Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Blackford Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Harrington
The hon. Lady will be aware, because the WASPI women have been discussed in the House and I have discussed this matter personally with her on many occasions, that the changes affecting them were in the Pensions Act 1995, and that a lot of time and resources were devoted to informing them of the situation, including millions of letters being sent out from 2011.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
A happy new year to you and everyone in the House, Mr Speaker, and particularly to the WASPI women. I hope that they have a better year this year.
The leaflet entitled “Ways to save in 2017” recently published by the Treasury mentioned the junior ISA, the help to buy ISA, premium bonds, cash and stocks and shares ISAs and the new lifetime ISA, but it completely omitted to mention pensions. That is an absolute disgrace, and it confirms my fears that the Government have downgraded the role of pensions and are using the gimmick of ISAs to distract attention from pensionable savings. Does the Minister agree that pensionable saving is the best form of saving for retirement? Will he establish a pensions and savings commission to ensure that dignity in retirement is promoted and protected?
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.
Welfare Cap
Ian Blackford Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson). He has been a loyal supporter of the Government from the Back Benches during the past few months, and it sounds very much as though he is putting in a job application to the Prime Minister as much as to anyone else—[Interruption.] Well, you never know.
Another breach of the cap calls into question what its actual point was in the first place. As a means to reduce welfare spending, it continues to be inflexible and unworkable. When we look at the motion and words of the Minister from the Dispatch Box, we see a mea culpa. The Government are admitting that the cap has in effect gone for the next four years. The Minister will not have to continue to come back to the Dispatch Box to say that it is not working, because we have now given them a blank cheque for the next three or four years, which I guess we should welcome.
We should really be talking about the fundamentals of the economic circumstances that got us into this situation in the first place. We need not the soundbites we used to hear about the long-term economic plan, but a real plan to make sure that we are boosting investment in productivity in this country. The challenge in delivering that has just got a little bit harder as a consequence of Brexit, which I suspect is really why we are having this debate today. It was always going to be about circumstances, and Brexit—the fall in the value of the pound, the declining confidence in future growth—has had the impact of bringing the Government to the Dispatch Box with the display we have seen this evening.
On social security, the Chancellor missed his opportunity to be the reformer he claims to be for “just about managing” families. He should instead have focused on addressing the underlying root causes of poverty by working to address unemployment and employment support. We acknowledge that the Government have now had to abandon their own targets on the welfare cap, and the projected increases in resources are welcome, after they had used the cap for so long as a source for cuts.
The welfare cap is a reprehensive and regressive measure that places the burden of the UK Government’s failed economic strategy on the shoulders of the most disadvantaged in society. We should remind ourselves that the welfare cap was a flagship policy for the Government in the last Parliament, but it ended up as a tool to find more cuts that the Treasury has used and abused to squeeze resources from the Department for Work and Pensions.
The new Chancellor will again have to breach the target set for him, but we ask him to acknowledge that the sheer fact this Government cannot even stick to their own targets proves that the inflexibility of the welfare cap makes it unworkable. The fact that they will breach the cap again and again illustrates a desire not to provide guidance about forgoing the cap for the next four years, but to abandon for good the policy of having a cap. An arbitrary cap in these times of uncertainty is neither useful nor adequate, as the Government’s previous breaches have shown.
The best way to reduce and manage welfare spending is to restore the economy to a healthy state, not to hit the most disadvantaged with the bill. The cap will not address the underlying structural problems that are keeping people reliant on social security, including low pay and wider labour market inequality. The fact that people in well-paid jobs cannot afford to pay rent, because of high housing costs, should at least provoke the Government to listen to the point that reliance on welfare is more than what they perceive as a culture of dependency. We keep coming back to the issue of housing and housing costs, but the only way to address that is to make sure we address the issue of supply in the housing market, which the Government have singularly failed to do.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said of the welfare cap target:
“The Conservative government already has the unimpressive record of meeting nought-out-of three of its fiscal targets.”
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation said in March 2014:
“The government’s newly-announced welfare cap will disproportionately target benefits claimed by the least well off”.
The IFS green budget, from February 2016, said that
“in practice, the welfare cap has proved much less binding. Spending is already forecast to exceed the cap that was set in July 2015 for each of the next three fiscal years. In other words, even though the welfare cap has only been in operation for less than two years (since the March 2014 Budget), it has already been broken by the Chancellor. It is therefore not clear whether it remains a real constraint on the government’s actions.”
The IFS was right then and is right today. What is the point of the welfare cap as a principle if it is breached time and again? It is, in effect, no constraint on what the Government are doing, or at least on what they should be doing. It is unworkable and meaningless. It was simply a sop to show that the Government were talking tough, and pays no regard to changing circumstances. It is intellectually, morally and ethically daft.
The £1 billion allocation to benefits in the autumn statement is a drop in the ocean, with billions of savings still to come from cuts to social security benefits over the next few years. Changing the taper rates will not, on its own, mitigate the impact of those cuts on low-income families. Instead, the Government should reverse cuts to the work allowance in full, so that working parents in low-paid jobs—people whom we, as a House, should want to support—do not lose out. Changing that taper rate—the rate at which support is withdrawn from low-income working households under universal credit—will be less effective at targeting support towards low earners with children than simply reversing the cuts to the work allowance would be.
