely, and that was one of the drivers behind our changes to the special rules on terminal illness. From the point of diagnosis, PIP is a gateway benefit that will unlock extra help from local authorities, so it will certainly speed up that process.

Before the Minister panics and thinks that he would need an office akin to Fort Knox because every single health group would lobby him and say, “These rules should apply to our particular health challenge,” let me say that the way around that is to look at the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which already operates within the DWP. In effect, that is a separate, independent body of medical and scientific experts with far greater brains than mine. They are the ones who decide which health conditions qualify for industrial injuries benefits. We could apply the same principle and, as medical care and scientific knowledge evolved, they could update the guidance. That could potentially lift 250,000 to 300,000 people out of the process and help some of the most important people. Since the changes on terminal illness came into force, we have seen all pluses and little else. I hope that the Minister’s commitment to trying to pilot initiatives in this area will continue, ahead of the White Paper.

Many colleagues have mentioned the appeals process. There are different ways of looking at the statistics but, by and large, for the vast majority of people who are successful in the appeals process, either at the mandatory reconsideration stage or at the end, that is because of additional evidence that is presented. We have to look at why that additional evidence is being presented so late in the day. There are many things that could be done. The Department could be more proactive in chasing up sources that have supportive evidence. Getting evidence from a GP is a bit of a postcode lottery. Some GPs will reply to a claimant immediately and give chapter and verse; some are much slower. Some will seek to charge. Some do not necessarily have the right information.

Where someone has already gone through a work capability assessment, which is very similar—I know there is potentially a review of whether we should have two separate assessments, but this is the case as it stands today—there will already be a lot of information on a similar system, and we should at least ask the claimant whether they would like us to look at that information. Remember that it is the claimant’s information and we should not do that automatically, but we should ask to bring that information over.

We should be proactive in encouraging claimants to bring a trusted colleague with them to the assessments. That is within the rules, but how assessors allow it is very inconsistent. Some assessors will encourage the colleague to speak. Some will tell them, “No, you’re not being assessed; you are just there to provide moral support.” We need consistent guidelines. In my opinion, they should be allowed to speak. I have sat in on a lot of assessments; a lot of people are understandably overwhelmed, and arguably do not do themselves justice in what they say. Sometimes, when a person has had a condition for so long, they just take it as the norm that, for example, they no longer sleep at night. Their partner who is woken up by their not sleeping at night would probably be better at articulating that. We should be doing that.

We also started testing phoning claimants at the mandatory reconsideration stage and asking them to tell us, in their own words, why they disagreed with the decision. One speaker mentioned earlier that the mandatory reconsideration success rate is only about 11%. My understanding is that when we piloted proactively speaking to the claimant, that figure went up to about 40%; when I talked to assessors doing that at the time, they felt they could go even further. We would invariably find that a claimant’s GP had told them something but they had not provided us with the information, or had not been able to get it, and we could chase the GP on their behalf and get that information.

We also allowed people to be lifted out of the system. In the past, people had in effect to take their chances. They had to wait for the MR, and once they triggered the independent appeal the Department could not come back and say, “Now you have provided us with this evidence, we agree with you and wish to do that,” because they were stuck waiting for the judge, which can be up to a 12-month wait. We changed the rules so we could lift people out, but if people still did not agree with us they had the right to stay in the process. All those measures that can help lift people out of the process would be very welcome.

I also want to highlight the need for us to start signposting support and help. PIP is geared up to identify people’s challenges and then to identify society’s financial contribution towards the impact on their daily lives, but we stop there; we do not signpost people on PIP to additional support that may exist in their communities. I visited many wonderful and innovative mental health pilots across the country—we will all have done loads of visits in the summer recess, seen something and thought, “Gosh!”—but time and again people said to me, “Our problem is that we can’t find enough people to come and test these things out.” Yet the PIP database has the list of all the people who have been identified as having a mental health issue. I am not saying that they should have to do it, but at the very least we should be writing and saying, “Right, you’re in this particular postcode. These are the local charities and organisations, this is the local authority, and these are the local health pilots to do with your primary condition, or menu of conditions, that may be of interest to you.” I think that would be hugely beneficial to many of the people who go through the system.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) who opened the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Elements of his speech felt like groundhog day, because the first Westminster Hall debate that I led, in 2017, was on the issue of work capability assessments. It is worrying that six years on we are still here debating the very same issues. All Members, regardless of party, know that those issues cause undue stress and misery to people across our four nations.

The British Government’s approach to disability benefit assessments is not just ineffective—the theme that has been developed today—but inhumane. Under the current regime, the application process removes the reality of people’s lived experience as the very foundation on which the system has been defined. It favours evidence provided by the assessor rather than the claimant. The system also operates on the presumption of scepticism. It is not a system that empowers its users. Instead it perpetuates a cycle of despair and frustration. That “one size fits all” approach to disability assessment is in my view not only short-sighted, but it completely disregards the reality of living with a disability or a chronic illness. Charities such as Scope have raised concerns about the process time and again, but their calls appear to be continually ignored—at huge expense to those living with a disability.

The impact of disability assessments has, unfortunately, featured significantly in my caseload since I became MP for Glasgow East in 2017. I will be honest: I am no stranger to hearing about dehumanising experiences that my constituents have endured as a result of this system. I sit week in, week out at surgeries across the east end of Glasgow in places like Baillieston, Parkhead and Easterhouse, hearing the same harrowing and sometimes traumatic experiences that people have had to endure at the hands of the disability benefits assessment process.

In most cases, and worryingly, people’s mental and physical health are only worsened by the assessment process. That leads to many further problems for the NHS through health problems, whether physical or mental, so it is counter-productive. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) referred to the finding by Scope: from January to March this year, 68% of PIP appeal outcomes were changed in favour of the claimant. If such a proportion of wrong outcomes were found in any other Department, Ministers would ask serious questions. I respect the Minister, who I know takes a strong interest in this issue, but I ask him to look again at the figure of nearly 70% of appeal outcomes being overturned. That suggests that the system is fundamentally flawed.

As people continue to face the disability price tag, disabled people are also having to juggle the restricted funds available to them along with soaring food and energy prices. According to the Trussell Trust’s analysis, three quarters of people referred to its food banks reported that they or a member of their household were disabled. As disabled people are hit disproportionately by the cost of living crisis, to the tune of some £945 a month extra, it is vital that all financial support to which they are entitled is awarded. However, under the current system, that is not always the case; in many cases, it feels as if people are actively held back from the support they so desperately need.

The hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) highlighted the recommendations in the Work and Pensions Committee report about the use of informal observations—a point also made by the MS Society in its briefing for the debate. Far too often, PIP assessors make inaccurate decisions based on those informal observations. Watching how someone looks or behaves during their assessment or observing someone walking from their car to the assessment centre are now used as tests of mobility. That is completely wrong and such things should not be taken into account. The Work and Pensions Committee, on which I am privileged to serve with the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), has heard that, more often than not, those informal observations are given greater weight than medical evidence.

As others have outlined, when it comes to people with conditions such as multiple sclerosis or Parkinson’s, which fluctuate day to day and have many hidden symptoms, it is completely arbitrary for informal observations to be used to inform the assessor’s decision. The assessor’s limited understanding of complex fluctuating conditions such as MS, combined with the use of informal observations as a way of gathering evidence, results in greater emphasis being placed on the evidence provided by the assessor, rather than the lived experience of the disabled claimant. It therefore strikes me that the only purpose of asking a claimant to come for an assessment is to watch them literally walk from their car to the front door of the assessment centre, which seems utterly absurd.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston made clear, when we look north of the border—this brings me to the substantive point from the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson)—we can see the difference that devolution has made to how the policy has been implemented. It seems clear, not just to SNP Members but to those who work in the disability sphere, that the Scottish Government—on a cross-party basis, in fairness—are moving away from the regressive approach and becoming more committed to a process that has been designed around the lived experience of people with a disability.

