Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

We have had a good, almost conciliatory debate, but we have also rightly focused on the opportunity that the Government have missed to bring forward an appropriate Bill that addresses the issues surrounding pensions. The Chamber again heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on the plight of the thousands of WASPI women left stranded by this Tory Government, who selfishly and needlessly accelerated the state pension age, leaving many women no time to make alternative provision for themselves in their 60s. If one line was added to the Bill to extend pension credit to the WASPI women—that is our policy—it would have gone a long way to pacifying us this evening.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The hon. Gentleman has got his mention in; let’s stick to the Bill.

[Alex Cunningham]

So I suppose, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you do not want me to mention the fact that we do not have clarity on the state pension age, either. The Government have already said that they do not have a long-term commitment to the triple lock; we would like to know what their plans are, both on that and, more importantly, for many of our people who work in the most demanding physical jobs, and suffer ill health much earlier in life than those who spend their life behind a desk.

I will not test your patience any further, Mr Deputy Speaker, but we have drifted away from the principles of an effective pension scheme to a muddled view of saving for retirement. Indeed, such is the political hostility towards pensions that they do not get a mention in the latest leaflet produced by the Treasury, “Ways to save in 2017”. There are lots of mentions of different types of individual savings account—cash, junior, help to buy, lifetime and stocks and shares—but not one mention of the word “pension”, or of auto-enrolment.

Although this narrow Bill needs improvement, it is much needed, and we will work with the Government in Committee to help make it fully fit for purpose. Labour is proud of its achievements with auto-enrolment, but we are a long way from finishing the job. The sluggish response of this Government and the last to the development of a regulatory framework for auto-enrolment has left people’s savings at risk for too long. Given what the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), said, our priorities for improving the Bill should be fairly obvious. There should be transparency: members must know what choices they are making, and how much those choices cost—and I mean all the costs in the investment chain. There seem to be conciliatory thoughts on that on both sides of the Chamber.

We also need improved governance and a pension system in which members are more engaged. I am glad to read in the media and published reports that in many cases the regulators and the Government agree with the Opposition. As I said on 9 January, I welcome the one-word commitment from the Under-Secretary of State for Pensions to implement the FCA recommendations to improve transparency in the pensions industry. We will hold them to account for that.

I repeat that members must know how much things cost—they must know how much each investment costs and how much transactions cost. It is not good enough simply to say that a default fund is capped at 0.75% and that people should be content. The industry tells us that it is moving towards greater transparency across all its platforms. We will be pleased to see what it comes up with. I have no doubt that we need to help the industry with appropriate legislation.

In the past, pension fund providers and others involved in fund management have often tried to dodge the issues when asked direct questions about costs, including by saying, “You should be happy to reward performance,” when we know that lower costs give a better net performance. Other hon. Members have spoken about that in the debate. They also say, “We are incentivised to manage costs, so when your funds do well, we get a bigger pay-off,” but we know that 80% of asset manager fees are based on just holding members’ money rather than making it perform well. When people realise that the average compensation of an asset manager, from the most junior to the most senior employee, is £225,000, people have the right to know how they are using the scheme’s money.

The Opposition favour a change in reporting to ensure that pension schemes must report to members on the three headings: administration, investment costs and transaction costs.

I know that the Minister values the cost-collection template, which has been negotiated with the Investment Association by the Local Government Pension Scheme Advisory Board. We must encourage its use by all pension providers. I hope the Minister will confirm his support for such an approach for master trusts.

On member governance, all the investment risk lies with the member and not with the sponsor or the provider. There is an argument to be made that, since the pot belongs to the member and the scheme-sponsoring employer bears no investment risk, governance by scheme members should prevail in number over employers. Some companies choose to operate a trust-based defined-contribution scheme, but most newer auto-enrolled members will not find themselves saving into one. Instead, the vast majority of people will find themselves saving into a master trust or a group personal pension arrangement. In such schemes, member representation on governance boards is far more rare.

We are in a new landscape—we have lost member-nominated trustees, which we had believed to be a clear fiduciary principle. A member perspective adds diversity, which prevents the risk of group-think within boards. Ian Pittaway, chair of the Association of Professional Pension Trustees, has said:

“They’re brilliant in so many areas, they ask difficult questions that other people might be frightened to ask, they’re great on member issues, whether it’s changing benefits of a death-in-service case or something like that.”

In the defined-benefit world, as long as the scheme was well governed and well administered, the member would end up with a reasonable replacement ratio, but in the defined-contribution world, a member’s outcome depends on a host of factors that are currently beyond their control.

There may be resistance to member representation from master trusts, with tens of thousands of schemes and hundreds of thousands or even millions of members, but the industry has proved that it is possible. We will address that more in Committee. Whatever the route to better representation, most in the sector agree that it can only be beneficial for the defined-contribution landscape. There is a clear argument and there are clear demands that the Bill is the best place to start. We look forward to working with the Minister to make it happen.