The Scottish National party has consistently argued against the reductions in the work allowance and helped to force a Tory U-turn on tax credit cuts last year. Although the UK Government kicked the cut to the work allowance down the line, it will come back to bite next April, hitting “just about managing” families on low and middle incomes. The maximum gain from the 2% reduction in the taper is only around £500, which will fall short of what low and middle-income families need to manage when the maximum losses from the work allowance cuts are around £2,800. That is the reality of what is happening under this Government.
Torsten Bell, director of the Resolution Foundation, has said:
“When it comes to boosting ‘just managing’ family budgets, all roads lead to universal credit. The most effective way to support families would be by reversing the £3bn cut to work allowances announced by the last chancellor”.
He added that a modest reduction in the taper rate would
“leave a bittersweet taste among just about managing families.”
Analysis by the Institute for Public Policy Research suggested the partial U-turn would cost £700 million a year by 2020-21, compared with the £3 billion a year taken out of work allowances previously announced. Now that the welfare cap has gone, why do the Government not reassess these challenges, and make sure that they support the families that so desperately need that support?
With losses for families on universal credit, the repugnant rape clause—let us not forget that—and cuts for the sick and the disabled still to come down the line, it is clear the Tories have not abandoned their obsession with austerity. For all their rhetoric on the JAMs, they are still unwilling to deliver. Although it is welcome that there are to be no more welfare spending cuts, the sheer fact that the Tories are ploughing ahead with the pre-planned cuts next year, hitting low and middle-income families, shows that there are real-time cuts for families across the UK in this Parliament.
In a report to the Scottish Parliament’s Social Security Committee, researchers from Sheffield Hallam University showed that by 2020-21 Scotland can expect to lose just over £1 billion a year as a result of the latest welfare reforms introduced by the UK Government. That is £1 billion of cuts that have yet to hit ordinary working people in Scotland, delivered by this Westminster Government—happy Christmas. Sheffield Hallam University also estimates that the pre-2015 reforms are already costing claimants in Scotland just over £1.1 billion a year. That brings the cumulative loss expected from all the post-2010 welfare reforms up to more than £2 billion a year. We will not grow the economy by taking cash out of the pockets of the poorest. We will fix the economy, the debt and the deficit by putting in place measures that will grow the economy. This obsession with punishing the poor must stop.
The UK Government are saving a whopping £30 million in 2017-18, rising to £450 million in 2020-21, from the cuts to the employment and support allowance work-related activity group and the component in universal credit, according to figures published by the Treasury in the summer Budget 2015 and updated in March 2016. Already we have seen Tory Back Benchers rise again and again to vote with us on the Opposition Benches against those regressive policies. Even if the Government will not listen to those of us on the Opposition Benches, it is high time they listened to their own Members. Analysis by the Institute for Public Policy Research suggested the partial U-turn on the universal credit taper rate would cost £700 million. Why will the Government not do the right thing by the people affected?
Any move to increase the national living wage, as the Government call it, is to be welcomed, but the UK Government are still dragging their feet; they lack the ambition to really tackle low pay. The UK Government’s national living wage is not a living wage; it is simply a further tier of the national minimum wage. The real living wage is calculated according to the basic cost of living and therefore takes account of the adequacy of household incomes for achieving an acceptable minimum living standard.
Why will the Government not accept that definition and recognise that that should be the bare minimum for those who are working hard in our society? The UK Government’s decision to set an arbitrary rate for their national living wage fundamentally challenges the value of having an organisation providing independent advice on wage levels across the UK. I therefore ask the Minister: will the Government start to accept that impartially provided advice?
The Scottish National party supports the payment and promotion of the real living wage and, in Scotland, continues to set the bar on fair work. Leading the way, on Monday 31 October, the First Minister welcomed the new living wage rate of £8.45 per hour, which will benefit thousands of staff in Scotland, and urged more Scottish organisations to sign up as accredited living wage employers. That rise of 20p will benefit thousands of employees at living wage accredited organisations in Scotland.
The best way to reduce and manage welfare spending is to restore the economy to a healthy state, not to hit the most disadvantaged with the bill. Austerity is a choice, not a necessity—an obsession that has been proved, time and again, to fail. It is time for an economic strategy that focuses on inclusive and fair growth. The SNP is delivering for Scotland; Westminster is delivering ongoing austerity. We are all paying the price for that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That pursuant to the Charter for Budget Responsibility: Autumn 2015 update, which was approved by this House on 14 October 2015, under Section 1 of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, this House agrees that the breach of the Welfare Cap in 2019-20 and 2020-21, due to higher forecast inflation and spend on disability benefits, is justified and that no further debate will be required in relation to this specific breach.
State Pension Age: Women
Ian Blackford Excerpts(7 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House is concerned that the Government is not taking action to alleviate the injustice facing women affected by the acceleration of the increase in the state pension age, despite the House previously voting in favour of such action; welcomes the Landman Economics report into the impact of the changes to pension arrangements for women born in the 1950s, which identifies an affordable solution which would slow down that increase in order to give adequate time for women affected by the acceleration to make alternative arrangements; and calls on the Government to work with the Women Against State Pension Inequality and Women Against State Pension Inequality Voice campaigns further to explore transitional protection for those affected.