Indeed, the adult disability payment from the Scottish Government is delivering an entirely new, simplified and—I would argue—far more compassionate experience for disabled people. It is a system that has been designed with the claimant, rather than against them; that is the key point that comes back when we speak to stakeholders north of the border. Putting compassion and people at the heart of the system must be the priority for any Government, regardless of their colour, so I am proud that we have taken that approach. Indeed, I am proud that Conservative Members on the Work and Pensions Committee unanimously approved its report praising the Scottish Government’s approach.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I am a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, which did an inquiry into welfare in Scotland, and I certainly agree that what came through strongly from stakeholders was the need for a compassionate approach. As always, however, the processes have to be properly administered. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that at the moment the reality is that waiting times for the ADP in Scotland are longer than those for PIP assessments? Does he, like me, have casework in which there have been incorrect decisions? The approach might be different, but we need to see better outcomes.

[David Linden]

Absolutely. I totally understand the hon. Lady’s point, and I am sure she will understand that a lot of the civil servants who were working on the design of the Social Security Scotland system were rightly deployed towards the covid pandemic. Ministers in the Scottish Government have acknowledged that the situation with the ADP waiting list is less than helpful. But I come back to the fundamental point on which I challenge the hon. Member for North Swindon, which is that our systems are about taking the view that the claimant is not on the make. That is the nub of the issue. With the UK Government’s system, there is a scepticism about whether the person sitting at the other end of the table is on the make or on the take, so it is about trying to find a way to catch them out. That is why there is an overturn rate of 68%, for example.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for introducing the debate, the petitioners who signed the petitions and the Petitions Committee for its work.

As other Members have said, as a constituency MP I find that DWP casework, particularly regarding PIP assessments, takes up a substantial part of my caseworkers’ time and often causes extreme distress to those who come to me as their MP. It is always nice as an MP to feel good when we have had a result and managed to overturn something, but frankly we should not need to be involved in the process at all.

I thank the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, for highlighting a number of the Committee’s recent report findings. I echo the thoughts of the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden): this is a cross-party issue. There are a number of areas on which we would be likely to find agreement in order to straighten out and improve some of the systems. That would not only help some of our most vulnerable constituents but, frankly, surely save the public purse some money, given the failures and inefficiencies in our system.

It is useful to reflect on why we have a disability benefits system in the first place: because we know that those with a disability often find that their ability to work is impaired or that they are unable to work at all. Our social security system accepts that such individuals need support to compensate them for their inability to work and to meet the additional costs that their disability involves.

It is important that we remember that work capability assessments are not strictly disability benefit assessments, but they predominantly impact on disabled people when they apply for benefits and need to be considered in this debate. The Government have said that work capability assessments are unlikely to be abolished until 2026-27 at the earliest, so there are some key questions that we need answered. We need to know what will be done to improve them in the meantime—we have already heard a number of points about that. How are we avoiding over-testing? What has been done to protect claimants’ mental health? It would be great if the Government could provide clarity on the timeframe involved.

Without work capability assessments, is there a blanket requirement to look for work? It is vital that we avoid unnecessarily extending sanctions to those who are not in a position to work because of their health. All the evidence suggests that sanctions are not effective in encouraging people to work, and they also penalise people with mental health difficulties. Surely we should all want to see a scheme based on incentives.

My party wants to see a separation of the administration of benefits from employment support. Being supported to access training, education or employment ought to be separate from social security. People are not motivated to do things because there is not a sanction; they are motivated to do things because everyone wants a life that is as fulfilling as possible.

I am conscious the fact that at this point in the debate, although we still have plenty of time left, I am touching on things that have already been covered by other Members. On the application process for PIP, the forms are long, difficult and stressful, particularly for applicants with cognitive difficulties, fatigue or mental health difficulties. I firmly echo the thoughts of the right hon. Member for East Ham in relation to the time limit to complete the forms. It is certainly my experience as a constituency MP that forms sometimes take up to a week to arrive, which leaves applicants with only two weeks to apply. That is simply unrealistic.

There is an option to call the DWP and ask for an extension, but frankly it is not well known about, and having to engage again with the DWP causes unnecessary stress. Surely we could look at increasing the time given for applicants to complete the form to two months, and perhaps even longer. We also need to review the form so that we properly take account of relapsing and remitting conditions. I refer to the remarks that I made in an Adjournment debate that I secured on long covid, in which we considered how to support people with that condition.

[SIR GARY STREETER in the Chair]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Gary. On the PIP assessment process, we all have inboxes full of correspondence from unhappy constituents. I am aware that there will potentially be happy constituents out there who have not had any issues with PIP and therefore have not got in touch with us as MPs, but for those who do get in touch I suspect that the reality of their experience is that they feel the process was degrading and designed to trip them up. The Government can say all they want that that is not what is meant to happen, but it is the experience of the vast majority of people we talk to. One of the petitions we are debating suggests abolishing assessments entirely and focusing only on the medical evidence. We have heard comments from other Members as to why that might not be the best approach, but I agree that it is hard to find a system that is worse than the current one.

Delays in getting assessments is a real issue. According to Citizens Advice, in April this year some 720,000 people were waiting either for an appointment for a new claim or for a review—that is some backlog. We must see a shift in how assessments are offered, with a choice for claimants between them being in person or on the phone. One of the benefits of the pandemic was seeing how that might be possible.

The formal part of the assessment, as Members know, involves reviewing the claimant’s functional abilities against a range of descriptors. Evidence gathered by organisations such as Scope shows overwhelmingly that the descriptors do not allow claimants to properly explain their needs and what they might have difficulty with. Let us take, for example, the question on food preparation: the ability of someone to feed themselves is not as simple as whether they can cook a meal unaided. So many aspects of that are not covered by that simple statement. Perhaps someone can prepare a meal if their pain is not too bad, but they need someone to reach for the items on the top or bottom shelves of a cupboard. Perhaps someone asks the question based on whether the claimant has had help cooking in the past day or week. The answer might be no not because they do not need help, but because they simply have not had the opportunity or support, so they have been eating food like cereal or a ready meal to compensate.

The descriptors are even more problematic for people with relapsing and remitting conditions. At the moment, a 50% rule is applied, so someone has to experience a symptom and have a resulting difficulty for half a given time period for that difficulty to count. That means that if they are in pain so severe that they cannot wash, dress or go to the shops, but only for 14 days in a month, they would not qualify for any support. The criteria also fail to take into account the impact of performing the activities being assessed. “Can you walk more than 20 metres or 50 metres?” Perhaps they can, but slowly and with difficulty, and they are then in so much pain that they cannot do anything for the rest of the day. A mere yes or no does not consider the better test of whether someone can do something safely, repeatedly, competently and in a timely manner.

Other Members have touched on this, but informal observations are a real concern. Particularly given the use of non-specialist assessors, it seems deliberately careless to ask someone to make a judgment on another’s abilities without any deep understanding of that person’s experience. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for highlighting MS in that regard. In any case, the mere fact that people know they are being watched makes them feel that they are being distrusted, which speaks to the point that the hon. Member for Glasgow East made. In fact, that is why we are all here today: because the people who are meant to be supported through benefits like PIP have so little trust in the system that they want it to be completely overhauled. That is why they signed the petition. We absolutely need to restore that trust, and the first thing the Government could do very simply is to review the use of informal assessments.

I agree with the right hon. Member for East Ham that all assessments must be recorded by default, with the option to opt out if the applicant wants. I do not understand why the Government have not accepted that recommendation from the Select Committee. All reports simply ought to be shared so that claimants can see how and why a decision has been made. That seems reasonable, particularly if we are then moving on to reassessments.

It is important to think about reassessments, and I hope the Minister will explain why it continues to be DWP policy to over-review claimants who have no chance of improving. If something gets worse for a claimant and they think they should be entitled to a higher level of support, they are entitled to start that review process themselves. There is absolutely no need to call people back year in, year out for a stressful process that uses up taxpayer money and just creates more and more backlogs. The backlog will soon be well above a million if we continue in that way.

Worse than that, all the stats for mandatory reconsiderations and appeals show that incorrect decisions at first assessment are commonplace. That means that when someone is called back for an unnecessary assessment, the chances are that they might have had their benefits wrongly stopped. We know that families with at least one disabled person are far more likely to be in poverty than those without—42% compared with 18%, according to the Social Market Foundation—so stopping those benefits, even for a short period, can have devastating effects.