Yes, we could have debated equally if not more important measures in the Bill, but sadly we are not. It could be many years before we get a chance to pass legislation in those areas. The Bill can both protect and empower the people whose money is being invested on their behalf. The Opposition are therefore happy to see the Bill progress to Committee, where we hope the Minister will be open to the improvements I am sure we can make to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on continuing so well the leadership and robustness started by your predecessor in the Chair. I apologise for any offence caused to the Chair. I actually thought I was speaking within the scope of the Bill, but I will of course be led by the Chair and move on to the substance of the Bill.

As I said, the points raised in the debate by Members on both sides of the House have been broadly complimentary. The whole purpose of the Bill is for the Government to be able to respond very quickly to the phenomenal and exponential growth in master trusts over the past two years. That growth was not predicted by the Opposition, who take credit for auto-enrolment—in fact, there was cross-party consensus—and it was not predicted by either the coalition Government or this Government. It happened very quickly and I believe the Government are doing the right thing by responding quickly. I do not accept that the Government have acted too slowly.

I was very glad to receive the support of the shadow Secretary of State, and she made a very relevant point when she explained her view about the expansion of master trusts. We are not allowed to mention the “w” word, as the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) calls it from a sedentary position, because that would be outside the scope of the Bill. The regulation has been very considered. Both Labour Front-Bench spokesmen and the SNP spokesman commented on the large amount of secondary legislation. The reason is very clear: we want to consult very quickly with industry and responsible parties on the detail, but this process will not take a long time. We have to get the detail absolutely right, because this is a one-off chance to regulate. There will be a chance for scrutiny by both Houses, because in the first instance the regulations will be subject to affirmative procedure.

Many Government Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), spoke about transparency. We take this very seriously and we are consulting on it. It is not in the Bill, but it is in the spirit of the Bill, because the regulator will be provided with many powers that will help to enforce transparency and members’ rights, which have been discussed.

[Alex Cunningham]

On the specific point of transparency, why is it necessary to start consulting people when we should simply be saying, “We want to know what all the costs are in the entire investment chain”?

[Richard Harrington]

I must explain to the shadow spokesman that we believe in democracy, and part of that is consulting to get it right. We believe this is very important; it has gone on long enough; it needs to be done right. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not mean that the Government should just decide what to do without consulting on this hugely complex area within the industry. When it comes to the regulations, let me repeat that we will consult on all of them. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if consulting is not correct, but we have to get this absolutely right.

[Alex Cunningham]

I certainly agree with consulting, but will the consultation extend to the members of the master trusts and not just the people who manage the members’ money?

[Richard Harrington]

I believe in full transparency and disclosure, but this is a very complex issue. Brevity of disclosure is sometimes clearer to people, helping them to understand all the costs and charges within their pension, rather than giving them 10, 12 or 14 pages. I would like to move on.

One point was made eloquently by both the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on the question of whether the Pensions Regulator will be properly resourced to carry out the new duty. I can confirm that we have already had extensive talks with the Pensions Regulator, and that it is the Government’s fundamental view that we cannot enact a Bill such as this which deals with improving and expanding on the response without giving the regulator the proper resources that it needs.

I am pleased to say that many Members of all parties have explained that master trusts are an important part of the pensions industry. The Government are filling a gap between personal pensions and insurance-based pensions that are regulated on the one side, and on the other side the evolution of the trust system, for which there is ample pensions law and regulations. There is a significant gap in the market. We are pleased that master trusts have expanded in the way they have, but they need some regulation and attention because companies have been moving into this area simply because there is that gap in regulation. That does not mean that such trusts are a bad thing, and I am delighted to report that we are carrying out this Bill from a position of little failure. This is not a Government responding to catastrophe or calamity when people have lost money; what has happened has been successful, but we need to provide the correct regulatory framework for it.

I can do no better than conclude my speech by citing my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, who said that the Bill was simple and important and that everybody should support it. For that reason, I commend the Bill to the House and support its Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 21 February 2017.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration or to other proceedings up to and including Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Mark Spencer.)

Question agreed to.

Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Pension Schemes Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State; and

(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Mark Spencer.)

Question agreed to.

Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] (Ways And Means)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Pension Schemes Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise:

(1) the levying of charges under the Pension Schemes Act 1993 for the purpose of meeting expenditure arising under any Act resulting from the Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] or any other Act; and

(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Mark Spencer.)

Question agreed to.

Digital Equipment Ltd: Pension Scheme

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is an extra special pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe—I prepared a seven-minute speech, you suggested I might get five minutes and I now have 10. That is so unusual in this place.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Corri Wilson) on bringing this matter to the House for us to debate. I am pleased she has the time do so, as she is doubtless preparing for a series of suppers over the next couple of weeks to mark the special day set aside for Robert Burns. Had he been alive today, he would, I believe, have been a constituent of hers.

Other hon. Members have explained the background to this issue. The pension plan changed hands from Compaq, which acquired Digital Equipment Ltd, to Hewlett Packard when it acquired Compaq in 2002. Hon. Members have also highlighted the legislation that determines that payments prior to 1997 are not entitled to increases in line with inflation. I welcome all the contributions that have been made.