It is a pleasure to move this motion in the name of the leader of the Scottish National party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. We have long argued that the Government need to slow down the pace of the increase in women’s pensionable age, and that the increase in pensionable age is happening over too short a timescale. There has also been an argument about whether women were given enough notice of the increase in their pensionable age. Indeed, some Government Members, such as the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), have conceded that there were issues with communication. That is putting it mildly.
Thanks to freedom of information requests, we learned two weeks ago that only in April 2009 did the Department for Work and Pensions begin writing to women born between April 1950 and April 1955, and it did not complete the process until February 2012.
Ian Blackford
I will make some progress, and then I will give way.
The DWP wrote to women to inform them about changes in legislation that go back to the Pensions Act 1995, but it did not start the formal period of notification for 14 years. To take 14 years to begin informing people that the pension that they had paid in for was being deferred—that is quite something. Can we imagine the outcry if a private pension provider behaved in such a way? There would be an outcry in this House and, no doubt, legal action. This is quite stunning when we consider that entitlement to a state pension is earned through national insurance contributions, which many women have made for more than 40 years.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that these pension entitlements are not a benefit or a privilege but a contract, and they should be honoured?
Ian Blackford
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are talking about women who have paid national insurance contributions on the basis that they would get a pension. This is not a benefit. It should be a contractual arrangement between the Government and the women involved, and that is what the Government have wilfully removed.
David T. C. Davies
Given the hon. Gentleman’s strong view on the matter, could he tell us whether the Scottish Government have written to pensioners in Scotland about it? Could he also tell us whether the Scottish Government are going to use their many fiscal and tax-raising powers, and their huge budget of some £30 billion, to compensate women in Scotland?
Ian Blackford
The hon. Gentleman might treat pensioners in Scotland and the rest of the UK with a little bit more respect than he has shown by asking that nonsense of a question. Just in case he does not know, pensions are a reserved matter. I would very much like the Scottish Government to have responsibility for pensions. Let us be quite clear: if this Government gave us access to the national insurance fund, we would not treat pensioners in such a shabby way as the Government are doing. That is the reality.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to go back to the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s argument, when he described the absolute injustice that many of the women who are affected feel. I have met many from my constituency and from across Wales who feel that this is a terrible thing, which must be righted. They expected something; they are not getting it and we need to right that injustice.
Ian Blackford
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, and he is absolutely spot on. This is about justice and fairness. It is about people who have paid into a pension and who expected to get that pension—in the case of most of these women, at age 60. The discovery that they were not given adequate notice is a clear reason why the Government must change course and act in a responsible manner.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman has spoken in many debates on this issue, and I pay tribute to him for that. The situation gets worse. The Government, through the back door, are examining the triple lock for existing pensioners. More importantly, responsibility for television licences for pensioners over 75 is being shoved on to the BBC, which will get the blame instead of the Government.
Ian Blackford
Again, I find myself agreeing with the hon. Gentleman.
As a House, we must reflect on the situation in which there are still 1.2 million pensioners in this country living in poverty. I am ashamed when I hear Members of the House saying that we should examine the triple lock, because we should protect our pensioners. One thing on which I will give an absolute commitment is that if we had responsibility for pensions, the triple lock would be secured by the Scottish National party. Pensioners would be secured with the SNP.
Ian Blackford
I will make some progress and then take more interventions. I am aware that many people want to speak.
The Government have changed the entitlement for something that women have paid in for with an expectation of retiring at 60. When the goalposts were moved, the Government could not get around to informing the women affected in a timely manner. A woman born on 6 April 1953, who under the previous legislation would have retired on 6 April 2013, received a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions in January 2012 with the bombshell that she would now be retiring on 6 July 2016. That is three years and three months later than she might have expected, but she received only 15 months’ notice. That is what this Government have done to many women throughout the United Kingdom: 15 months’ written notice on what they thought was a contract they had with the Government, but which has now been ripped up. That is the contempt that this Government have shown for the 2.6 million Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign women throughout the UK.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the attack was made on the WASPI women because they were an easy target, and that it is the first stage in a Conservative plan to downsize and dismantle the state pension altogether?
Ian Blackford
My hon. Friend may well be right. The Government are of course hoping that with the passage of time this issue will go away, but it will not go away, because the women are angry. If they do not begin to recognise the need to do something, each and every Member of the House will have the WASPI women coming to their surgeries and demanding action. Not only will they be demanding action, but that will run the risk that this Government will be taken to court.
James Cartlidge
The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. Is it still his policy to pay for this change from the national insurance surplus?
Ian Blackford
I will come on to cover that point, but the fact remains that the national insurance fund will be sitting with a surplus of close to £30 billion by the end of this decade. There will be £30 billion of contributions in the national insurance fund. There is no question but that the Government can afford to do this: there is a surplus. The national insurance fund has to retain two months’ cash flow, but that can still be done by putting in place what we are asking the House to do today, which is—as in the Landman report—to push back the increase in women’s pensionable age and to make sure that the women worst affected get recompense and fairness.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned that the WASPI women will not go away. That is one of the most delightful things about them. Way back, we carried a vote on a Back-Bench motion supporting them in this House. They were not satisfied that there had already been a debate in Westminster Hall, and they were not satisfied that they were holding meetings in every constituency, city and town in Britain. They are like the Grunwick women of 40 years ago, the little Gujarati women who would not give in, and the Tory Government had better realise that the WASPI women ain’t going to give in either.