The process halts any chance of someone improving and being able to enjoy a more active and fulfilling life that might include employment, with frequent reassessments linked to stress and further deterioration. That has been the experience of one of my constituents. She does not want to be named, but she wants me to share this with the Minister. She suffered a spinal cord injury in the early 2000s. She was initially assessed in 2016, then reassessed in 2017 and 2019. She has had multiple incorrect assessments. She finds dealing with the DWP incredibly traumatic. Despite being told by her doctor that her condition will never improve—something the DWP eventually accepted—she is still being told that she needs reassessments every two years. That will not fix her spine. All it does is risk her losing the little she receives while causing immense distress. Her needs might worsen over time, but she should be able to exercise her own autonomy about requesting a review rather than being stuck in an endless cycle. What are the Minister’s thoughts about what I can go back and say to my constituent to show that he understands and cares about her and others in that position?

In conclusion, it is clear that the assessments need to be reformed from top to bottom. None of us knows what will happen to us or our loved ones, and our social security system should be a safety net. Its purpose should be to reduce poverty and, where possible, increase employment. I hope the Minister will take on board the comments made by Members today.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

We now turn to our Front-Bench speeches. I call Marion Fellows.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Monday 4th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

Like the hon. Lady, I and my ministerial colleagues take bullying in the workplace extremely seriously. There is no place for that in our country. I would be very happy for her to have a meeting with the relevant DWP Minister.

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

25. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the high income child benefit charge on the gender pension gap.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)]

In April, we announced plans to address this issue by introducing a retrospective national insurance credit, which will ensure that more people—especially women—have the opportunity to obtain a full state pension.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

The high income child benefit charge is potentially a scandal waiting to happen. Currently, families have to apply for a benefit they know they are not entitled to so that the stay-at-home parent—usually the mother—gets the national insurance credits that they need for her state pension. It is good to hear that the Government are doing something, but they need to reform the process further. Will they agree to at least put some comms in? I certainly had not heard of the changes in April.

[Laura Trott]

I am glad that the hon. Lady agrees with those changes. I assure her that we will be bringing them forward as soon as we can.

Department for Work and Pensions

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2023 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms). This is an opportunity for us to scrutinise the spending of the DWP as a whole, and I think it is important to reflect, as the Chair did, on the amounts of money that we are talking about. Spending on pensioner benefits equates to £134.8 billion and spending on universal credit and equivalent benefits equates to £82.8 billion, and that is before we look at disability and carer benefits, housing benefit, incapacity benefits and the one-off cost of living payments.

We are talking about a significant amount of money, but we are not just talking about it in the whole or in the round. I am sure that all of us here, as constituency MPs, know that casework associated with the DWP takes up a significant proportion of our casework teams’ time. Frankly, that is usually because of errors in the system. We know that every constituent’s circumstances are unique, but the themes are the same and the consequences for people’s day-to-day lives and living circumstances can be significant. I will highlight a survey carried out by the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality—campaign that reports that nearly one in three women who have been impacted by changes to the state pension have fallen into debt in the last six months. That is people’s day-to-day lives. Given the amount of money spent on the DWP, I think we all, on a cross-party basis, would want the money that is spent to be used effectively and efficiently. I want to use my time this afternoon to highlight some of the inefficiencies in the system and seek updates from the Minister on points that I hope he will address in his concluding remarks.

On the state pension, it is important that we recognise that those who are most reliant on the state pension are those who are least able to work for longer. I want to highlight the current LEAP—legal entitlement and administrative practices—correction exercise for underpayments of the state pension, and to ask the Minister to confirm whether the Government are still on track to complete those corrections by the end of 2024. In February 2023, they had paid out only £200 million of the target of £1.5 billion.

I also want to highlight the uptake of pension credit. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has advised that there is a policy proposal on the table looking at combining the housing allowance and pension credit systems. It believes that that would increase uptake of pension credit, which I know the Pensions Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott)—has been working very hard to do. If that is the case, why is it potentially being pushed back to 2028?

Home responsibilities protection errors were discovered last year and mentioned in the DWP’s annual report. When people had accrued HRP under the old state pension, there were errors in converting it to national insurance credits in the move to the new system, and that left people with incomplete records and underpayments. When I say people, it is generally women. We are still waiting for the report to set out the scale of the problem now and how the DWP plans to fix it. I would be grateful if the Minister mentioned when that correction exercise will start. I urge that it starts in parallel with the current correction exercise rather than being delayed until after the current exercise is finished. Again, a lot of these issues tend to be for women. It feels to me that the way systems are set up sometimes means that they do not recognise the situation of women who have been in the workplace, the decisions they make for family and other reasons, and their caring responsibilities.

I want to mention the missing national insurance credits for people who received universal credit. The Minister confirmed to me in a letter in March that the automatic system for updating the records did not work because the format of the UC data sent to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs did not work with its systems, so that was suspended. This has meant that NI records are being manually updated, with errors being made as a result. I think this ties in with the Chair of the Select Committee’s comments about IT and the problems that legacy systems sometimes have. We all remember that the £20 uplift in universal credit was never seen by those on legacy benefits, and the initial reason given for that was that the IT systems could not cope, and that was never addressed. Does the Minister think that all those corrections to NI records will be made by the end of 2023-24, and may we have an update on the number of pensioners who are still missing out on their full entitlement?

If we want work to work, and to work effectively, we must acknowledge that we need to do more on pensions. For me, a startling statistic is the fact that most people are not in work a year before their pension age. For a variety of reasons people are not working, and they are therefore waiting for their state pension. Recent DWP reporting puts the gender pension gap for private pensions at a staggering 35%. Do the Government have an estimate of the gender pay gap if they include people who have no private pension entitlement at all? I suspect that if they have not been included, the gap will be somewhat larger. Will the Government make it a departmental statutory objective to close the gender pension gap?

That brings us back to women, because that changing portfolio of careers that women potentially experience will increasingly be the case for many people. I think about my own background before I came to this place. Increasingly, people do not stay in one organisation for 30-plus years and then draw down their pension from that organisation; they instead do a variety of different jobs in different places. As a result, the pension dashboard that was introduced by the Pension Schemes Act 2021 becomes even more critical so that people can keep track. Again, I would be grateful for an update from the Minister on that roll-out.

Let me return to benefits and the insufficiency of income. A number of us were present at the statement on the disability cost of living payment, and there was a general acknowledgement, certainly on this side of the House, that insufficiency of income is at the root of that. DWP data shows that in 2021 one in six people were in relative poverty, and one in five after accounting for housing costs, while 13% were in absolute poverty and 17% after housing costs. The Resolution Foundation estimates that that figure will rise in 2023-24 to 18.4% after housing costs.

Keeping people in poverty has negative outcomes. When people are financially insecure, they are more likely to have health or mental health problems, and more likely to struggle to get into work—it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I echo the comments of the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee on the uprating of benefits. The previous uprating, which was welcomed, was simply to keep up with inflation. If the problem is insufficiency of income, not committing to do that going forward just makes the problem worse.

I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on ending the need for food banks, and our “Cash or food?” inquiry deals specifically with how we better support people and ensure a decrease in the use of food banks. In my constituency—indeed, this is something the Scottish Affairs Committee is looking at—the rural poverty premium is real. The Chair of the Committee mentioned transport costs, and going from East Neuk in my constituency to the jobcentre in Levan costs £9 on the bus. When talking about the small amounts of money that constitute universal credit, we can quickly see where that money goes, and that is before someone potentially has to go shopping in premium local shops as opposed to Aldi and Lidl. Money goes very quickly.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady made a good point about benefits and the key role that they play in creating a wealthy society. She may or may not know that there is an interesting TED talk called “Where in the world is it easiest to get rich?” The answer is: in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, where they have identified that one of the key aspects of creating a wealthy society is a good benefits system that enables workers to go around with some security, and society and children to have security as well. If we want to have millionaires and billionaires, we need a very good benefits system.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. Absolutely; I think we all look to the Scandinavian countries to see how they promote quality of life and support individuals, and we must think about how we can better support that. Indeed, the public generally tend to support that. They are comfortable potentially paying more in tax to have better services, and that debate must continue to be had.