I confess that, until Wednesday of last week, I was not aware of this particular failure, which has resulted in what appears to be the unfair and inconsistent treatment of thousands of pensioners who have a defined-benefit pension with Hewlett Packard. Despite legislation being in place that states that pension providers are under no legal obligation to increase the value of a pension in line with inflation, we are facing a situation, not unlike that facing the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign, in which people find themselves at a disadvantage simply because they were born in a particular timeframe or had worked prior to particular legislation being introduced.

Through my research, I found that the average pension paid to Digital pensioners in 2002 was £6,008, which would now be worth £9,070 if it had kept in line with inflation—that is 50% more, and would go a long way in anybody’s home. As we have heard, when the pension plan was held by Digital Equipment Ltd and then Compaq, both companies made discretionary increases. However, once the plan was acquired by Hewlett Packard, it received only two token 1% rises, with no increases in the past 14 years. That is not good enough. The value of the pensioners’ money has decreased, the cost of living has increased and we once again face the crisis of vulnerable people facing increased difficulty and being on the verge of poverty in many cases.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The thought going through my mind is that, when I go back to my office, I find Parliament-supplied equipment made by Hewlett Packard. I also bought my own printers from Hewlett Packard. I am beginning to wonder whether I knew enough to regard it as a reputable firm that I should go on patronising.

[Alex Cunningham]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

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

[Alex Cunningham]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

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

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

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

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

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

[Alex Cunningham]

Harold Macmillan was in fact the last Conservative to represent any part of my constituency, until he was sacked by the people of Stockton. He was a man who believed in playing fair, and that is what we want here: we want Hewlett Packard to play fair. What opportunities does the Minister have to contact the company and say, “Look, you can do it in Europe. Why can’t you do it in the UK as well?”?

[Richard Harrington]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and his comments about Harold Macmillan. He asks what pressure the Government can put on Hewlett Packard. In preparing for this debate, I have not received Hewlett Packard’s position. There is no record of any information that I have had. I look forward to receiving a report from the meeting that hon. Members are having with Hewlett Packard. I would be happy for those who attend the meeting to come and discuss it with me as a result. I suspect that the people at the company will say, “Look, we comply with the law,” and in fairness to them, they do. To use a European comparison is really saying, “Well, in Europe they comply with the law.” I am sure that their policy is, “We comply with the law wherever we are in the world.” That is what any company of that magnitude would say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I think that is very reasonable. As I said, I am not trying to hide any data—nobody is—because I am sure that the HPPA would have included them in its paper, had it known. I suppose that in the end, they can just be estimates because we do not actually know for the moment what companies fit into this category. From speaking to people since I became aware of this issue, I believe it is true that one of Hewlett Packard’s predecessors—I cannot remember if it was Digital or Compaq—did increase the pension rates most years to some criteria for inflation, although I do not know exactly what criteria.

As I said, I have not come across any views that Hewlett Packard has broken the law, but I will say that many things that companies do are beyond the law in many ways. They have policies on this and policies on that, and many of them have moral, socially responsible policies in many areas. That is the sort of thing that boards of companies decide. They do not just have to comply with the law—that is the minimum. Obviously everybody, individuals and corporates alike, has to comply with the law. In a way, that is why we are all here in this building.

I want to make progress, although Mr McCabe has kindly allowed ample time for interventions if there are any. We believe that the Government retrospectively changing the legislative requirements on indexation would be inappropriate and would have a significant impact on the schemes of employers involved. The legislation introduced in 1995, by Harold Macmillan’s successors in a Conservative Government, was introduced to provide a limited level of inflation protection. The then Government were conscious of this balance between protection against inflation and the ability of the schemes, and the employers who stand behind them, to afford such protection. Of course, the financial deficits in defined-benefit schemes are very much a topic of conversation in this House and in the press—particularly the trade press—and are something that will be discussed in the Green Paper.

I am not a great believer in providing people with straws to clutch on to. Many politicians across the House do so in politics, and probably the reason for my lack of progress, compared to certain people of my age in all political parties, is that I try to be as candid as possible. I do not want to give a straw to clutch on to, but I do think that hon. Members have to remember that costs of business are also a factor to consider. Hewlett Packard, Compaq and Digital before them have been regarded as good employers; they employ a lot of people in this country and help to generate the prosperity of this country.

I accept the point made by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Stockton North, that there are people in Hewlett Packard who earn big money—it is all relative—but that is also true about footballers and many other people. It is not the actual position—I know that it makes a good comparison in a speech, but the fact is that the quantum of pension fund commitments that Hewlett Packard took on amount to many, many millions of pounds. The company knew that when it was acquiring the business. I am sure that if it felt that was far too much, it would not have done so. It would have calculated the cost and taken it into account.

I had better make some progress now, Mr McCabe, because time is running out.

[Alex Cunningham]

Will the Minister give way, very briefly?

[Richard Harrington]

Certainly.

[Alex Cunningham]

I accept everything the Minister is saying, but will he, following this debate, write to the company telling it that we have had this debate and ask it to consider its position?