Ian Blackford
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. He is right that the WASPI women are not for giving in, and those of us on the Opposition Benches—and, I hope, some Conservative Members—are not for giving in either.
Ian Blackford
I want to make some progress, but I will let the hon. Gentleman in later.
The Government, despite not giving reasonable notice, have so far not apologised for how they have treated these women. It is utterly, utterly shameful, and it raises the question: how much notice should be given for changes to the state pension age? The Pensions Commission, which reported in 2005, suggested that at least 15 years’ notice be given on any further increase in pensionable age—15 years, not the 15 months given to so many women. Will the Government not recognise that appropriate notice has to be given and make changes?
Given the Government’s failure to give proper notice, I tabled a written question to the Secretary of State, which I received an answer to yesterday. My question was:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what his policy is on the minimum written notice to be given to people who will be affected by future changes to the state pension age.”
I received the following response:
“The Government has committed not to change the legislation relating to State Pension age for those people who are within 10 years of reaching it. This provides these individuals with the certainty they need to plan for the future. We recognise the importance of ensuring people are aware of any changes to their State Pension age and we use a number of different means to do this…Anyone can find out their State Pension age with our online calculator or the ‘Check your State Pension’ statement service.”
According to the Minister who responded, the Government accept that they should not change legislation for those within 10 years of pensionable age. That is all well and good, but what is the point if they do not inform those directly affected?
Yesterday, in response to a further question, a Minister stated that,
“following the Pensions Act 1995, State Pension estimates, issued to individuals on request, made the changes clear.”
“On request”! It should not be done on request. People should not have to ask the Government to inform them; that is this Government’s responsibility. It almost seems like a script from the comedy, “Yes Minister”, rather than a Government acting in a proper manner.
Ian Murray
The hon. Gentleman has been dogged in pursuing this matter with colleagues from all Opposition parties. He mentioned “Yes Minister”. In 2011, I sat on these Benches as the then Liberal Democrat Minister pushed through the Pensions Act. Is he as astonished as I am that, having now left the House, that former Minister now says that the Act was wrong and unfair to women?
Ian Blackford
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct that the previous Pensions Minister has made these comments. In fact, the last Pensions Minister in the other place, Baroness Altmann, made similar comments. Everyone can see the deficiencies in the Government’s policy except the Government themselves.
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
If the former Pensions Minister is to be referred to, it would be helpful to put the facts correctly. He said that the difference required was £30 billion. He went to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister and asked for £3 billion. Then, when he was given a concession of £1.1 billion, he said, “That’s a hell of a lot of money.” So let us be clear: the difference was £30 billion but he only asked for £3 billion, which is a tenth of what the hon. Gentleman is arguing about.
Ian Blackford
We are not talking about concessions; we are talking about these women’s pension entitlement. How dare the Government talk about concessions, when people have paid into their pension and deserve to get it!
This is not a comedy but the reality of a Government letting women down.
Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
There are suggestions from Conservative Members that money does not grow on trees, and that is correct, but this money came from these women paying in through national insurance. It did not grow on trees; it came, hard-earned, from their own pockets.
Ian Blackford
My hon. Friend is quite correct. We keep hearing about fiscal responsibility and how we cannot afford it, but of course we can, because the surplus is there in the national insurance fund.
When the new Prime Minister took office, the first thing she did was bring a motion before the House asking us to renew the Trident missile system, and effectively every single Conservative Member went through the Lobby and gave the Government a blank cheque. They can invest in weapons of mass destruction but they are not prepared to give women pensioners their just deserts.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ian Blackford
I will take some more interventions later, but I must make some progress.
As I have mentioned, this is not a comedy; it is the reality of a Government letting women down. The failure to write to those affected is a failure of responsibility. It is an abrogation of responsibility. To pass the buck and say that anyone can use the online calculator is, frankly, stunning. All prospective pensioners ought to be treated with respect. Some 2.6 million women were not effectively communicated with, and many are now struggling to cope financially with a later pensionable age than the one they had planned for.
Let us look at what is taking place currently. I have highlighted the current sharp increases in pensionable age, but they need to be gone over again for the simple reason that, so far, the Government have simply not got it and will certainly need to do so. A woman born on 6 March 1953 will have retired on 6 March 2016 at the age of 63. A woman born a month later, on 6 April 1953, will have retired on 6 July aged 63 and three months. A woman born on 6 May 1953 will have retired a few days ago, on 6 November, aged 63 and six months. A woman born on 6 June will have to wait until 6 March 2017, when she will be aged 63 and nine months. A woman born on 6 July 1953 will not get her pension until her 64th birthday in July 2017.
Ian Blackford
I hope that the Government are beginning to get the picture. For each month that passes, women’s pensionable age is increasing by as much as three months. We should just dwell on that—a three-month addition to pensionable age for each month that someone was born later than their neighbour, friend or colleague.
