 The next item of business is a member's business debate on motion 15570, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, on changes to pension credit that could cost mixed-age couples £7,320 annually. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put. Can I ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now? I call on Kenneth Gibson to open the debate. I first wish to thank Age Scotland and Engender for their very helpful briefings. When I submitted today's motion back in January, I held on to some hope that the UK Tory Government would reconsider its callous decision to force newly-retired people whose partners are younger than the state retirement age of 65 to claim universal credit rather than pension credit. Unfortunately, with this change coming to force next Wednesday, 15 May, it seems that the Tories are choosing to ignore calls from Age Scotland, Citizens Advice Scotland, Engender, MSPs, MPs and campaigners who have expressed concerns about the impact that this change will have on some of Scotland's poorest pensioners. This is no minor change. A switch to universal credit could cost affected households £140.44 a week or £7,320 a year. Put another way, the pension credit guarantee tops up a couple's income to a minimum of £12,940 a year. Under universal credit, the standard allowance entitles couples to less than half of that. Such a cut could devastate a couple's finances and ultimately the overall health and wellbeing. As Age Scotland said, when the announcement was sneaked out on the day of the first meaningful vote on Brexit, such an outrageous new policy will do nothing but penalise older couples of mixed age, making them poorer for living together. As I've been forced on to universal credit, the problems of which are well documented wasn't bad enough. The loss of pension credit will have a profound impact on other aspects of social security delivery as a passporting benefit. If eligible for pension credit, one will receive free NHS dental treatment called weather payments help with housing benefit and council tax. The loss of such support can only impoverish our poorest pensioners. To illustrate this, I offer the example of a mixed-age couple renting a one-bedroom property in North Ayrshire in council tax band C, with a monthly rent of £373 and receiving a state pension of £160 a week in pension credit. Their total loss, after being moved to universal credit, would be £9,223.80 a year—an enormous sum. Indeed, the Scottish Government estimated that by 2021, 3,800 mixed-age households in Scotland alone will collectively lose around £20.8 million. It is shocking that the UK Tory Government has not considered that this change may force couples who find themselves financially pressured into splitting up. Although it argues that pension credit was not designed for working-age claimants, universal credit was never designed for pensioners, as it includes no additional support for a couple where one member is not expected to work because they are overstate pension age. Justification for the policy is therefore deeply flawed. Even more gallingly touched than earlier, those changes were sneaked out in a written statement by the Parliamentary Secretary for Pensions and Financial Inclusion, Guy Oppeman MP, on 14 January 2019, when the Prime Minister suffered a crushing defeat at Westminster as MPs rejected their Brexit deal. This drama allowed pension credit changes to be buried deep in the news agenda, even though it will drive many older people and their partners in Scotland and across the UK into poverty. Age Scotland responded quickly to the statement and is working hard to help as many eligible people as possible to claim pension credit before 15 May change over. Tories might try to cover their backs by stating that this change was legislated for in 2012 and that it is too late to turn the tide. Age Scotland, however, told the Social Security Committee that welfare reform act was 182 pages long, with provisions on mixed-age couples buried among the introduction of universal credit and personal independence payments. However, those changes can still be stopped. The UK Government presented those reforms as gender neutral because universal credit treats women and men in the same circumstances equally. However, gender understood that pension credit changes will compound the situation already faced by women affected by the increase in the state pension qualifying age. Changes to pension credit entitlement, which my otherwise have offered a lifeline for women against state pension inequality, will hit this group of waspy women especially hard. In addition, women are more likely to be the younger person or couple having to work or claim working-age benefits despite the likelihood that they already have unpaid caring duties. It seems that the UK Tory Government cares little about the impact that this policy will have. In announcing the change, the UK Government must have known how many people will be affected in each UK nation. Such information is crucial for devolved Governments and the third sector in order to adequately prepare their services. In spite of that, the UK Government has still not provided a comprehensive geographic breakdown. Of course, with Michelle Ballantyne as a welfare spokesperson, it is a little surprise that Tory MSPs have not challenged their Westminster counterparts to reverse or delay that change. When I asked the Social Security Committee only two weeks ago today if she would sign a letter from the committee asking for a six-month extension to the 15th of May and 13th of August deadlines to allow both the Scottish and UK Governments to do all they can to maximise benefit uptake, she replied and I quote, Do I care one way or the other? I probably do not actually, if I'm honest. That perfectly encapsulates the indifference that Tories have towards the real suffering that their policies inflict. Those same Tories propose to take free TV licence away from over 75s. Denied women born in the 1950s, they are full right to state pensions and are pushing thousands of pensioners into poverty when the UK already has one of the lowest earnings to pensions ratios in Europe. It is imperative fairness at the heart of our pension system and