[Richard Harrington]

I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members here after their meeting with the company so that we can formulate some kind of opinion on it. This is not to take away from the standing of this debate, but rather than send a letter as a result of this debate, it would be more appropriate to meet after you have met with the company. I am sorry, I did not mean you, Mr McCabe; I meant the hon. Gentleman. I got carried away, such is the excitement of this issue.

The pensioners with a pre-1997 defined-benefit occupational pension that was contracted out of the additional state pension could be receiving some inflation protection on that pension from the state, because their pension entitlement includes a guaranteed minimum pension, or GMP. I understand from officials that that applies to many of the Digital Equipment pensioners. When the additional state pension was introduced in 1978, employers were allowed to contract their employees out of its provision in return for the employer and employee paying lower national insurance contributions. In order to contract out, the employer had to promise to pay a pension that was at least as good as the additional state pension that had been given up, in effect guaranteeing a pension payment that was as a minimum equal to the state pension—hence the name.

The state pension, through a complex calculation that I agree is difficult to understand, provides for some indexation of the GMP for those individuals who reached state pension age before April 2016. Those who reach state pension age from 6 April 2016 will benefit from transitional arrangements in the new state pension. The majority of people who were contracted out will do better over their lifetime than under the old arrangements. In short, although the members may not be receiving the full inflation protection as part of their scheme rules, as demanded by their representatives and Members here today, they are likely to receive some mitigation and protection due to GMP arrangements. As I said, my understanding is that that applies to some Digital Equipment pensioners.

I can only repeat that the Government have no plans to impose retrospective changes on pension schemes, but as the hon. Member for Stockton North and other hon. Members have stated, there will be a Green Paper shortly. I said that would happen in the spring; I hope that that will be in spring in the south of England rather than in parts of Scotland, based on my experience of very nice, if rather cold, spring holidays elsewhere. The Green Paper will look at many aspects of defined benefit schemes, including methods of valuation of schemes, index-linking criteria and the consolidation of pension schemes, among others.

I do not want Members to think that we have plans specifically to impose retrospective changes on pension schemes such as the one we are discussing, but many aspects of pension rules will be considered in the Green Paper, and I believe that will include several issues that are relevant to this matter. Obviously I cannot go into more detail because the Green Paper is an official document, but it will look generally at defined benefit schemes. There are a lot of different factors, some of which are genuine complaints and difficulties on behalf of employers, and some of which are fundamental things about protecting pensioners and prospective pensioners—people working and paying into schemes now. Obvious related examples include the rules of the pension regulator, which, although not relevant today, certainly are relevant to defined benefit schemes.

Today’s debate and the preparation work for it—the briefings and other things that I was provided with, including from the House of Commons Library and the Hewlett Packard Pension Association—have led to a lot of thinking on my behalf about this matter, and I thank hon. Members for raising it. I look forward to hearing Hewlett Packard’s response and I am very happy to meet with it, after that stage, to discuss the situation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

I must totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of the importance that the Government place on pensions. A lot of effort goes into communicating with people, on television and elsewhere, about auto-enrolment. The auto-enrolment of so many people has been one of the great successes of this Government and of the coalition, and I hope that that continues.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I know that the Minister agrees with me on the need for greater transparency in the pensions world, particularly around costs. He will therefore be keen to address the widespread criticism of the Government’s failing to act to ensure that people get the best possible returns. The Financial Conduct Authority’s interim report in November highlighted a number of failures in the asset management industry relating to the transparency of costs and charges applied to pension investments, stating that “weak price competition” was having a “material impact” on investment returns. Labour is committed to implementing all the FCA’s recommendations. Are the Government?

[Richard Harrington]

Yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I have already given the hon. Lady a number of figures relating both to adult poverty and child poverty—

[Alex Cunningham]

Up or down?

[Damian Green]

Well, the fact is that since 2010 there are 100,000 fewer children in relative poverty. I would hope that the hon. Lady would welcome that and the fact that the child poverty unit is now covering a much wider range of policies and is based inside the Department for Work and Pensions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I too welcome those figures. I can tell my hon. Friend that the new enterprise allowance has helped to create nearly 100 new businesses in North Cornwall since it began. We are moving to a second phase, beginning this April, with an improved NEA. Since it began, over one in five businesses supported by the NEA have been started by disabled entrepreneurs, which is an extremely encouraging development.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It was great to hear earlier that there is consensus on the need to implement in full the Financial Conduct Authority’s recommendations on transparency in pension scheme costs. We hope that that will be soon, and we will hold the Government and the Minister to account on that.

Let us try another subject. Labour is committed to the state pension triple lock. Are the Government?

[Damian Green]

The Government are committed to the triple lock for the whole of this Parliament.

State Pension Age: Women

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Once again, the injustices suffered by 50s-born women at the hands of the coalition and now the current Government dominate proceedings here in Parliament. Labour Members would give our eye teeth to have the powers to help the people we represent, but, sadly, all we can do is continue to try to help the Government out of the hole they are in. This will be the fifth time in the six weeks since I took on the shadow Pensions Minister role that I have spoken in Parliament about the WASPI women’s plight, which has been created through poor communication and mismanagement. Sadly, even our low-cost option to extend pension credit to those who need it has been turned down flat by the Secretary of State and his Pensions Minister. I would have said that it had also been turned down by the Treasury, but at Work and Pensions questions last week, it was revealed that the Secretary of State had not even bothered to run it past the Treasury, so it could not even consider the matter.