I spoke about a woman born in March 1953 who retired this year at age 63, but a woman born a year later, in March 1954, will not retire until September 2019, when she will be aged 65 and a half. [Interruption.] Conservative Members seem to think that this is funny, but we are talking about women who are being significantly disadvantaged over too sharp an increase in women’s pensionable age. Those Members might find that acceptable, but I am afraid that I, my colleagues and many millions of other people in the country certainly do not. A woman born six months later, in September 1954, will have to wait until she is 66 in September 2020. Over an 18-month period, a woman’s pensionable age will have increased by three years.
As we keep saying, we are not against equalisation of the state pension age—[Interruption.] My colleagues and I have said that in every speech we have given in this House. We have made it crystal clear, as have the WASPI women, that we agree with equalisation. It is the pace of change that is the problem, and Conservative Members are burying their heads in the sand over it and are refusing to face the reality.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
I must echo the very clear position that my hon. Friend has outlined. Does he agree that anybody who believes that, purely because someone is a woman and happens to have been born at a certain time they should lose out, is advocating a very warped and strange definition of equality?
Ian Blackford
Absolutely. Of course we have to face the gender inequality that has been with us, with women paid less for such a long time and women gaining less access to occupational pension schemes, but Government Members just seem to want to make things worse. As we keep saying, we are not against equalisation of the state pension age; it is the pace of change and the lack of appropriate notice that are the real issues.
Graham Evans
I am most grateful. If Germany can introduce equalisation of the pension age in 2009, why cannot the United Kingdom do the same? We are behind the game.
Ian Blackford
I am absolutely dumbstruck! I do not know how many times we have to say it, but we are not against equalisation. We support it. It is the pace of change imposed by the Government that is the problem.
While we are on the subject, the Government might wish to consider the fact that the Polish Parliament met on the 16th of this month and agreed to reverse the increases in pensionable age because they recognised the unfairness. Perhaps we should take a leaf out of the Poles’ book, rather than this one.
Ian Blackford
I want to make some progress, because I know that many other Members want to speak.
We should remind ourselves what a pension is. It is deferred income. Women, and men, have paid national insurance in the expectation of receiving a state pension. That is the deal, plain and simple. You pay in, and you get your entitlement. You do not expect the Government, without effective notice, to change the rules. What has been done to the WASPI women has undermined fairness and equity. The 2.6 million women affected by the increase in pensionable age have an entitlement to a pension and a right to be treated fairly: no more, no less.
The Government often state that the increase in pensionable age under the 2011 Act means that no women will have to wait longer than 18 months for their pensions. That is disingenuous, as it comes in addition to the changes in the 1995 Act, which are still in the process of being implemented. It is a fact that women’s pensionable age is increasing by six years over a very short period. That is the issue. That is the reality. It is the impact of both Acts. The Government have a duty to be truthful about this matter.
Let me now turn to the Prime Minister’s amendment. So much for her comments about supporting those who were “just about managing”. Many of the WASPI women are not managing, and this ill-conceived, patronising amendment from the Government is frankly contemptible. Although the Chancellor confirmed in last week’s autumn statement that the triple lock would remain for the duration of the current Parliament, he has ordered a review of the cost of the guarantee and whether it is affordable. We in the SNP remain fully committed to the future of the triple lock to ensure dignity in retirement for all our pensioners. Any roll-back by the UK Government will leave pensioners vulnerable.
The Government’s commitment to pensioners needs to be questioned. We already know that, in reality, although the new headline flat-rate state pension will be £159.55 a week, many people will get less if they contracted out of second or additional state pension top-ups over the years. With the Chancellor and others wavering on the future of the triple lock, only the Scottish National party can be trusted to protect the rights of pensioners in Scotland. [Laughter.] Members may laugh, but I am glad to say that pensioners throughout the United Kingdom will be listening, and they will be watching the behaviour on the Government Benches.
The amendment is something that we might expect from a student debating society, but not from a Government who are taking the plight of the WASPI women seriously. What is it going to take for the Government to recognise that they must do something to deal with the unfairness of the sharp increase in pensionable age? Over the last few weeks, 240 petitions relating to the WASPI campaign have been presented to Parliament by Members on both sides of the House, which shows that this issue affects all parts of the UK. Parliament and the petitioners should be given more respect by the Government, and I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate he will withdraw their amendment. The issue is not going to go away: the WASPI woman are angry, and will be lobbying MPs in the weeks and months ahead. The Government must act.
This is not the first time that women have had to campaign to defend their rights. In the House, we frequently pay homage to those in the suffragette movement who campaigned for voting rights for women. There are similarities between the suffragettes and the WASPI women. The suffragettes were known by the acronym WSPU, which stood for the Women’s Social and Political Union, and they were well known for wearing purple, as do the WASPI women. The Government of the day, of course, stood steadfast against the demands of the suffragettes for many years before they were eventually forced into doing the right thing. My message to the present Government is not to be as pig-headed as previous Governments in opposing a campaign which, as I have said—and as was pointed out earlier by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner)—is not going to go away. I say to them. “Show compassion. Show that you can do the right thing.”