the older people are treated with dignity. The risks are not just financial. People on lower incomes are also susceptible to poorer health. Reducing the incomes of some older people will force them to choose between heating and eating. It is undeniable that those who cannot afford to heat their homes are more likely to suffer from poor health, placing more stress on their NHS. The Scottish Government and our local authorities will be left to pick up the pieces of this disastrous, short-sighted policy. It is unrealistic to expect the Scottish Government to mitigate the impact of this cut. To do so for each Tory welfare reform would be impossible. By 2020-21 it is estimated that mitigating UK welfare cuts would cost £3.7 billion, three times a Police Scotland budget, meanwhile 100 per cent of national insurance contributions raised in Scotland flow to the Treasury. I encourage any older person listening today who is concerned about their income to call AID Scotland's excellent helpline. It is free and available from Monday to Friday, from 9 am to 5 pm on 0800 1244 2. I repeat that number, 0800 1244 2. It offers free benefit checks and can support older people with pension credit claims. It is vital that older people claim the support to which they are entitled. Any situation where an older person would be financially better off living alone claiming pension credit than living as a couple claiming universal credit is unacceptable. The UK Tory Government must act to prevent this and must act to know. I thank Mr Gibson for bringing this debate to the chamber, because hopefully it will ensure that anyone who is entitled to pension credit is made aware of the changes and if they want to ensure that they apply for before the deadline. Mr Gibson is right on a couple of things. Certainly it was part of the 2012 welfare reform bill, and the decision was made back then. It was debated and there were a number of discussions around it, but the actual reminding of bringing out the date of change did come out on the date that he said. That was a concern to everybody. However, it is important to note that, while the change to entitlement takes place next week, applicants have until 13 August 2019 to register a backdated claim if they were eligible next week. That gap is really important in terms of making sure that as many people as possible do actually get what they are entitled to at the moment. Eligibility for benefits is probably one of the most contentious subjects. Whatever the decisions of Governments, there will always be individuals and organisations who will argue that a decision is not fair. It is therefore the role of Government to try and find a balance that is consistent in its application and transparent to the people. Pensions are particularly complicated. We have a situation currently where people who have not reached state pension age can claim pension age benefits. Pension credit is designed to help our most vulnerable elderly, those who have not built up a pension and have no other recourse to funds after retirement age. It is rightly designed to ensure a minimal level of income, and I have no doubt that everyone in this chamber supports it. However, when Mr Gibson and others talk of a loss of income of 7,320 for mixed age couples, that will rightly cause alarm, and it should. However, it should also be made clear that this change is not retrospective, so any mixed age couple currently in receipt of pension credit or who successfully apply before the deadline will not lose this benefit unless their circumstances change. The question that arises when faced with a mixed age couple is whether a working age adult should be exempt from the same obligations that their peers incur by dint of a partnership with a pensionable individual. As pension credit has a 100% withdrawal rate for earnings over a small threshold of around £10 per week for most couples, there is in fact a positive disincentive for a younger partner to work. The difference that Mr Gibson is quoting assumes a comparison of a couple who have no income beyond their welfare entitlements. However, as universal credit has a 63% withdrawal rate over a much larger work allowance for a couple, it stands at around £503. The reality is that any pension that the older partner has or any income that is earned by the younger partner means that that gap will, in fact, be smaller. However, one area of real concern to me is the entitlement to passported benefits. That is an area that we should look closely at because of the potential impact of that change and particularly so because the number of the relevant benefits are actually being devolved to this Parliament and the Scottish Government will be able to make decisions about the criteria in entitlement. Around two thirds of those eligible for pension credit currently do not claim and I don't want anyone who is struggling to miss out on what they are due, so I hope that this discussion does, in fact, raise awareness. Interestingly, on the point of Mr Gibson's comments about what I said in committee, I can't remember off the top of my head where it was in private but if it was I shall certainly be bringing that back to chamber to discuss. However, however, my comment was around whether we sent a letter or not. It better be a point of order, but it's a debating point and it's not a point of order. I warn you, Ms White. Go ahead. Okay, thank you very much, Presiding Officer. A point of order, Ms Ballantyne, said that it was in private. It's all over the newspapers. It's all over the newspapers. It wasn't in private. Excuse me, Ms White. Please sit down. I heard what we said. That's not actually what Ms Ballantyne said if. I won't take comments from the front bench here either, but that's a matter that can be raised by others in debate if they wish or afterwards. Thank you. Sorry, Ms Ballantyne. No, I was merely going to say that that comment was made in reference as to whether we sent a letter at that time and it was backed up by saying, if I remember correctly, that I felt that we were probably too late. Thank you. Thank you very much. I now call Gillian Martin, who will be followed by Elaine Smith. Ms Martin, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Is Ruth