As I have said before, the Pensions Minister is a decent man, but he disappointed me by failing to fight for the WASPI women and he has done so again by refusing to set up a special proactive helpline for those affected to ensure they all access the social security benefits he says are sufficient to meet their needs. Labour Members do not believe they are sufficient, and we all know that hundreds of millions of pounds—if not billions—in social security to which many people are entitled is left unclaimed because people simply do not know that they are eligible. I have no doubt that that applies to many of the 50s-born women, including members of WASPI and WASPI Voice.

Perhaps the Government need reminding of the hardship that the poorly managed changes they have put in place have caused to 2.6 million WASPI women. We have heard from one woman who had her pension age moved back and could no longer afford to pay the rent, so she went spiralling into debt and was on the verge of losing her home. We heard about another who is struggling to keep her sick husband out of care, so that they can hang on to their family home, and is doing so without the state pension income that she was planning to use to keep them going in her retirement. Many Members have outlined similar cases, which are repeated reminders of the Government’s failure.

Some of those examples were given in a full speech from the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). It was just a shame that he had to murder the words of our national poet towards the end. The Secretary of State spoke of four principles and asked for support. We support those four principles, but principles are no good without action, and it is the WASPI women who are suffering because of the inaction.

The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) reminded us that some women never had the chance to build up contributions because of ill health or other reasons, and saw no provision for them—I do not either. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) spoke of the turmoil of 50s-born women and of the care worker planning to help her daughter return to work by caring for her grandchildren. Neither of those things can now happen.

The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) suggested a different equalisation—for the majority of men to become carers and to suffer the menopause. One may be possible, but I hope the other will not. She, too, wanted more action to help the older WASPI women. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) spoke of the women affected as the backbone of our country—women who have probably sacrificed more than any of us.

The hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) wanted a relaxation of the rules on JSA and ESA. Will the Minister consider that idea from someone on the Conservative Benches? My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) spoke of the need for vacancies in the labour market for women. If the vacancies do not exist—and they do not in the north-east, where I am a Member, too—people cannot get a job.

We must remember that the two main campaigning groups WASPI and WASPI Voice agree with equalisation of the state pension age, but this is about the means by which that is achieved. Contrary to what the Government say, we still need fair transitional arrangements in place to support the most vulnerable, and there have been plenty of options put forward by Labour that this Conservative Government have not properly considered.

The Government are now getting themselves into a deeper hole, as one of the WASPI campaign groups is planning to mount a legal action, with their representatives preparing legal guides for women who may have intentions to pursue maladministration complaints against the Department for Work and Pensions. That will be costly, too. These women are organised and they are taking the steps that they feel are necessary to make this situation right, but the Government are burying their head in the sand, hoping that it will all go away if they ignore it for long enough. One hon. Member said earlier that if we get to 2020, it will be too late, but it will never be too late for the WASPI women.

As we near the end of this debate, it is important to remember that, through devolution, the Scottish Parliament does have the power to provide top-up benefits for people in Scotland, but it has yet to act. We have already heard that the last joint working group on welfare shows that the SNP Scottish Ministers at Holyrood do not even feel confident enough to implement any of their new social security powers quite yet and have asked for the timetable to be pushed back. I suspect that there will be no joy for the Scottish WASPI women there.

[Alan Brown]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Cunningham]

No, I will not.

Assuming that the SNP Scottish Government do have the powers to help the WASPI women, Scottish Ministers should overcome their shyness, make a real decision and agree to step in and aid the 250,000 women in Scotland. Not to do so will be seen as a missed opportunity.

[Ian Blackford]

rose—

[Alex Cunningham]

The hon. Gentleman, who opened this debate, spoke for 35 minutes; I have 10 minutes.

If the Scottish National party in government in Scotland did that, it would further highlight the injustice faced by other WASPI women across the rest of the UK who would still get nothing. That is why we must have a UK-wide solution to the problem. We do not want one that sees British women in different parts of the United Kingdom treated differently on social security because of where they live.

We have said that the proposals are not fair, have not been implemented properly and are damaging the most vulnerable, but the Government have made it clear that they do not care about the plight of women up and down this country. Those women are frightened of these proposals because they do not know how they will cope. The Secretary of State spoke about the older people’s champion. We could have a champion in each and every department across the country, providing a special helpline for the women affected.

Under our proposals, we are calling on the Government to extend pension credit to those who would have been eligible under the 1995 timetable, so that women affected by the chaotic mismanagement of equalisation will be offered some support until they retire. That will make hundreds of thousands of WASPI women eligible for up to £156 a week. We will not stop there. We are developing further proposals to support as many of the WASPI women as possible. Importantly, they will be financially credible and will be based on sound evidence and supported by the WASPI women themselves.