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend share my bafflement that in the face of evidence, in the face of campaigning and in the face of the many women who come through the doors of our surgeries to raise this issue, the Government have not yet changed their mind? This is not about equalisation; this is about a campaign against the WASPI women.
Ian Blackford
My hon. Friend is quite correct. The Government ought to reflect on all the petitions that have been launched in good faith, including by Conservative Members.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
The hon. Gentleman will understand that in Northern Ireland this change is having a negative impact on thousands of women. I am one of them, but I will have a pension from this House; thousands of women will not enjoy that privileged status. On 13 July, a new Prime Minister walked into No. 10, giving an opportunity for this Government to set a different tone. The Prime Minister has a golden opportunity to deliver on the hopes and expectations that she revealed on the steps of No. 10.
Ian Blackford
The hon. Lady makes a strong point. I appeal to the Government to listen to what is said by Members in all parts of the House, including on the Government Benches. They can do the right thing today and deliver justice for the WASPI women. They have a chance to show that they really do care about the women who have been left behind.
Although it is simply shocking that we are still debating this issue without resolution, should we be surprised? Historically, women have suffered decades of gender inequality, and while the Tories tell us that the changes are about equalisation and fairness, they continue to push women further into hardship by delaying their pensions and ensuring that their austerity cuts continue to fall firmly on their shoulders.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the WASPI women should be commended for the civil, decent and reasonable way they have campaigned? We have met them all in our constituencies. He just made the point that women had a gender pay gap and a resulting pension gap even before the changes, so an already unfair situation is compounded. Does he agree that the failure to introduce better transitional arrangements exacerbates the existing inequality?
Ian Blackford
I fully agree. I commend the dignity shown by the WASPI women in their campaign. They have been an inspiration to us all.
Ian Blackford
No. I have to make progress, because many others want to speak. I have been generous in giving way.
We also need to remind the Government that the House has already backed a motion calling on them to take action. It was passed on 7 January this year, and it is worth reflecting on its contents. It called on the Government
“to immediately introduce transitional arrangements for those women negatively affected by that equalisation.”
Why have the Government ignored the will of this House? Does parliamentary democracy mean anything, or can it simply be ignored by a Government who choose to disrespect not only this House but the 2.6 million WASPI women? It is an affront to democracy that despite this House having voted for the Government to take
“action to alleviate the injustice facing women affected by the acceleration of the increase in the state pension age”,
the Tories are intent on resisting the will of the people. It is abundantly clear that we have won the argument. As well as winning the vote unanimously in Parliament for the UK Government to introduce transitional arrangements for the WASPI women, the Tories continue to shrug their shoulders at the will of the House. In various debates on this issue, we have won the argument. The UK Government must realise that, with the support of Members on both sides of the House, we will not be abandoning the WASPI women as they have done. We and the constituents we represent should be given more respect and consideration by the UK Government.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
On the point of fairness, will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Ian Blackford
Fairness! [Laughter.] For the last time, and because of his sheer cheek, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
David Rutley
Not once has the hon. Gentleman told the House that he will pay the £38 billion price tag. That will increase national debt, and future generations will have to pay for it by having a much higher pensionable age. How does he answer that question about fairness?
Ian Blackford
That was pathetic.
There will come a time when not only the SNP but the Government Back Benchers who have pledged to support the WASPI women and the general public will question the role of this place, if it is not to listen and respect the will of the people. With internal dissent growing in the Tory party over cuts to employment and support allowance and the reduction in the work allowance, the cracks are beginning to appear. Maybe now is the time for them to change tactics and start listening to the Conservatives they claim to represent. I understand the motivation of those Members who have put their names to amendments (a) and (b), but I ask them to support the SNP today.
The SNP commissioned research to challenge the UK Government’s figures. A number of options are available to the Government, but we believe option two can give immediate relief to those women who are next to face delay in this Parliament. The Government must act now.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ian Blackford
With your forbearance, Mr Speaker, I am aware that I have been on my feet for quite some time and I want to move on to my concluding remarks. I have been generous in allowing others to come in, but I will not be taking any further interventions so that I can finish and allow others to speak.
Our report is a stepping stone. It should be adopted to help to end this injustice. We hope the UK Government welcome the report and act now to end this inequality. The SNP Westminster parliamentary group’s report detailed modelling by Landman Economics of the impact of different options for compensating women affected by the 2011 Act. One option was a return to the timetable in the 1995 Act, whereby women’s state pension age would rise from 63 in March 2016, to 65 in April 2020. The report estimates that reverting back to the 1995 Act for women would cost £7.9 billion between 2016-17 and 2020-21.
The Government estimate that the accelerated state pension age in the Pensions Act 2011 saved about £30 billion from both women and men from 2016-17 to 2025-26. However, that is simply not the case. The £8 billion cost is affordable given the surplus in the national insurance fund, which rightly should be used to end this injustice. The fund is in surplus and, according to the Government’s own Actuary’s Dept, is projected to be at a £30 billion surplus at the end of 2017-18. It is time the Government paid out. After all, the WASPI women paid in and helped to create this surplus. They now need to be given their due.