Davidson returned to front-line politics at the weekend? She said in her conference speech that a secure pension age has gone. Well, too true. Pension security in the UK has gone, and the Tories are set to make life even harder for pensioners. I thank Kenneth Gibson for securing us in the debate to allow this to be discussed. Because changes to pension credit will cost to poons in Scotland up to £7,000 a year, a large chunk of money for anyone to lose, but the difference between eating and heating for our poorest pensioners. The fact is that the UK state pension is already the worst in the developed world. That is according to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. As a percentage of earnings, the UK Government pays out only 29 per cent, put it at the bottom of the table. That is in comparison to other EU nations, like the Netherlands, which pays out 100 per cent, and Portugal, which offers 94 per cent, or Italy, which gives 93.2 per cent. Before the independence referendum in 2014, Labour's Gordon Brown warned that Scotland leaving the UK would come with, and I quote, a pensions time bomb. The Tory Government backed that claim, but, as we now know, it went on to increase the pension age for women without notice, meaning that some will lose up to £30,000. That is a pensions time bomb. I stand with the waspy women in their condemnation of the Tory UK Government who have let them down. It is low earners and women that are bearing the biggest cost of pension reforms. The numbers of pension age people having to use food banks is a national disgrace. Of course, the announcement of those changes was revealed. This latest pensions time bomb was revealed by the Tory Government on the eve of Prime Minister to these amazing humiliating Brexit deal defeat in January. Slipped under the radar and with no debate or vote in the House of Commons, this cut has been made as part of the welfare reform act and the pensioners of the UK present and future have been scammed. This is simply more bad news for women born in the 1950s who have been affected by the increase in state pension age already. No, I won't take an intervention. There are hundreds of women in the northeast of Scotland and in my constituency of Aberdeinshire East who have been affected by the increase of pension age and I have met them repeatedly and I stand with them in their condemnation. This policy could impact them even further when they are already struggling under the weight of changes made. My party does not support the unfair manner in which those changes were made and we have repeatedly asked for the UK Government to give those women their money. More than 2 million women have been affected by the changes already made and now changes to pension age will cause even more financial uncertainty for them. People who claim a disability benefit 2 will also be heavily impacted and more than 50 per cent of those who receive pension credits also claim a disability benefit. In 2018, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's UK poverty report highlighted that previous falls in pensioner poverty was in part due to the introduction of pension credits. Labour is not off the hook here either. It campaigned with the Tories in 2013 and 2014 to frighten pensioners and to think that they would lose their pension in independent Scotland. It is time that we took control of the pensions for their Scottish older people and gave them the retirement that they deserve. The UK is not working for Scotland's pensioners. I call Leed Smith, who will be followed by Alison Johnston, Ms Smith. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I can also thank Kenneth Gibson for securing the debate today on an issue that will affect thousands of pensioners and couples across the country. The motion before us condemns the Tory Government's decision to make that change, and I will certainly support that. It is a particularly harmful change in the way that pensioners and mixed-age couples receive income, and it will undoubtedly result in hardship in pushing people further into poverty and affecting health and wellbeing. While that detrimental change is part of the Tory's failed austerity policies, which have caused misery for families up and down the UK, it is disappointing that the Scottish Government has not done more to raise awareness of the change. However, of course, Kenneth Gibson's debate today and motion should help to do that, since we are eminently looking at the change happening. Of course, a further issue that has been mentioned is that of the high number of people who are eligible but not claiming due to lack of awareness. As I mentioned last week in a question in this chamber, Age Scotland has cited figures from the DWP, which has estimated that up to 40 per cent of couples who are entitled to receive pension credit are not receiving it. Although couples currently receiving pension credits will not be immediately affected by the upcoming changes, they could be affected if their circumstances change at any point in the future. That is a massively important point that has to be made in this debate today. Of course, the policy is the latest in the long line of Tory Government reforms that, as usual, will have a greater impact on the most vulnerable in society. Again, Age Scotland tells us that 38 per cent of people over the age of 50 are financially squeezed, while four in 10 pensioner couples struggle to pay their bills. Pensioner credit is a vital tool in helping people who are in pensioner poverty, which affects an estimated 170,000 people in Scotland. The benefit change will also have a greater effect on women. There is no doubt about that, and those are women who have already suffered by an increased state pension age, as was mentioned by Gillian Martin. They were not adequately warned of that, and they were not given time to make alternative arrangements for retirement. Those pension credit rules will have a further harsh impact on those women, and, as Kenneth Gibson himself mentioned in his opening speech, the UK Government has presented their welfare reforms as gender neutral, but for women and men who apply for universal credit, their actual circumstances are rarely the same and often very different. That