It is disappointing that the SNP chooses to cost only the option in the Landman report—the one mentioned in the motion—to the end of this Parliament. This accounting trick has led it to promise the WASPI women that it has a long-term solution, but that is not the case. The measure will cost £8 billion until 2020, but more than £30 billion if it is to help affected women up to 2026. Sadly, this has confused the debate, when clarity was needed. As I have mentioned, if the SNP actually wanted to support the WASPI women rather than play games, it would have acted already in Scotland.

The Government could have done something in the autumn statement to support these women and then used the Pension Schemes Bill currently in the other place to put the changes into law. They still have time to do so in the new year.

I have had numerous emails, phone calls and meetings with women all over the country who are begging and pleading for Parliament to act. They are at their wits end. If they are not already suffering the full impact of the changes, they are dreading them, as they know this Government will require them to survive on very little—including those who are single or incapable of working.

My party believes in standing up for the most vulnerable, and that is what we are doing today. We will to do that tomorrow, and we will continue to support the WASPI women in this fight. For that reason, we will support the SNP motion today, but we hope to have the real cost of its proposed solution up to 2026 properly acknowledged. Only Labour is taking a detailed look at the evidence and trying to find the best way forward to help dig both the Scottish and UK Governments out of the hole they are now in. Let us make it clear once again: it is not a Scottish, English, Irish or Welsh solution that we need, but a UK-wide solution, and this Government must act.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I heard a Labour Member shouting, “Tell that to the destitute.” Well, we have a very good benefits system in this country, and I am sure that those people who are destitute are very familiar with it.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

The Minister has made it very clear that the Government will not act further to help those affected by the ill-managed change to people’s pension age. Will he tell us whether he or the Secretary of State have had any discussions with the Chancellor ahead of the autumn statement about whether there might be additional help for those most affected?

[Richard Harrington]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I can do no better than repeat that the transitional arrangements have taken place and that Government policy is very clear. I would not want him to think or believe that there will be any change on this.

[Alex Cunningham]

Clearly there have been no discussions with the Chancellor. In the Westminster Hall debate on the issue, we heard about many people who have been left destitute and are living in poverty as they care for elderly relatives who may be unwell, but not ill enough to qualify for employment and support allowance, and about many others who are in dire straits. The Government have no intention of doing anything to help them and they have rejected Labour’s first-step proposal of extending pension credit to both women and men who are being denied their state pension for years to come. I ask the Minister to think again. Assuming that his hands are tied by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, will he set up a dedicated proactive helpline for those affected so that they can access the social security benefits that the Minister says are sufficient to meet their needs?

State Pension Age: Women

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) on securing this debate on an important issue. I am sure that ’50s-born women up and down the country will be listening eagerly to hear whether the Minister is prepared to do anything more to alleviate their plight. I also pay tribute to the many MPs across the House campaigning on the issue, particularly the all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality for women, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley).

I was never in any doubt when I took on my role as shadow Pensions Minister that this issue would be one of the biggest and most contentious, and I have been proven right. I have already had contact with groups from across the country, all campaigning on the same message: the previous Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition Government’s rapid changes to the state pension age are simply unfair.

Most of the women recognise, as others have said, that the state pension age must be increased in recognition of a workforce that is living longer and to address the gap in the retirement age between men and women. However, what cannot be accepted is the unfair and unjust approach that the previous Government took and that the current Government are not prepared to change. The policy has had failures from the start. There has been a severe lack of communication from the Government on the changes, leaving 2.6 million women in doubt about their circumstances and providing only uncertainty to potentially vulnerable people up and down the country.

The Minister has heard many Members outline the case on behalf of ’50s-born women. The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber made a comprehensive speech that left us in no doubt about how unfair it all is and how the Government could change things. Although I do not recognise some of his financial numbers, we agree that some changes could certainly be funded if the Government had the will.

There is some Conservative support for the WASPI women. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who has now left, spoke about the lottery faced by ’50s-born women when it comes to retirement age. That is hardly fair. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) spoke about the different levels of poverty created by the Government’s policy, and another Conservative, the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), spoke about people in the latter stage of their careers who find themselves with caring responsibilities and little income to support them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) spoke of bereaved women left with no support. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) described herself as a veteran of the campaign and reminded us that we have been having this debate and talking to the Government about the issue for more than five years, yet they do nothing. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) spoke of angry women, but also of anxious women, one of whom has had to sell her home and move away in order to make ends meet. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke of the hardship of a woman in her sixties forced on to her hands and knees to scrub floors to make ends meet. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) spoke of the half a million women given too few years to prepare for retirement, many of whom probably have some of the lowest incomes in the country.

I know of another example: a 61-year-old woman having to live with a friend, who receives just £8 a week from a private pension and is worried how she will afford basics such as dental treatment. She is like so many others: not fit for work, but not sick enough for employment and support allowance. She walks to the jobcentre every day, even in the snow, with her walking stick. She was let down by the last Parliament, and now this Government are letting her down.

I believe the Minister to be a caring and compassionate man who is looking for answers to a problem that is not of his making but is tricky for the Government. Indeed, the absence of Conservative Members in the Chamber illustrates how tricky this issue is for the Tory Government. Sadly, some very specific ideas put forward by the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), have been rejected by the Government. That has probably been driven by the Treasury’s not being prepared to invest in a better quality of life for the women most affected.