I am pleased that my carer’s leave private Member’s Bill is now the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, and it will for the first time give employment rights to unpaid carers. One of the huge challenges when I was engaging with unpaid carers in my constituency—I have said this in the Chamber before—was the number of people who had left work because of their caring responsibilities, and therefore they would not benefit from provisions in the Act. Sadly, it is a fact that too many unpaid carers and the people they care for are living in poverty.

Carers UK estimates that unpaid carers are providing care worth £162 billion a year, and when we contrast that with the costs of the Department through the estimates debate, we can see the comparators. Without unpaid carers, our economy would be severely strained. Some 45% of unpaid carers are estimated to be unable to afford their monthly expenses, and two thirds of those who receive carer’s allowance or the universal credit carer element say that they cannot meet their monthly expenses. The level of carer’s allowance needs to be increased urgently—I have called for that before, and I will continue to do so.

We must also think about how we taper carer’s allowance. Caring never stops, and we should not have people falling off a cliff edge in relation to hours worked. Frankly, that is a disincentive for people going into work, because if they have the choice between working or caring for their loved one, they will choose their loved one every time. For young carers, I am not just concerned about their education; I am also concerned that we will never get them into the workplace if we do not provide them with the support to get there.

I am conscious that some unpaid carers decide to step out of the workplace for some time and then their caring responsibilities end, potentially through the loss of a loved one. What are we doing to support unpaid carers, who might have been out of the workplace for some time, to get back into work? There are similarities with issues such as parental leave and other decisions, and we should be looking at that body of people, who frankly are some of the best multitaskers I know, given their skillsets, and how we can help them into work.

Finally—this is an issue that other Members will be hugely aware of—child benefit thresholds are becoming an increasing problem, particularly given some of our frozen levels of income tax. It is a ticking timebomb. Families do not apply for child benefit if they know that they will not be entitled to it, but because those levels have never changed, that is increasingly an issue for stay-at-home parents—again, those are usually women; there’s a theme—who then miss out on accruing national insurance credits for the state pension. They do not realise that if they do not apply for child benefit payment, even to be told that they do not apply, they cannot pick up the national insurance credits, and that can be a real issue. Will the Minister consider reviewing the scheme for accruing credits for stay-at-home parents, or at the very least doing an awareness-raising campaign, as has been done for pension credits and other things? This is a good opportunity, whether a Member has an interest via the Committee, or otherwise, but as a constituency MP I want, and my casework team want, the DWP to be working as effectively as possible, so that those who need help get it, and those who can get into work are supported to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

The Parliamentary Private Secretary is shaking his head at that, but probably because he is so embarrassed.

The five-week wait for a first payment is needlessly pushing people into hardship. The issue could easily be fixed by implementing the Scottish National party’s proposal to turn advance payment loans into non-repayable grants after the claimant has been deemed eligible. The Trussell Trust, which I referenced earlier, has consistently shown that the five-week wait for universal credit is a key driver in the need for food banks, both during those five weeks and after the payments have started.

I want to draw attention to the young parent penalty in UC, which Ministers must end. It denies single parents under the age of 25 the same level of social security as those above that age, and it pushes those affected into real poverty. Let us not forget that when under-25s go into Aldi, Lidl, Morrisons or whatever supermarket, they do not get a discount on their shopping because they are under 25. I find that Ministers have an obsession with that.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

The hon. Gentleman has campaigned on this issue, as have I. Does he agree that the response I received from the previous Secretary of State on this point—that under-25s were treated differently because they tended to still be at home with their parents—is a pretty spurious argument and excuse from the Department?

[David Linden]

That is right. It was not unusual for the previous Secretary of State to say things which, after some scrutiny, might not make sense. The hon. Lady is right. For Ministers to hide behind the housing crisis—caused by this Tory Government—as some kind of justification for ensuring that people under 25 get less support does not stand up to scrutiny. That point was hammered home to me on Friday, when I was in Drumchapel visiting the Christians Against Poverty debt centre, to meet staff and volunteers there, to whom I pay enormous tribute for their sterling work.

According to One Parent Families Scotland, as a result of the young parent penalty, young couple parents are around £100 worse off per month than single parents, and around £65 worse off a month than over-25s. That research found that 55% of children with a mum under 25 are in relative poverty, and 49% are in absolute poverty. Let us never forget that those statistics are the result of the structural inequality put in place by intransigent Ministers. Although I certainly welcome the change whereby people on UC will now be able to claim childcare support upfront, I am afraid that does not change the fundamental issue that the amount of UC that people receive is simply not enough. Families will still be required to make up the 15% shortfall in their overall childcare costs under UC rules.

An issue that continues to come up in evidence at the Select Committee is that far too many households face destitution because of DWP rules that push them into debt through sanctions and reductions—a point made eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). Aberlour Children’s Charity produced a report that states that half of families with children in Scotland who receive universal credit are having their incomes reduced by the DWP to cover debts to public bodies. I hope the Select Committee will be able to drill into that a bit more. It is increasingly a problem, and I am sure I am not the only MP who sees people raising it regularly at advice surgeries.

It is well established and on record that the SNP completely opposes the widespread use of sanctions, as there is clear evidence that they do not work. Indeed, evidence from the Department’s report admits that sanctions have a minimal effect on moving people into work. Instead, people who are sanctioned end up earning less than those who have not been sanctioned, or simply become economically inactive.

Cost of Living Support

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Tuesday 20th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

I repeat what I said in response to the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee. We are determined to try to get to grips with the longer-term pressures that people face. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) mentioned the “Disability Price Tag” report by Scope. One of those pressure is energy costs, and one thing that colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero are currently looking at is the wholescale market reform of our energy market. As part of that, they are considering the issue of social tariffs and support, to see how we best support those costs in the longer term. The best way to tackle those issues in the round and get those pressures down, is by addressing the inflationary challenge that we are currently experiencing. That is what the Government are focused on at the moment, and that is the right approach. On the wider matter in response to the question from the Chair of the Committee, we will take that away and it will be considered in the usual way as part of the annual process.

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

Scope’s “Disability Price Tag” report has already been mentioned, but the £975 a month means that the extra payment of £150 does not cover even a week of additional costs, and it points to the lack of sufficiency for social security that the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee referred to. My private Member’s Bill recently became the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, and when I met constituents they had either had to give up work because of their caring responsibilities, or they had lost carer’s allowance because of the hours they were working. The Minister talks about a transformation of the system. Does he agree that carer’s allowance is ripe for reform?

[Tom Pursglove]

The hon. Lady and I have previously had exchanges on carer’s allowance, and the approach we take is to consider that when we have our deliberations on annual uprating. We will make modification to that when it is affordable and appropriate, but I hear her representation. I also congratulate her on the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, which introduces an important change. I know that a lot of effort went into that behind the scenes, and I congratulate her on it.

People with Disabilities: Cost of Living

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Westminster Hall

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

I shall keep my remarks short. I am grateful to take part in the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on securing it.

At a basic level, it is more expensive to be disabled in this country, in the same way that it is more expensive to be poor. On every measure, disabled people and households have higher routine living costs than non-disabled households. In her opening remarks, the hon. Member referred to analysis from Scope’s disability price tag, published only last month, which stated that disabled households need on average an extra £975 to achieve the same standard of living as non-disabled households. Accounting for current inflation, that is over £1,100.

The reasons for that extra need are simple. Disabled households need to divert funds to pay for specialist products and services. They need to think about disability-related products that are often essential and costly, and they have increased energy costs as a result, both for heating and for electricity in relation to nutrition needs, as the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw mentioned. A greater percentage of a disabled person’s disposable income is spent on food and energy, so the cost of living crisis has a disproportionate impact on them even before we think about things like the higher insurance premiums that disabled people face. The reality is that there has been a lack of financial support, and issues with PIP assessments mean that many are not accessing the payments to which they should be entitled.

I have particular concerns about the assessment of fluctuating conditions such as MS, ME and long covid. As has been highlighted, the expertise is simply not there for those kinds of complex conditions. On one day—and that day might happen to be the assessment day—a person may experience a better period of health than the rest of the time. I want further work on the health and disability White Paper to consider those things.