is due to societal persistence of underlying traditional gender norms with many women spending longer out of work at home and caring roles. State and private pension levels are more unfavourable to women due to that. Part-time work, the gender pay gap, the historic maternity and gender discrimination at work also means that contributions have been lower and perhaps no national insurance contributions made. Women who have had long or multiple breaks in employment are often more reliant on state pension as their core income. Clearly, that change has certainly not been poverty-proofed, but neither has it been subject to a gender impact assessment. The impact of the policy does not end with the people directly affected, because it will also have unintended consequences on local economies. If no applicant couples are in receipt of more than £7,000 less per year, that will definitely have an impact on local economies. As we know, in high streets of long been declining, as more people shop online and jobs are being lost, pensioners are still the least likely people to be buying online. Even if the Tories are not interested in personal hardship, I would have thought that the impact on local businesses might cause them some concern. In conclusion, the UK Government really must think again about the harmful policy change, but if it is not going to do that and it does not look like it is, then the Scottish Government needs to do its best to highlight the fact that it is happening eminently. It will undoubtedly have a massive impact on pensioner poverty in this country. I thank Kenny Gibson for bringing this very important issue to the chamber for debate today. It seems that just when we get our heads around one change in its impact, along comes another, often affecting the very same people. The changes to pension credit outlined in the motion this afternoon are yet another, which will have a hugely negative impact on the incomes of households affected. 3,800 households in Scotland could be as much as £7,000 a year worse off, claiming after 15 May, as compared to claiming before. With so many cuts and changes coming down the line, it is all the more important that people are well informed, yet, as we have heard, this has not happened. The new mixed-aged couple rules were legislated for as long ago as 2012, as has been mentioned, but they were only announced in January, just four months before the policy comes into force, in the lowest profile way possible, a written statement. There are clear parallels with the women's state pension age change year. That was similarly legislated for, ahead of time, but not clearly notified to people. As a consequence, waspy women are retiring much later than they thought they would with their plans for retirement in Tatters. It is shocking that the lesson, highlighted by the tireless campaigning of the waspy women, has not yet been learned by the UK Government. All that is made even worse by the fact that pension credit already has an insufficient take-up rate, with 40 per cent of those eligible for it not claiming. That means that many couples are eligible to claim under the current system, but in less than a week we will have to claim under the new system and may lose thousands of pounds as a result. That simply has not been enough time for organisations that support older people to raise awareness. The DWP's justification for that is that pension credit was not designed for people of working age, and that the change will mean, and I am quoting, the same work incentives apply to the younger partner as apply to other people of the same age. However, while pension credit may not have been intended for people of working age, it is equally true that universal credit was not intended to be claimed by pensioners. It includes no additional support for a couple where one member is not expected to work because they are over the state pension age. As the state pension age rises, they will be in that unfair situation for longer. Note that phrase, work incentives. That is very telling. That is really about making the younger partner subject to benefit sanctions, yet we have overwhelming evidence to suggest that benefit conditionality and sanctions do not work. A study by Glasgow and Herri at Watt University has found that the threat or experience of a benefit sanction is routinely ineffective in facilitating people's entry into or progression within the paid labour market over time, as well of course as causing huge stress and worry in the process. In the name of extending the reach of benefit sanctions yet further, the UK Government is making almost 4,000 households worse off. That is shameful. It is no surprise that Age Scotland referred to this as an outrageous new policy and said that it will have a devastating impact on Scotland's poorest pensioners and they are urging the Government to reverse it. In closing, I too would like to draw attention to the gendered impact that is highlighted by engender and others in the chamber. There is yet another change to social security entitlements that hit women harder than men. In that case, women are more likely to be the younger partner and subject to conditionality. For women impacted by poorly notified increases to the state pension age, changes to their pension credit entitlement, which may otherwise have offered them a lifeline, in the absence of their pension, will be hit especially hard. To close, Greens are dismayed by yet another whole being put in our already severely frayed social security safety net, one of which was announced in the quietest way possible, meaning that couples who might have been able to exempt themselves will no longer be able to, and all that to extend a thoroughly discredited system of sanctions. I would like to begin, first of all, by thanking Kenneth Gibson for bringing this debate to the chamber today. As we have heard from Wednesday, newly retired pensioners will be barred from claiming pension credit if they have a younger partner and will instead be forced on to universal credit. Estimates are that the impact of those changes on the average claimant will, as we have heard, be in the region of between £5,000 and £6,000 per year, and the financial consequences could be even more