That is very disappointing, but there is still time: the Minister has an ideal opportunity to do something positive. He can go to the Treasury before the autumn statement and fight for the resources that are needed, and he can then have clauses added to the Pension Schemes Bill that is currently in the other place, to allow the necessary changes. Then again, he may feel constrained by the threat of legal action from WASPI, which has raised more than £100,000 to challenge the Government’s failures in the courts. Perhaps he can confirm whether he feels that his hands are tied.

Contrary to what the Prime Minister claimed, the Opposition have tried to help her out of this hole and laid out plenty of options for the Government. Labour set out six transitional options and we are still waiting for the Government to properly address them and their potential. We proposed delaying the state pension age increase until 2020; capping the maximum state pension age increase from the Pensions Act 2011 at 12 months; keeping the qualifying age for pension credit on the previous timetable; allowing those affected to take a reduced state pension at an earlier age during the transition; extending the timetable for increasing the overall state pension age by 18 months so that it reached 66 by April 2022; or paying those affected a lower state pension for a longer period. Sadly, the Government chose not to follow up any of Labour’s suggestions.

Of course we recognise that solutions cost money, but the Government have made vast savings as a result of the late changes to the pension age and should be able to reinvest some of them to do something to help the vulnerable women who have been ruined because of a decision that they had no say in and certainly did not vote for.

[Alan Brown]

The hon. Gentleman says, rightly, that the Labour party has presented options. Does he welcome the fact that the Scottish National party is presenting a costed option? The Government cannot argue with the figures.

[Alex Cunningham]

I do not recognise some of the numbers that the SNP is using, but believe me, we want a solution just as much as the SNP. I believe that Conservative Members do too, and we need to work together to achieve that solution.

We have had half-hearted attempts from the Government to quell the voices of women who are rightly angry about these changes and the impact they will have on them and their families, but those attempts are not good enough. An independent review into the future of the state pension age that will not even consider the existing accelerated timetable is not good enough either. Sadly, previous Pensions Ministers have chosen to bury their heads in the sand, but I hope the new Minister is as anxious to find solutions as we are. Failing to use the Pension Schemes Bill to marshal in change would be a missed opportunity by the Government to address the concerns that are being raised by hundreds of thousands of women throughout the country. The Government must think again, and they must do so urgently to cause minimum hardship.

I am well aware that past Ministers have ducked the issue, claiming that sufficient transitional arrangements are in place. The accounts we have heard today, and many others that I am sure the Minister is aware of, demonstrate that those arrangements are totally inadequate. Despite his past misgivings, the Minister can provide real hope for the women affected. I hope he will take the opportunity to do so today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I am really sorry but there is not enough time. Members should hear me out.

Some women may wish to continue to work but be unable to do so. The welfare system provides a safety net for those of working age, which has been ignored by many speakers, and there are a range of benefits tailored to individual circumstances. The system is designed to deal with problems ranging from difficulty in finding work to disability or ill health making work difficult, and to help those with increasing caring responsibilities.

[Alex Cunningham]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Harrington]

I am sorry, but there is not enough time. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Well, okay, out of respect for the hon. Gentleman.

[Alex Cunningham]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I took eight minutes, leaving him with around 15.

I gave the example of a 61-year-old woman in dire straits, and we heard many other examples of individual women who are not being looked after by the state benefits system. What can we do together so that the most vulnerable can live a life?

[Richard Harrington]

I know about the eight and 15 minutes, but I was asked by the Chairman to leave some time for the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber; I was not being discourteous at all.

Benefits are a complex subject that I am sure we will have plenty of time to discuss elsewhere. Suffice it to say that the range of benefits is quite wide. If the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) feels that there are gaps in the benefits system, I would be pleased to discuss them with him, but obviously not now because there is not enough time. I am trying to make progress, as you requested, Mr Nuttall.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and many other MPs shared cases of hardship, and of course I am sympathetic to them.

AEA Pension Scheme

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) on securing the debate. I am told he is quite a champion on these matters.

As others have mentioned, the AEAT scheme is a defined-benefit final salary scheme set up when AEA Technology was floated on the stock exchange in 1996. At that time, under the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1995, a condition of the privatisation agreement ensured that the benefits received by the scheme members were “no less favourable” than those they would have expected to receive from the UK Atomic Energy Agency pension scheme, set up when the Government were their employer. A month or so later, in November 1996, the Government Actuary’s Department issued the note that has been mentioned, outlining the options available to scheme members. However, those scheme members believe that they were actually encouraged to transfer into the new scheme. Sadly, as we know, in 2012 AEA Technology entered into administration and the pension fund was entered into the Pension Protection Fund.

It is worth adding that the pension benefits accrued before 1997, which would have been for all those who acted on the basis of the Government’s original commitment in the 1995 legislation, are not eligible for index-linked uprating. That is why pensioners believe they have been misled and, as a result, will be worse off. In effect, that means that those scheme members who decided to transfer their pensions following advice that their benefits would be “no less favourable” back in 1995 suddenly find themselves with a smaller pot, the real value of which is eroded by inflation every year. The campaign estimates that some members could lose half their pension pot.