We are discussing Scotland quite a bit, but as a Scottish MP I cannot help doing so. I am conscious that MPs may sometimes have a bit of confirmation bias because people come to us from a casework perspective after trying every other source of help, so they are often desperate and some of the cases are quite complex. The Scottish Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, conducted an inquiry on welfare in Scotland 18 months to two years ago. I heard from stakeholders in Scotland that there was a more compassionate approach towards setting up the social security system in Scotland.

I will also say, however, that I am seeing casework on delays in adult disability payment processing in Scotland, so I hope that we will not end up in a similar position to elsewhere in the UK. I am concerned that the lack of a dedicated social security Minister in the new First Minister’s Scottish Government means a potential dilution of focus; I hope that that is not the case. The reality is that means-tested benefits are set too low, and the £150 cost of living support payment for disabled households, which was welcome given everything that I have outlined about the additional costs, was not enough.

In my remaining remarks, I will focus on carers. Hon. Members may not be aware that my private Member’s Bill, the Carer’s Leave Bill, has been progressing through Parliament; I am pleased to say that it should have its Third Reading in the House of Lords on Friday and I am hopeful that it will receive Royal Assent shortly thereafter. The Bill intends to offer people who are working as unpaid carers but are in employment the right to request time off from their employer. That is because the vast majority of disabled people will have support from an unpaid friend or family member, which could be to meet physical caring needs or to do the admin and emotional support around caring.

Carers provide unpaid work worth £530 million a year. However, 44% of working-age adults providing unpaid care for more than 35 hours a week are living in poverty. Frankly, that means that the people they are caring for are also living in poverty. When I was engaging with constituents about my Carer’s Leave Bill, it was very difficult to find constituents who would actually benefit from the Bill. The reality was that their caring responsibilities meant that they had eventually had to give up work because they just could not combine them both. Although I am hopeful that my Bill will help people—indeed, Carers UK estimates that it will help 2.4 million carers—there is clearly much more to do.

I want to take the opportunity to mention the very sad death of Kirstie Howell, the chief executive of Fife Young Carers. She did a great deal of work, and so does the charity, across Fife, including North East Fife. I send my condolences to the organisation and to her family.

If we do not provide the right support for young carers who are caring for disabled family members, they will not get into work in the first place and their household will continue to live in poverty. One way for the Government to help would be by raising the earning limit on the carer’s allowance. The reality is that caring never stops, so if we allowed those who are caring to work more before losing the carer’s allowance, it would potentially help disabled people and their families to deal with the cost of living crisis that we are facing. The Government have done a number of things during the cost of living crisis, but we feel that they have not done enough.

I will leave hon. Members with one last thought. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on ending the need for food banks. Along with the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw, we conducted our first inquiry, which looked at cash or food in different responses to food poverty. A very telling statistic for me was that the one period of time during covid when food bank use went down rather than increasing was when the £20 universal credit uplift was in place. That tells us that when people get additional support, they are spending it on food, provisions and things they need for their families. For disabled people, we need that more than ever.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Pursglove]

I will gladly take that point back and speak to ministerial colleagues in the Department about that aspect. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), has generally led on the legislative efforts to put this package in place, but I would be happy to raise that with her and to get him a proper, full, considered answer to that point.

Let me deal directly with one key issue that has come up in the debate: the structure of the cost of living payment and the argument that the payment is itself too low. I stress that the rationale is different for each of the cost of living payments. The Government’s view is that it is right that the highest amount goes to those on means-tested benefits, given that those on the lowest incomes are most vulnerable to rises in the cost of living. Having said that, we estimate that nearly 60% of individuals who receive an extra-costs disability benefit will receive additional support through the means-tested benefit payment. More than 85% will receive either or both of the means-tested and pensioner payments.

I assure colleagues that we are absolutely committed to ensuring that disabled people and people with health conditions receive the support that they need, which is why in 2022-23 we spent nearly £69 billion in real terms on benefits to support disabled people and those with health conditions. We will continue that throughout 2023-24 by uprating disability benefits in line with last September’s consumer prices index inflation figures. That means we expect to spend around £78 billion in 2023-24, which is 3.1% of GDP. That is a stark statistic. I recognise that Trident is a significant issue for the Scottish National party, and the figure of £3 billion was raised, but I and the UK Government would argue that there are strong reasons why we have a nuclear deterrent, which is a debate for another day.

The scale of support that we provide—to the tune of £78 billion in 2023-24—to people with disabilities and health conditions is significant. By 2027-28, total disability benefit spending is forecast to be more than £41 billion higher in real terms compared with 2010-11. Spending on extra-costs disability benefits alone will amount to £35 billion this year, all paid tax free, and in addition to any other financial or practical support that disabled individuals may receive.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) asked about the adequacy of the disability cost of living payment and its evaluation. We are committed to an evaluation of the cost of living payments later this year. The disability unit is also working to build an evidence base to better understand and evidence the full impact of cost of living challenges for disabled people, across a range of sectors. It is trying to do that collaboratively and is drawing on the expertise, views and experiences out there to help us to shape that work.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

Given that the Minister is committing to take some things away for further discussions with ministerial colleagues, may I repeat my plea in relation to carer’s allowance? It would help if we let carers work and at the same time keep their carer’s allowance.

[Tom Pursglove]

I am happy and willing to keep that aspect of our policy under review to see whether there is more we can do to unlock that. That is a commitment I make to the hon. Lady; I am interested in looking at and exploring that further.

There were several references in the debate to energy costs, particularly in relation to the cost of equipment. The Government supported families across the UK last winter through the energy price guarantee, which places a limit on the price that households pay per unit of gas or electricity. Colleagues will know that that has been extended until the end of June at the £2,500 level, thereby ensuring that families will save on average around £160 per household throughout that period.

Existing support is also available through cold weather payments and the warm home discount. The property services register, which is run by energy suppliers, offers additional free services to people of pensionable age, who are registered disabled, who have a hearing or visual impairment, or who have long-term ill health. That register helps to ensure that people in vulnerable situations are able to access extra help when needed, such as when there is a power cut.

Let me talk about the situation moving forward. This is more a matter for colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero but, of course, engagement on this issue goes on across Government. On the energy market reforms in the energy security plan released in March, which were touched on, the Government intend to consult on options for a new approach this summer. We will invite and welcome the public and our stakeholders to use the consultation to provide feedback on our proposals.

To directly respond to the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), I am keen that our work does involve engagement. I will assist in facilitating that with disabled people, their organisations and their representative bodies, to make sure that their views are heard, particularly in relation to the social tariff, for which there is a significant body of support. It is right that we look at that in detail as part of the wider reform package.

There is also significant Government help for energy insulation, ensuring that people are properly supported to better protect themselves from the cold and making homes as energy efficient as possible.

I will touch quickly on prepayment meters, which have been asked about. Ofgem published a new code of practice on 18 April, which has been agreed with energy suppliers, to improve protections for customers being moved to a prepayment meter involuntarily. We argue that that is a step in the right direction, providing better protections for vulnerable households. The code of practice, however, is not the end of the process. We have always been clear that action is needed to crack down on the practice of forcing people, especially the most vulnerable, on to prepayment meters. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will continue to work closely with Ofgem and industry to ensure that the code leads to positive changes for vulnerable customers, and will not hesitate to intervene again if necessary.

Finally, I will touch on the various contributions made on the personal independence payment. On appeals, 4% of all PIP decisions have been successful at appeal. I am not complacent, but I am pleased to say that the journey time for PIP is now down to 14 weeks. I want to stretch that and see if there is more that we can do to improve it. On assessments more generally, I want hon. Members to think about some of the opportunities that the White Paper presents. The tests and trials of the severe disability group have been touched on. Matching expert assessors is a positive thing to do to help ensure that we get more decisions right first time, and scrapping the work capability assessment also provides an opportunity to focus on quality. I have no doubt that we will have plenty of opportunities to say more about that, as well as on fluctuating conditions.

Thank you, Dr Huq, for stepping into the breach. I am confident that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will continue to show leadership on these issues. We keep the package of support that we provide under constant review, and I have no doubt that this Government will continue to be on the side of working people, disabled people, pensioners and those in our society who are vulnerable, to ensure that they get through these challenging times.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Laura Trott]

I thank my hon. Friend for all that he is doing to encourage pension credit take-up in Crawley. The Government have undertaken a sustained communications campaign to raise awareness of pension credit and promote its take-up. The latest stats release at the start of the year shows a substantial rise in the number of claims.