far-reaching than that. Pension credit, as members will know, is a passporting benefit, meaning that mixed-age couples could lose out on other forms of assistance. That includes cold weather payments, housing benefit, council tax reductions, social fund funeral payments and possibly their entitlement to the warm home discount. If that policy was not bad enough, the means by which it was delivered do, in my view, add considerable insult to injury. As Mr Gibson mentioned, by sneaking that amendment out by means of a written statement from a DWP minister on the same day as the first meaningful, if I may use that last word rather broadly, vote in the House of Commons on Brexit, the UK Government clearly wanted that to go as unnoticed as possible and avoid scrutiny over a decision that they knew very well would be unpopular. I would like to pay tribute to Age Scotland for its efforts in highlighting those changes. It is certainly worth considering, I believe, a hypothetical example provided by Age Scotland to illustrate what that could mean for a typical household in this situation. Peter Gibb is a hypothetical example. Age 70 draws a state pension of £140 a week. His wife, Jean, aged 62, gave up work five years ago to care for her father, who has recently died. They own their own home and have a few hundred pounds in savings. They receive pension credit to top up their joint income to £248 a week. After the rule change, Peter and Jean's position will be protected if they are still receiving pension credit when any changes come in, as long as their circumstances stay the same. However, a couple in this situation who need to claim benefits for the first time after 15 May 2019 would not be entitled to pension credit due to Jean's age. Peter's state pension is too high for them to receive universal credit, so their joint income will just be Peter's state pension. If Jean cannot find a job that may be difficult given her age and her time out of the labour market for caring, that will be their income for another four years until Jean reaches SPA at age 66. By this time, Peter will be 74. However, if Peter was living on his own because the separator Jean dies, he would be able to claim pension credit, in which case his state pension will be topped up to £163 a week, considerably more than the universal credit standard for a couple of about £115 a week. It is very clear from those and many other examples that changes to pension credit are going to have a significant impact on mixed-age pensioner households when they come into force next week. For the UK Government to penalise people simply for having a younger partner is completely unacceptable. That is a benefit designed for some of our poorest pensioners and they should not be forced to pay for the price of the Tories' ideologically driven cuts to welfare. The UK Government and its supporters cannot continue to brush aside the deep and damaging failings of their social security system. Mr Gibson has already mentioned that only a few weeks ago in committee when the Tories' social security spokesperson was asked if she would support the cross-party letter to the UK Government calling for a delay to those changes, she replied, Do I care one way or the other? I probably do not, if I am honest. I hate to break that to the member. That was not in private session. I am quoting the official report because it was a discussion on the public record, but the more important point is, Presiding Officer, that the indifference of the governing party in the UK continues to push families into poverty and to force people to turn to food banks in order to get by. I hope that this Parliament, by contrast, does not share the Tories' indifference about this matter. It is time now for the Tories to reverse this attack on low-income pensioner households. In view of the number of members remaining to speak in today's debate, I am minded to accept a motion under rule 8.14.3 to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I would ask Kenneth Gibson to move such a motion. Are members in agreement? No members having disagreed, I therefore extend this debate understanding order rule 8.14.3. I now call Jeremy Balfour to be followed by Pauline McNeill. It is important to start with what pension credit was designed to do. It was designed to provide long-term support for pensioner households who are no longer economically active—that being the key word, economically active. It was never designed to support work-age claimants. That change is simply wrong to talk about. The Scottish Conservatives want to make work pay and encourage people to be in work. That change means that the same working centres will apply to the younger partner, as well as to other people of the same age, and ensures that taxpayer support is directed where it is most needed and helps those in society that need it. I think that we have to be careful. I am sure that Gillian Martin was not saying this, but it was perhaps implied that this is not a retrospective change. Anyone who is in receipt of this benefit now will not change. If you are currently a mixed-age pensioner couple, pension credit will not stop. It is new claimants that are affected or, as we have heard, if their circumstances change. I think that we have to be careful with the language that we use in the chamber this afternoon. Elaine Smith I thank the member for taking the intervention, but I wonder if he has a view on whether or not this outrageous policy might be subject to legal challenge under sex discrimination and, in fact, does it undermine the right to family life under the human rights act? Mr Balfour As someone who has not practised law for over 30 years, I think that I will avoid getting into legal debate. Where I think that there could be consensus on this issue this afternoon is in regard to the take-up. As Alison Johnstone has already pointed out, there is at least 40 per cent of people who could be claiming this at the moment, who are not, and that is disappointing. I also agree that the way that the policy was announced was perhaps disappointing, and there has been a lack of advertising of what is going to happen by the UK Government. However, as Michelle Ballantyne has pointed out, it can apply up to August