Despite that, a determination by the pensions ombudsman found that the original commitment to ensuring that benefits were “no less favourable” did not amount to a guarantee against future changes to the pension benefits owing to financial difficulties. Surely the Government have responsibility to ensure that promises made to members of the UKAEA pension scheme were fulfilled, and have serious questions to answer about whether the Government actuarial note amounted to impartial guidance. Furthermore, in a Westminster Hall debate last year, the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) raised important questions as to whether the scheme received sufficient funds from its mother scheme properly to protect it against later risk of deficit. That mother scheme was apparently operating at a surplus, and some of that money disappeared into the Treasury—I wonder whether the Minister knows how much it was.

We have heard that the Government actuarial note actively encouraged members to transfer their funds to the new scheme. Although the pension scheme group notices and recognises that the note certainly did outline arguments both for and against the transfer, it believes that it dismissed all of the arguments against. That was best highlighted by the right hon. Member for West Dorset, particularly in relation to the fact that they were leaving behind a scheme that was backed by the Government.

In future, we have to ask whether scheme members can be expected to take responsibility for moving their pension savings on the basis of what has been described as impartial advice. Has the Minister examined the evidence in question? If it is apparent that amendments were made to obscure the risks of changing the offer and moving the scheme, will he agree to take action? Last year, the then Pensions Minister argued that the Government could not possibly act without setting a precedent for other formerly state-owned enterprises. I do not see that that needs to be the case. Given the points made about alleged amendments to the note from the Government Actuary’s Department at the request of the UKAEA, surely these pension fund holders are in a unique position.

Clearly, pre-package administration deals are sometimes necessary to ensure that the process of insolvency can be managed quickly and effectively in a rapidly evolving insolvency situation. As we have seen recently, for example in the case of Bernard Matthews, there are instances where pre-package deals have negatively affected employees’ pension entitlements while allowing parent companies to walk away from insolvency with very large sums of money. What plans does the Minister have to look more closely at an expanded role for the Pensions Regulator to intervene earlier in the process when a number of warning signs are triggered? How will the Minister ensure that pre-package administration deals are not used as a vehicle for employers to reduce their pension responsibilities?

Given the promise made by Government to ex-Government scheme members that their benefits would be protected, the criticisms made of the guidance offered by the Government Actuary’s Department note, and what many believe to be the failure to properly resource the new scheme to ensure it would be put on a sustainable footing, will the Minister agree to consult scheme members to explore all avenues for redress? Will he also agree to strengthen the governance of defined-benefit pensions schemes to ensure that scheme members’ pensions are better protected in future cases of insolvency? I recognise that this may not be a simple matter, but if the advice that was given to the pensioners was flawed, someone needs to take responsibility for the members’ losses. I hope the Minister will now do that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I have said many times, as have other Ministers, that the transitional arrangements have cost more than £1 billion and there are arrangements in place for those people in destitution. It becomes a question of the public money that is spent. At the moment, the new state pensions are costing £89 billion a year, plus pension credit and everything else, and there is no further money available.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I am very surprised that no Government Members want to ask questions about this topic. The Prime Minister celebrated her 60th birthday earlier this month, making her part of that sisterhood of 1950s-born women who have been so shabbily treated by her predecessor’s Government. My hon. Friends the Members for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) have already referred to the mass petitions organised by WASPI, and we have heard about the amazing change of mind of not one but two previous pensions Ministers, who have acknowledged that the whole thing was wrong and a bit of a mess. Unlike other members of the special sisterhood, the Prime Minister will probably not have to rely on the state pension, but will the Minister appeal to his boss to use the power she has and to compensate some of the most needy women in our society?

[Richard Harrington]

I find it strange that the hon. Gentleman and his party were in the House when the Pensions Act 2011 was passed, yet their 2015 manifesto made no mention whatsoever of negating it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)]

I welcome both those pieces of news, and the employment that will be brought to my hon. Friend’s constituency. What she has said about the opening of the hotel reflects a national trend. We know from surveys that the demand for staff in the hospitality industry continues to be strong, and it is one of the factors that are helping us to achieve a record level of employment.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

According to the International Monetary Fund, a series of forecasts has shown that the vote to leave the European Union will lead to low global growth and rock-bottom interest rates for years to come, and that as a result, despite the saving of trillions of pounds, workers who are due to retire in the next few years will not even have their basic needs met. Today, as the deputy Governor of the Bank of England defends the Bank’s approach to the economy to Members of Parliament and outlines his concerns about pensions, will the Secretary of State tell us what the Government are going to do to shore up the pensions of people who have done the right thing and earned their retirement?

[Damian Green]

The best thing that the Government can do—and, of course, it is what we are doing and will continue to do—is ensure that our underlying economy is strong and continues to create jobs as it has over the past six years, because, as we know, that is the best way to preserve and enhance both the state and the private pensions systems in the future.