The Minister said that it is simply too expensive and that public spending is complicated. We will not be fobbed off. The report was carried out by a credible and sound model that has been used previously by independent economists. Again, the matter returns to priorities—too expensive by comparison with what other expenses? The Tories have a choice here: this is not a necessity.
While we are trying to get the Government to act, others elsewhere are doing just that. Measures were brought forward by the Polish Government on 16 November to reverse the increase in pensionable age from the previous planned state pensionable age of 67 to 60 for women and 65 for men as of October 2017. The Polish Prime Minister claimed that there were enough state funds from more efficient tax collection for earlier pensions. Well, well! Of course, the parallel here is that we know the national insurance fund is in surplus. We can afford to put in place mitigation. If Poland can do it, what about a rich country like the UK? It is all about choices.
We published in our report the scale of increase in pensionable age in each European country. Only two countries are seeing a rapid acceleration of pensionable age for women in line with the UK: Italy and Greece. Is anyone on the Government Benches prepared to defend the increase in women’s pensionable age of three months per month? We have given the Government an option and, unlike their Trident nuclear weapons commitment, it is costed. I say to the Government that we are not going away. More importantly, the WASPI women are not going away.
In conclusion, today is Scotland’s national day. With deference to Rabbie Burns, if he will forgive me, I would like to adapt one of his better known pieces of work:
“Women, wha hae wi’ WASPI bled,
Women, wham WASPI has af times led;
Welcome to your gory bed,
Or to victory!
Now’s the day, and now’s the hour;
See the front o’ battle lour;
See approach proud Theresa’s power—
Chains and slavery!
Wha will be a traitor knave?
Wha can fill a coward’s grave!
Wha sae base as be a slave?
Let her turn and flee!
Wha for Pensions rightly earned
Freedom’s sword will strongly draw,
WASPIs stand, or WASPIs fa’,
Let them follow me!
By oppression’s woes and pains!
By your daughters in servile chains!
We will drain our dearest veins,
But they shall be free!
Lay the proud usurpers low!
Tyrants fall in every foe!
Liberty’s in every blow!—
Let us do or die!”
Justice for the WASPI women!
The Tory Government have ducked their responsibility for the WASPI women for too long. It is time to face up to the reality. Pensions are not a privilege; they are a contract and the UK Government have broken it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Damian Green
It is obviously impossible to talk about individual cases without talking to the individuals. All I can say is that the DWP tried hard after the 2011 Act and wrote more than 5 million letters to people’s most recent addresses.
Damian Green
I feel that the hon. Gentleman has had his fair share of the time, having used more than 35 minutes of a three-hour debate, and I want to turn to the specific option that he proposed. He mentioned the Landman Economics report that modelled the impact of several options. The SNP’s preferred option would roll back the 2011 Act entirely, returning to the timetable in the 1995 Act. He said that that option would cost £8 billion, but I disagree. Our analysis suggests that the cost has to go beyond 2020-21 and must include the effects on national insurance payments and tax collection, which his economic model entirely ignores, and that it would cost over £30 billion.
Even if we accept the hon. Gentleman’s figures, his other suggestion is that the costs could be met from the surplus in the national insurance fund that he conveniently discovered. In fact, there is no surplus in the fund because it is all used to pay contributory benefits. If we take from the national insurance fund £8 billion, £30 billion or whatever number one cares to mention, we take it from people who receive benefits. The surplus of £16 billion that he identified is two months’ expenditure—an advisory level recommended by the Government Actuary as a prudent working balance. The money has been put there by a Treasury grant to maintain the fund at the recommended long-term balance. The Government Actuary does not forecast a long-term surplus, so this convenient pot of money for the SNP does not actually exist.
Ian Blackford
I am grateful. I actually talked about a cost of £8 billion for this Parliament, which is affordable given the current surplus in the national insurance fund. Please do not twist what I said.
Damian Green
I did not twist what the hon. Gentleman said at all. Is he prepared to take £8 billion from people who receive contributory benefits? That is the only way that he could pay for it.
Returning to the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the national insurance fund, he gave the impression that it involved an individual contract. As he knows perfectly well, the national insurance scheme operates on a pay-as-you-go basis, meaning that today’s contributors are paying for today’s social security entitlements and pensions. Those who previously paid contributions were paying for the pensioners of that time. In other words, contributors do not accumulate an individual pension fund. It is not like any individual’s pension fund of moneys paid, which is personal to them. Instead, payment of contributions allows them, or their spouses, to access a range of social security entitlements. It is not an individual contract or fund. I gently suggest that the hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well.
Moving on to the issues that affect the WASPI women, I absolutely accept that getting into work will be difficult for some older women, so I want to say what we are doing to help them and also what we are doing for those who simply cannot work.
Mr Vara
I will not give way, because I want to leave other hon. Members as much time as possible in which to speak.
We must also mention other countries. Nine EU countries, including Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands, introduced equalisation as far back as 2009. I conclude by simply saying one thing: we have had many debates on this issue and the Government have repeatedly made their position clear, which is that they do not intend to revisit this issue. The issue was not in the Labour or the SNP manifesto, and by continuing to debate it, Labour and SNP Members are doing a disservice to the good women affected by giving them false hope. They should understand that doing so is opportunism pure and simple and political irresponsibility of the highest order. They should not give these good women false hope, and they should recognise that the Government will not give way.