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

My constituent had a brain injury 20 years ago and was receiving personal independence payment for care and mobility support. A recent review said that there was no change to his condition, but somehow the decision has been made to stop his benefits. The Minister has already indicated that he is considering this matter, but will he meet me to discuss that particular case?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am always very happy to meet colleagues from across the House to discuss such issues, and this circumstance is no different.

State Pension Age: Review

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. What matters for sustaining a fair and just pension system is a strong economy. We are stronger together, and if we continue to work together—all the nations of the United Kingdom—we can continue to afford decent pensions for our pensioners.

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

The statement has provided clarity on when somebody will receive their state pension—the age of 67—but we also need to focus on what people will receive. The Government’s response to the Future Pension Centre backlogs, and people’s absolute inability to get through for advice on whether to top up their national insurance credits before the 5 April deadline, was just to move the deadline back by four months. That remains woefully inadequate, and it is clear that that will have to be extended again. Will the Secretary of State commit to extending the deadline to April 2025, as I asked for in the first place?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. As she acknowledges, there has been an extension to the deadline, and the reasons for that were in the very point she made about waiting times and so on. We are keeping that under review—I can say no more than that—and we are also increasing the amount of resources going into telephony to resolve the issues.

Social Security (Additional Payments) (No. 2) Bill

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 6th March 2023 Commons Chamber

Means-tested additional payments: main payments

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

I beg to move amendment 4, page 2, line 10, leave out “30 April” and insert “1 April”.

The intention of this amendment is that all payments under this Bill should be made no later than 1 April 2023.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Amendment 5, page 2, line 14, leave out “31 October” and insert “1 April”.

The intention of this amendment is that all payments under this Bill should be made no later than 1 April 2023.

Amendment 6, page 2, line 16, leave out “29 February 2024” and insert “1 April 2023”.

The intention of this amendment is that all payments under this Bill should be made no later than 1 April 2023.

Clause 1 stand part.

Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 27, leave out “one month” and insert “two months”.

This amendment would extend the assessment period for recipients of universal credit, allowing them to receive the additional payments under this Bill if they had been entitled to a universal credit payment of at least 1p in the two months prior to the qualifying day for each additional payment.

Amendment 2, page 2, line 27, at end insert

“or—

(ii) the person would have been entitled to a payment of at least 1p in respect of that period if the person had not been subject to a benefit sanction.”

This amendment is intended to ensure that, in respect of universal credit, payments under this Bill are not denied to a person who is subject to a benefit sanction.

Clauses 2 to 12 stand part

New clause 1—Assessment of bringing forward the second qualifying day—

“The Treasury must publish, no later than six weeks after the day in which this Act is passed, an illustrative analysis of the impact of this Act on household incomes if —

(a) the second qualifying date was no later than 15 August 2023, and

(b) the third qualifying date was no later than 3 January 2024.”

The intention of this new clause is to explore the impact of bringing qualifying dates forward to the beginning of the school year in Scotland and the beginning of the New Year.

New clause 2—Assessment of cost of living support package—

“(1) The Treasury must publish, no later than the next fiscal event after the day on which this Act is passed, a full and detailed analysis of the impact of this Act on households.

(2) The Treasury may include in the analysis the effect of support for households announced in October 2022 in response to energy price rises.

(3) The analysis must include an estimate, based on the latest available reliable data, of the impact on household incomes of —

(a) payments made under this Act to households on mean-tested benefits,

(b) payments made under this Act to recipients of disability benefits.

(4) The analysis must show impacts across all deciles of household income distribution—

(a) in cash terms, and

(b) as proportion of net household income.

(5) The analysis must take into account where relevant differing policy contexts in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

(6) The analysis must include an assessment of the impact of this Act on households of different types, including single parent families, larger families, and pensioner households.”

New clause 3—Review of distributional effects—

“The Secretary of State and the Treasury must make a joint assessment of the distributional effects of this Act on—

(a) rural communities;

(b) families eligible for free school meals;

(c) unpaid carers; and

(d) households in each income decile

no later than six weeks after this Act is passed and must lay a copy of the assessment before both Houses of Parliament.”

New clause 7—Review of public health and poverty effects of the Act—

(1) The Secretary of State must review the public health and poverty effects of the provisions of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) The review must consider —

(a) the effects of the provisions of this Act on the levels of relative and absolute poverty across the UK including devolved nations and regions,

(b) the effects of the provisions of this Act on socio-economic inequalities and on population groups with protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010 across the UK, including by devolved nations and regions,

(c) the effects of the provisions of this Act on life expectancy and healthy life expectancy across the UK, including by devolved nations and regions, and

(d) the implications for the public finances of the public health effects of the provisions of this Act.”

This new clause would require the Government to report on the public health and poverty effects of the provisions of the Act.

New clause 8—Review of distributional effects—

“The Secretary of State and the Treasury must make a joint assessment of the distributional effects of this Act on—

(a) rural communities;

(b) families eligible for free school meals;

(c) unpaid carers;

(d) households including at least one disabled person; and

(e) households in each income decile,

no later than six weeks after this Act is passed and must lay a copy of the assessment before both Houses of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Government to report on the effects of the Bill on different socioeconomic groups.

New clause 13—Payment date—

“The Secretary of State and HMRC must seek to make all payments due under this Act no later than 1 April 2023.”

This new clause is intended to require the Government to make all payments listed in this Bill by 1 April 2023.

New clause 14—Review of coverage of self-employed workers—

“The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament within three months of the date on which this Act is passed an assessment of how many recipients of payments under this Act live in households where at least one earner is a self-employed worker.”

This new clause is intended to highlight that the variable income of self-employed workers may leave them excluded from receiving the Government’s cost of living payments.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

It is a pleasure to move amendment 4 on behalf of my party.

Additional support for struggling families is much welcomed, and I am pretty sure that no one in the Committee would oppose the provision of more help through the Bill. What my amendment seeks to do is ensure that those struggling families receive that support now, rather than having to wait. It has been a long cold winter, and we are expecting another cold snap this week, so it certainly is not over yet.

While the energy price guarantee has protected families from the worst increases, some households have seen their bills increase two, three or possibly even four times in the past year. We know from the scandal of the forced instalment of prepayment meters that many people have been unable to keep up with those bills, and that for many of them the debts continue to mount up. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of others are walking a tightrope—just managing payments, sometimes late, by making other cutbacks: being cold, eating less, or reducing travel. If we are not just to get those families back on an even keel but to help them to stay there, it is vital for the full cost of living payment that the Government wish to make to be made immediately—especially, I would argue, in the face of the impending increase in the energy price guarantee. We have all seen reports in the media over the last few days that the Government may well choose to extend that guarantee. I am sure you might have some thoughts, Dame Rosie, on whether that announcement ought to be made here before being briefed to the press. We cannot fully assess the impact of this Bill, given that we do not know for definite what is happening with the energy price guarantee, so we are left to make assumptions accordingly.

In any case, whether the guarantee lasts for another month or as, my party wants, for more months than that along with a reduction in the energy price guarantee to the Ofgem cap of £1,971 last April, cost of living support payments must be made now to have any impact. We are seeing a reduction in wholesale gas costs, which is why we argue that the Government can do more than they are outlining because they have the headroom to do so. What is the point in people paying some or even all of their bills, only to start struggling all over again? For people to get all the other benefits of affording the basics—being warm enough and fed enough to work, go to school and stay healthy—support needs to be geared to preventing them from falling below that line in the first place.

Moving on from my amendment 4 to the remainder of the Bill, I am left wondering if this really is it. You do not need to be a politician to know that this country is in crisis, although if you are a politician and have a modicum of responsibility or power, it is critical that you realise the severity of the situation. Just turning on the TV, opening a newspaper, speaking to parents at the school gate or spending any time out and about in our communities makes it very clear what is happening.