this year, and it will be looked at. I wonder whether the Scottish Government would commit to doing some more advertising of this over the next few months. In its response to the committee, it pointed out that some work was done by Age Scotland, but no work has been done by the Scottish Government. I would also make the same plea to the UK Government that, over the remaining weeks and months that are still available, more is done to advertise so that the take-up is being properly known. I do think that there is an interesting issue in regard to why the take-up is comparatively so low. Again, as we roll out new benefits here in Scotland, we have to look at how will take-up happen and why are people not taking up the benefits that they are entitled to. In conclusion, we have to be careful sometimes with the language that we use, so we do not put fear into people who are already on that benefit. We also have to work carefully to make sure that take-up on this benefit or on other benefits is fully maximised so that people get what they deserve. I thank Kenny Gibson for a very well-written motion and excellent speech after bringing it to the chamber. I hope that he gives an opportunity for there to be full consensus and cross-party support on what Kenneth Gibson is trying to achieve against the Tories policy. I have not seen a more callous welfare reform than this. I have not seen a welfare reform proposal that has so undermined family life than the one before us. I remember when the Labour Government introduced pension credits along with child tax credits. Gordon Brown did it to lift thousands of pensioners and families out of poverty, and he did it in the full knowledge that there were pensioner couples some of working age, and he did it to dramatically improve the living standards of those pensioners, and he achieved success in doing that. To roll back those achievements will absolutely, as other members have said, push more pensioners into poverty, because we know it is new couples or new claimants. We know from experience of the tax credit system that any change in circumstance, any change during that pot of people and you will lose your pension credit. Elaine Smith is absolutely right that the element that is so scandalous is the unfairness of mixed-age couples. As an important point to concentrate on, it must be at least indirect discrimination, if not direct discrimination, because when you look at that, it is women who will bear the brunt of that, who tend to be younger. I hope that some organisations might be looking at how that can already be challenged. We have got the 14th of May or the 13th of August to submit a claim if you have not already done so, but I am afraid that there will be thousands of people who will still lose out, but we have a job to do there in making them aware of that. Reaching pension age, where you do not have an adequate pension—this is primarily the route of the problem—many employers are not required to provide a pension these days, but some of those pensions, particularly in the private sector, are absolutely appalling and have led to low pay and low pensions. If you are that person, you retire and you have that sharp drop in income, you are actually going to be penalised in every way if you are part of a mixed couple. It places a much greater burden on the younger partner where they are now going to, in effect, play the role of the state by providing and making up for that income. There is no doubt in my mind that what I think is a heartbreaking policy that those couples who have age gaps 10, 12, 15 years and beyond, you can see the heavy burden that that is going to have on the younger person and, in fact, their relationship. That is why I say that I have not really seen a policy that is so under my family life than the one before us. Not to mention, you have heard from Kenny Gibson the figures, but they are real figures. They are not manufactured. They are real figures. It is not just a loss of up to £7,000. We already know the hardship and trauma of people forced on to universal credit, a system that is still far to be ready for its purpose. The trauma has been locked into that. I really fear for those couples, and I am quite happy to use that word. Elaine Smith said that the level of impact on the local economy will be substantial if you look at the losses, which in the future will be significant. Never mind the impact on the housing crisis, because the losses of £28 million that Alasdair Allan mentioned will mean that there is going to be quite a large societal impact. I will close the meeting, Presiding Officers, at four minutes. I will finish by saying that, as a heartbreaking policy, many people have no control over this whatsoever because it sprung on them at a time when they cannot even plan to change their family income. I think that we have to stick together on this. I do not think that it is too late to stop this. I think that we have to get out there, argue our case and hope that something can be done, and maybe the Tories on the other side might actually have some compassion for ones in their life and decide to join us in calling for some change. Thank you very much. I now call Bob Doris. Mr Doris, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I start off as others have done by thanking Kenneth Gibson MSP for securing this absolutely vital debate. As convener of the Social Security Committee in this Parliament, I am deeply worried about those pension credit changes that will effectively cuts to some low-income pensioner households. Some pensioners are in effect simply being targeted because of the age of their partner, and that is simply not right. Those concerns led to our committee holding an evidence session with Age Scotland and Citizens Advice Scotland. The evidence that they gave was deeply worrying, but it was alarming. Of course, Larambell should bring in the original policy document relating to the dates back to 2011. I was produced by the UK Government Minister Chris Grayling MP. We should not be surprised that the man who gave ferry contracts to companies without ferries designed a policy to deny pension protections to low-income pensioners. Adam Stacura from Age Scotland told our committee that those