The difficulties felt by different communities vary, and that is what the Liberal Democrats’ new clause 8, and to some extent new clause 3, seek to address. For a lot of my constituents living in relatively rural North East Fife, the crisis is exacerbated by their countryside location, without easy access to local services and battling against unrelenting fuel costs. What I hear from them time and again is that they feel they are being let down. Farmers, for example, work long days seven days a week, without let-up and never taking a holiday, to provide the rest of us with the food that goes on our plates, but they are being left with next to no support for their fuel costs, no protection against foreign imports and no ability to plan for the future under the Government’s funding streams.

As has been mentioned many times in this House, many rural households rely on heating oil. I have discussed the price guarantee already, but heating oil is not even covered by that. Costs have almost doubled, yet those households have received just one £200 payment—that is if they have managed to receive it at all. We know that the system has been beset by practical difficulties. We have also seen the continued delays in the roll-out of the alternative fuel payment scheme. Applications are now open, but despite reassurances there has been no support for many until now. And when the shop—or too often now, the food bank—is not just around the corner for those in rural communities, they need to travel just for the basics. They cannot avoid getting into the car and paying for petrol, and although petrol and diesel prices have gone up everywhere this year, we always see much faster increases in rural areas.

Those in rural households are not the only group to suffer because of rising energy costs and fuel poverty. As has been discussed in this place before, disabled people have much higher living costs. I recently met representatives of Disability Rights UK, one of the organisations leading the Disability Poverty Campaign Group, as well as representatives from the Liberal Democrat Disability Association, and their message was clear: the additional £150 payment for people on disability benefits is so lacklustre as to be grotesquely offensive. It shows that the Government are taking no interest in, and making no effort to understand, the reality of the lives and expenses of disabled people.

Disabled people are not all the same: they have a wide variety of unique needs, which I cannot cover here, but I shall give just a few examples. Imagine someone needing a hoist to safely manoeuvre between their bed and their wheelchair, but being unable to charge that hoist and having to watch their family risk their own health by lifting them unsafely. Or perhaps think about someone being unable to charge their electric wheelchair and becoming unable to mobilise even around their home to get to the toilet or to fetch a cup of tea.

Perhaps someone’s partner has a spinal injury and is incontinent, but they cannot afford to run their washing machine every day or to properly heat their water, so they find themselves washing dirty clothes by hand in lukewarm water. Perhaps someone’s child has cystic fibrosis and needs a nutritious high-calorie diet, but with 10% inflation—we know it is worse for food inflation —and shortages, they themselves are having to skip meals to let their child eat instead. It should not take a donation from an international celebrity to reassure families of the disabled that they can keep their homes warm and essential equipment functioning. There are many ways in which disabled people incur additional costs, all of which are incredibly important and all of which demand support additional to what the Government are offering in this Bill.

Unpaid carers, on the other hand, are not even explicitly considered in this package of support. I will not labour the point, as I have said all this before, but not all unpaid carers receive means-tested benefits, and given that the vast majority of them live on or close to the poverty line, they are also badly in need of cost of living support. I would like to say that they are unsung heroes, but I have been singing their praises and calling for more support since the start of the crisis and I am starting to think that the Government do not want to hear it.

Dame Eleanor, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, and I am sure that everybody in the Chamber will welcome you back.

Overall, my concern about the Bill, as we consider it clause by clause, is that it is just a sticking plaster that will not truly keep our communities afloat during this crisis. Fuel poverty is widening and deepening; meanwhile, energy companies continue to rake in record profits. The Government must make suppliers act responsibly towards consumers. I acknowledge that it is not just the political response that is causing trouble for my constituents, as an astounding number of them have come to me with problems including being charged incorrectly, often more than they should be, and sometimes by companies that they are not even with. Electricity is a vital service, so surely this type of predatory behaviour cannot be allowed.

Food poverty continues to soar. As early as last April to September, before the worst of this crisis and before winter took hold, the Trussell Trust reported its busiest ever spring and summer, with a 45% increase in the number of families needing its support. The figures will only have gone up since then, and I am not convinced that this package will help, especially with the payments spread out so far. We know that when the £20 universal credit uplift was in place during covid, food bank use went down. How we stop families going hungry or relying on food packages is a vital conversation, and one that needs more time for discussion, so I encourage all Members present to come to the report launch of the all-party parliamentary group on ending the need for food banks on 22 March to hear more on the outcome of our “Cash or Food?” inquiry.

In the long term, to end the need for additional cost of living payments we need economic growth, we need more people able to work and we need a healthier society. Poverty is the enemy of all those things. Poverty breeds worse health outcomes, it makes people cold and hungry and it drives away hope and drive. That is nobody’s fault except those who choose to look away and do nothing, and that is why we need the Government to review reinstating the uplift to universal credit and extending it to legacy benefits. It is why carer’s allowance needs reforming, and it is why we need all the cost of living payments at once, now, as a circuit breaker.

I want to end by reflecting on the words of one of my constituents who got in touch with me over the winter. He is a 79-year-old gentleman who struggles to heat his home and who has a mixture of health difficulties. He said:

“Maybe it would be better if I wasn’t alive, for everyone else’s benefit.”

He cannot wait for April to October and then again for months for additional support, so with him in mind, I urge Members to support amendment 4.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)]

It is a pleasure to see you chairing the Committee this afternoon, Dame Eleanor.

I thank hon. Members for the useful debate on Second Reading and I welcome this opportunity for a more detailed examination of the Bill in Committee. Clause 1 enables the Government to make three separate cost of living payments of £301, £300 and £299 to individuals or couples with a qualifying entitlement to an income-related social security benefit or tax credit. I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). We have looked in the round at what we have done before, and I want to set out strongly to the Committee that we have worked very hard, whether on the household support fund or on this Bill, to support the most vulnerable through the really tough times that she described. I hope to give the Committee answers that will show that.

To be clear, the clause sets out that the qualifying days for each of the cost of living payments will be specified in secondary regulations, which will help to minimise work disincentives and fraud risks. In response to amendments 4, 5 and 6, it might be helpful if I clarify for the hon. Lady that the dates set out in clause 1 are backstop dates, meaning the latest possible qualification dates that could be set out in regulations. Bringing those dates forward could not achieve the amendment’s desired effect, although I understand the sentiment.

In any event, making all cost of living payments by 1 April 2023 would not support our ambition to spread the support through 2023 and into 2024. In fact, we have increased the number of payments from those made in 2022, having listened and engaged with the feedback from MPs across the land. This ensures that as many people as possible will qualify for a payment at some point, including those who become entitled to a qualifying benefit later in the year and those whose earnings fluctuate from month to month. Making all the payments in one lump sum would mean that more people miss out.

I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but I must be robust in saying that we simply cannot do what she suggests, as it runs contrary to what we should be doing in spreading out support for the most vulnerable. It is also the total opposite of the Select Committee’s request for more payments. I hope she understands that and will withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend and agree that it is right that we raise the situation of that sector. He has made his point and we have heard from other Members across the House about the same scenarios.

New clause 13 tabled by the hon. Member for North East Fife requires us to make all payments under this Act by 1 April. As I previously stated, we have deliberately staggered payments over the course of the next year to ensure that as many people as possible will qualify for a payment at some point. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.

I think I have made all my points.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving me a short time to reply. I accept that amendments 4, 5 and 6 are fairly blunt instruments, but during the debate I heard from both sides of the Committee, including the Government side, that we want to get money to people as soon as possible. The purpose of our amendments is to ensure we can do that. Giving people in need cash gives them dignity as well; it gives them choice, as I have heard in my role as co-chair of the all-party group on ending the need for food banks. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) raised inflation, too, and giving people money now would help them ameliorate that. Amendment 4 merely asks the Government to make a payment at the start, rather than the end, of April, so I will not withdraw it.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Bill

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Friday 3rd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sally-Ann Hart]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

As many hon. Members heard me say on Second Reading, I emphasise that this Bill is an important measure for victims of domestic abuse who use the Child Maintenance Service. I am proud, delighted and grateful that it is being taken forward and has the support of the Government, as confirmed by the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) on Second Reading, and reconfirmed in Committee by the Minister for Social Mobility, Youth and Progression, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies). I am pleased that she is here again today on behalf of the Government, and thank her profusely for her support and the support she has shown throughout the progression of the Bill.