cuts would have a devastating impact on the finances of the poorest pensioners. He also raised concerns over the impact on passported benefits, as we have heard, such as cold weather payments, council tax reduction and housing benefits. Those who are not relying on passported benefits will lose up to £7,000 a year, and those who are relying on passported benefits potentially £10,000 a year. That is not an abstract debate but a living reality for low-income mixed-couple households. Here is an example that Adam Stacura gave our committee. He said, I was speaking to a gentleman at the meeting of older people in Glasgow last week who told me that he was 7, his wife is 60 and is still working. He is the first person whom I have spoken to who has been a mixed-age couple on a very low-state pension. He did not realise that he might be entitled to pension credits if he was not claiming it, so his first step was going to be to call their helpline. Because of the 10-year age gap between him and his wife and the rise in the state pension age, so that was to be women affected, as previously mentioned, he realised that it could be six or seven years until they could claim pension credit after the policy change. That is simply appalling. Our committee agreed to urgently write to the UK Secretary of State Amber Rudd raising our concerns and urging those cuts to be scrapped. That was, of course, except that Tory members did not agree to sign up to that letter. We received a reply from the UK Minister for Pensions and Financial Inclusion, Guy Opperman MP. Given the policy intent that Guy Opperman MP is proposing, his ministerial title is laughable. One aspect is accurate, because he is the minister for pensions. He is certainly not the minister for pensioners, because he is letting them down categorically here. Well, he, unsurprisingly, rejected our representations, but let me tell you a couple of things he did say, Presiding Officer, and he has replied to myself as convener. He said that it is important to be clear that this is about making sure that all working-age people, irrespective of their partner's age, are subject to the same labour market approach. What is an idiotic thing to say? Fundamentally, what he is doing is discriminating against pensioner households. He is distinguishing between some low-income pensioner households in poverty and against other ones, so he is absolutely wrong-headed in relation to discriminating against people simply because they are in love with someone who is younger than them. He also said, Presiding Officer, that pensions and mixed-age couples claiming universal credit will not be subject to any work-related conditionality rules. However, conditionality for working-age partners will be tailored to meet their specific circumstances, just as it would be for any other claimant. There you have it, Presiding Officer. Not only will some households be £7,000 worse off, they will be subject to sanction under universal credit, a double whammy, and simply unacceptable. On 29 April, our committee wrote back to Guy Loperman asking for a six-month delay, given that 40 per cent of households do not claim the pension credit that they are entitled to. I have to say that Michelle Ballantyne and Jeremy Balfour signed up to that letter. I was disappointed that they did not sign up to reject the policy intent, but they did sign up to delay, but it is only six days now to this kick-in. We have had no reply, but this is going to happen unless there is a U-turn by the UK Government. Presiding Officer, I think that the final thing to say, other than showing solidarity, yes? Michelle Ballantyne Mr Doris, I asked the convener, would you agree that when I said to you that I didn't care either way with the sent letter, it was because I felt it was too late? You are now saying exactly that, that we haven't had a response yet, but I was quite happy to sign up to the letter on the basis that I thought there were things that needed to be looked at. Mr Doris. My interpretation, first of all, is that Michelle Ballantyne agrees with those changes, which I find appalling quite frankly. You are defending those changes, but I was pleased that you signed up to a letter, even though you were completely indifferent about signing up to that letter, but you did sign up to fair play. Ultimately, we are tinkering at the edges of trying to defend the income of impoverished pensioners in our country. There has got to be a better way of doing this, by God. Can we get power over pensions and benefits to this Parliament, because there is no way that we do it, no way that we treat pensioners as appallingly, as the Tory Government does? Thank you very much. I now recall Shirley-Anne Somerville to close for the Government Cabinet Secretary, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would also like to begin by thanking Kenneth Gibson for bringing this important matter to the chamber today and for the contributions of everyone that has taken part. The impact of the United Kingdom Government's decision to change entitlement to pension credit will, like so many other of their decisions, impact on the poorest in our society and, indeed, the most vulnerable. Indeed, in this case, they are paying the price simply for having a younger partner. The change that, as we have heard, could see a drastic impact on a couple's finances is just another example of the UK Government making it more difficult for people to get the support that they need. We could spend hours talking about the problems with universal credit and, indeed, we have done so, Presiding Officer, on many occasions in this chamber. That change, in particular, will force even more people into a system that simply is not fit for purpose. The issues with universal credit such as the five-week minimum wait for a first payment and the difficulties that many people have even receiving the correct payment are bad enough. However, for anyone in a couple who are one person who is under and one over the state pension age, the level of support that they are now entitled to will be even lower. Simply put, the UK Government has made the decision to give those couples less money to live on. As Alison Johnstone and others have rightly pointed out, they are opening more people up to the discredited sanction regime. That is not to mention the fact that the decision was announced and the commencement of the policy was announced quietly, as many have pointed out, through a written ministerial statement on the day of the meaningful vote on 14 January, just four months before the policy came into effect. At that time, the UK accused the UK Government of attempting to bury bad news, and I could not agree more. Although it can be argued that it is fairer for a person of working age to be subject to the same benefit as everyone else in that position, the loss of pension credit for those on pension age partners is extremely unfair and completely unjust, as is the sanction regimes and many other aspects of universal credit that underpins the benefit system. As Kenneth Gibson and Alison Johnstone have pointed out, universal credit is not designed for those of a pension age. I wrote to the UK Government earlier this year and asked to see the impact assessment that had been carried out on that policy. In his response, Guy Opperman, the UK Government's Minister for Pensions told me that there was no impact assessment, only that the DWP had published some ad hoc statistics. All those statistics showed where the numbers affected and the money to be saved, nothing about the impact on people's lives. Mr Opperman also wrote to the chair of the working pensions committee to say that, as the UK Government makes no forecast of poverty rates, an assessment of the impact of the mixed-age couples changes on poverty has therefore not been made. One of the aspects that it is very important and I am very pleased that many of the contributors today have highlighted is the impact that this policy change will have, particularly on women. Kenneth Gibson, Gillian Martin, Elaine Smith, Alison Johnstone and many others brought that up. The engender briefing for this debate was quite right to point out that it compounds the issues that are affecting the waspy women. Not long ago, we were in this chamber to debate the waspy campaign and the fight of the waspy women. The debate highlighted once again that the UK Government is denying the full state pensions to those women. As I said during that debate—and I will repeat today—it is not the UK Government's money, it is the waspy women's money, and they are absolutely entitled to that. That is yet another unfortunate example, however, with the pension credit changes of a welfare cut that is hitting women hardest. Elaine Smith also quite rightly pointed out to the fact that this is not just about that personal hardship. It is difficult, though that will be. It is about the health and wellbeing. It is about the social isolation that will be created with this pension change and also about the important community impacts that this will have. That goes much wider than simply the pension credit couples that we are talking about. It has a much wider impact as many changes to the welfare system it does. Alison Allan and others also pointed out that the change has a direct impact on the passported benefits that many people will be entitled to. For those who are relying on passported benefits, the cut from the pension credit change will be even more severe. That goes to show that it has many different aspects that will be affecting many different people in different ways. The other important aspect that has been drawn out by many members is that the fact that those on pension credit at the moment are not safe as they continue. If there is one change of circumstance and they tell the DWP about that, they will also lose out. That puts those that are on pension credit at the moment in fear of losing their entitlements in the future. I return to one aspect that Michelle Ballantyne and Jeremy Belfour and others pointed out about encouraging people to sign up for pension credit. I could not agree more. What a shame that the UK Government has never taken that seriously. When Jeremy Belfour talks to the fact—I will get on to that—you just give me a minute, Mr Balfour, and I will get on to what the Scottish Government is doing to pick up the pieces where the UK Government has failed, because the UK Government does not encourage take-up of benefits, as we are committed to do under the Scottish social security system. Where is the UK Government uptake campaign to be able to support those that will be affected by that? Let us not rely with the greatest respect to the audience that is listening today and online to our members' debate in the Scottish Parliament to encourage uptake. Where is the UK Government's uptake campaign to be able to encourage uptake for a pension credit that has one of the lowest rates? I will come on very specifically to what the UK Government action has been on this. My predecessor, Jeane Freeman, back in 2017, announced the campaign to raise awareness for those with pension credit applications that they are not taking forward because they were unaware of it. There were radio ads, there were press ads and there was a concerted effort at that point. We are also taking action to maximise the incomes of older people and those set to retire at the moment, particularly those that will be affected by the UK Government policy. That is why we are supporting older people through our financial health check service, offering free personalised advice on money matters to help people to maximise their incomes to reduce the poverty premium, where they pay more for basic goods and services. The advice provides ranges from benefit uptake and council tax reduction to reducing utility bills and other household costs. Once again, the Scottish Government is delivering for Scottish pensioners where they have been failed by the UK Government. Once again, a stark example of how the UK benefit system is not fit for purpose. I hear calls from those who do not want the powers to be delivered to this Parliament for this Parliament to pick up the pieces of a failed UK system. In closing, I am in full support of Mr Gibson on the motion today and would join once again in calling the UK Government to reconsider the changes to pension credit. Thank you very much. That concludes the debate. Nice to spend this meeting of Parliament till 2.30.