Moving on to developments that have occurred since the Bill was in Committee, I am delighted that the independent review of the ways in which the CMS supports victims of domestic abuse has now been published, alongside the Government’s responses to its recommendations. Many of my hon. Friends highlighted that review on Second Reading and in Committee, so I am pleased that it has now been progressed. The Bill will strengthen support for domestic abuse victims by ensuring that victims of domestic abuse, who are overwhelmingly women, are able to avoid entirely any need to engage with the other parent if there is evidence of abuse, helping to make them as safe as possible when using the Child Maintenance Service. These proposals give victims of domestic abuse choice—another avenue to aid their escape and removal from an abusive partner or environment, while ensuring that victims have more protection than was previously the case.

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

I am delighted to be here today, as I was when the Bill was in Committee. As constituency MPs, I think we all know the issues that the CMS presents when domestic abuse is involved. Indeed, I have a constituent whose children are grown up, but who still has moneys outstanding as a result of the coercive control of domestic abuse, and her ex-partner still utilises that fact. I welcome my hon. Friend’s Bill, and hope very much that its provisions will help prevent those kinds of long-term abusive ongoing relationships.

[Sally-Ann Hart]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and completely agree with her. I am absolutely confident that the Bill will help prevent those sorts of long-term coercive and abusive behaviours that many women and children have had to put up with over the years.

I reiterate how pleased I was to see the independent review published during the Bill’s passage, which makes a recommendation to do just what this Bill is advocating. The Bill will amend primary legislation to allow victims of domestic abuse to use the collect and pay service where there is evidence of domestic abuse against the requesting parent by the other party to the case, who could be the paying or the receiving parent, or even against children in their households by the other parent involved in the case. I am pleased that MPs from across the House agree on the importance of this Bill, as it is a key move to help deal with a more masked form of domestic abuse: financial abuse and coercion. The Bill also removes the additional threat of emotional abuse that can occur if direct pay is used.

By way of a reminder, the Child Maintenance Service aids the payment process of child maintenance between separated parents who cannot reach an agreement on their own following a separation—a challenging job done in very difficult circumstances. I am sure we all recognise that for some separated parents, it will be really difficult to co-operate, especially where there might have been a history of abuse. Once parents are in the system, the Child Maintenance Service manages child maintenance cases through one of two service types: direct pay and collect and pay. For direct pay, the CMS provides a calculation and a payment schedule, but payments are arranged privately between the two parents. For collect and pay, the CMS calculates the maintenance payment and then collects the money from the paying parent and pays it to the receiving parent. Current legislation means that the default option is direct pay, unless both parents agree to collect and pay or the paying parent demonstrates an unwillingness to pay their liability. The Bill will extend the option of collect and pay without the other parent’s consent if domestic abuse is evident, regardless of the payment history.

I know that the CMS already has safeguards for victims of domestic abuse. It ensures that there is no unwanted contact between parents, and in order for parents to use direct pay safely, it provides information on how they can set up a bank account with a centralised sort code so that they cannot be traced to a specific location. I reiterate that I am pleased that the provisions in the Bill will now include Northern Ireland, so that domestic abuse victims throughout the United Kingdom will benefit.

Finally, I thank all the women in my constituency and throughout the United Kingdom who have emailed me describing the horror of the coercive and controlling behaviour that many of their former partners have shown towards them over the years. They wanted to pour out what had happened to them. I very much hope—indeed, I am confident—that the Bill will prevent many more women and children from going through the trauma of coercive financial abuse in the coming years. I hope that all hon. Members agree that the Bill is worthy of our support, and I look forward to seeing it progress through the other House.

Labour Market Activity

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

More and more people are being pushed out of work owing to ill health: 2.5 million working-age people are now economically inactive owing to long-term sickness. Given the current stalling living standards and the cost of living crisis, it is unsurprising that many of those people want a job, but the current system is preventing them from re-entering the labour market by not providing the right support, and that is happening on multiple fronts.

The aim of the Restart scheme was to help people who were long-term unemployed as a result of the covid pandemic to get back into work, but a recent evaluation by the National Audit Office found that the programme would support fewer than half the anticipated number of people but would cost 35% more per person. Meanwhile, the work capability assessment regime has disincentivised some people with disabilities from trying to get back into employment because of the risk of losing their benefits when a reassessment of personal independence payment is triggered. I understand that there has been a revision of operational instructions to mitigate that, but the problem has not been eliminated for many people in receipt of the benefit.

As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), there are also problems with the functionality of the work capability assessment process. Not only are many cases overturned on appeal, but the process itself can be drawn out and difficult. One of my constituents has been waiting for her assessment since April last year, which means that she has been receiving a lower rate of universal credit until it is completed. She has had her appointments cancelled three times, apparently because of lost paperwork. That is unacceptable.

Another constituent told me about her experience of being assessed through the work capability assessment regime for her universal credit. She is a registered nurse, who is currently unable to work owing to health problems. She told me this about one call that took place as part of that assessment process:

“I came off the call in tears and my daughter was very concerned about my state of mind after this call. I was made to feel that I was not worthy of these benefits and made to feel I was claiming something that I shouldn’t be getting. The way I was treated makes me very concerned for other people not strong enough mentally to deal with this abuse of power.”

A third constituent recently told me:

“I feel like I am being made to beg for help.”

It is critical that people are not penalised for trying to obtain paid work. Someone claiming personal independence payments who get a job that does not work out within a year should be guaranteed the ability to return to the exact benefits they were on before, with no fresh benefit assessments required, and, crucially, there must be improved targeted support for people with long-term mental and physical health problems. The current system is trapping people out of the workplace when hundreds of thousands of people are in need of a stable income, so I hope the Secretary of State will agree to reform the disability benefit assessment, as Labour is proposing to do. If not, can he explain how he can listen to the experience of my constituents and defend the current system?

Unpaid carers are another group who have become locked out of the labour market. Although the majority of carers are of working age, many carers have had to reduce their hours at work or quit their jobs entirely because of their caring responsibilities. Carers UK has estimated that nearly 2 million people in paid employment become unpaid carers every year, but a survey by Carers UK found that two thirds of unpaid carers had to give up opportunities at work because of their caring. Women were much more likely to be affected, as were people giving more hours of unpaid care. In the same survey, a quarter of unpaid carers said that they needed better support to return to, or maintain, paid work.

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

I know the work that the hon. Lady has done in relation to unpaid carers and the support she has given to my private Member’s Bill on carers’ leave. Does she agree that one of the ways of encouraging people back into work is changing the carer’s allowance? It creates a cliff edge that disincentivises unpaid carers from entering employment. Does she agree that it needs to be changed?

[Barbara Keeley]

That is something that Carers UK has campaigned on repeatedly. It certainly does need looking at.

The Government have failed time and again to provide the necessary support for carers. I think I am right in saying that the Secretary of State, when he was talking about his review, did not mention carers. Again, that is disappointing. The carers action plan for 2018 to 2020 was shamefully void of funding provision and ambition for support for carers, and it pales in comparison to the national strategy for carers that Labour published in 2008. The last Labour Government pledged £255 million for new commitments to support carers. That included £150 million to increase significantly the amount of money provided by central Government for breaks from caring. Such breaks can be a lifeline for carers and allow them to continue in employment. That funding for breaks appears to have disappeared.

Labour also committed funding to enable carers to combine paid employment with their caring role and to re-enter the labour market after their caring role had finished, through flexible working opportunities and increased training provision. There was a commitment to working with Jobcentre Plus to deliver improved information and establish a training programme for carers. In contrast, the Government’s carers action plan merely promised to consider dedicated employment rights for carers, and said that the Government would work to increase opportunities for carers returning to the private sector. Those measures are woefully inadequate and demonstrate a failure to support this country’s 10 million carers.

Unpaid carers are repeatedly forgotten by this Government, despite the enormous social and economic contributions they make, so will the Minister—and indeed the Secretary of State, when he is back at his place—work with colleagues across Government to ensure that the benefit system works for, rather than against, people making claims? Will he commit to improving the current regime, which sees too many unpaid carers and too many people in receipt of disability benefits being locked out of employment?