Ian Blackford
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are being traduced by the hon. Gentleman. For clarification, this matter was in our manifesto, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will correct what he has said.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I think we all know that that is not a point of order, but, not to worry, it has been put on the record.
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.
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.
Richard Harrington
I am sorry, but, for the moment, there is not time to take interventions.
Governments have to take hard decisions. The can that was kicked down the road for many years by the Labour party had to be dealt with by the coalition Government. I would just like to refer to some of the fallacies mentioned by Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, in moving the motion, talked about the 1995 Act as if there was absolutely no communication from the Government—as if the DWP and everybody else suddenly forgot to talk about it. Well, that is not true. There were leaflets produced. There was an extensive advertising campaign. There were articles in women’s papers. In addition, millions of people, who decided they were going to sort out their pension, applied, quite properly, to the DWP; in fact, more than 14 million people applied and received full details of what their pensions were. I mention that because it would appear that there was absolutely no communication whatever. After the 2011 Act, that was a direct mail campaign, where individual letters—
Richard Harrington
I will not give way. I have a very short time left.
There was actually very good communication. However, I would like to mention the various contributions we have had. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries), who was among many speakers from the Government side, said that women, including herself, were not informed following the 2011 Act. In fact, as I have just shown, millions of letters were sent between January 2012 and November 2013. She said it is difficult for women over the age of 60 to find employment, and she said nobody would employ her. Actually, more than 4 million women in her age group are in employment—more than ever.
From the Opposition, we have had the argument, which I have had to deal with on many occasions, about the state pension being a contract. It is not a view but a question of fact that the state pension is a benefit, not a contract. As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) said, promises are cheap. The Government have to actually deal with facts.
I have much sympathy for Members who spoke of constituents who are finding it difficult to access the benefits system. [Interruption.] Someone has shouted from a sedentary position, “What are you going to do about it?” As hon. Members will be aware, and as the Secretary of State mentioned, we have a system of helping through the benefits system people who may need looking at. We have older claimants’ champions, and we are getting more of them. We will find a way to help people to find their way into the benefits system. For any constituents who are finding this difficult, if the Department can have their name, address and national insurance number—I have asked for this on many occasions—I will be very happy to personally see what the position is and get them the help they need to get through the benefits system. We hear a lot of talk from hon. Members about their constituents, but the actual factual details I get are few and far between.
Let me move on to the famous economic report from the Scots Nats. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who described it as irresponsible and inaccurate. I really could not have put it better myself, because it is, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire said, raising false hopes by saying to our constituents that this is a small problem that can quite easily be dealt with. I remind hon. Members that even the SNP costs this at £8 billion, and the Department, as I have written to the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, has assessed it at nearer £30 billion. We have looked at every alternative. We have looked at more than 25 options that have been mentioned to us about the WASPIs, and there simply is not a viable option, either because of cost, complexity or practicality.
The luxury of opposition is promising everybody money without having to consider how to pay for it. I view this as very irresponsible.
Ian Blackford
I must tell the House that the figures in this report, which has been produced by Landman Economics, are based on the Institute for Public Policy Research model, which has been tried and tested. It really ill behoves the House to traduce the economists who have produced these figures based on a Treasury model. When we had the debate two weeks ago, the Minister said that the cost was £14 billion. How come we have gone from £14 billion to £30 billion? It is the Government’s figures that do not make any sense.
Richard Harrington
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman—I could not hear the end of what he said because of the noise. I am not disputing that this was produced by proper economists—I accept that fact—but it is about what timescale they look at, in this case going to 2021, and how they brief. But okay, fair enough: even by the SNP’s calculations the figure is £7.9 billion, which should apparently come from millionaires or from Trident. Government is not like that; these are completely separate issues. This country has a proud record on state pensions. This Government, and the predecessor coalition before it, did not have the luxury, partly because of the economic mess Labour left us in, of kicking the can down the road and ignoring these very, very serious issues.
The benefits system is available to people, and if they are not having the access to it they should, we will help them. I give an undertaking to look at every way that the benefits system can be used to help people who are in difficulty. Contrary to what some hon. Members have said, my door is open to people so I can speak to them. I hope I have shown that. I took this job to help pensioners, not to not help pensioners. It has been irresponsible to imply—
Autumn Statement Distributional Analysis, Universal Credit and ESA
Ian Blackford Excerpts(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
The UK Government must commit to protecting disadvantaged people from the impact of future budget cuts in their autumn statement. Post-Brexit, it is essential, that with the risks to economy and with inflation rising and set to rise further, the Government act now.
Analysis by the IFS is the latest sign that the UK leaving the EU is having a negative impact on the UK economy even before article 50 is triggered. The IFS said that “virtually all” forecasters revised down their predications for growth and revised up their expectations for inflation in the years ahead. The collapse in the value of the pound, combined with potential rises in inflation, will hit the poorest and the most disadvantaged in society hardest. It will mean more of their income will have to be spent on day-to-day costs and living standards will push people into poverty.
James Cartlidge
If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the disadvantaged, will he explain why it has been reported that the Scottish Government will defer, until April 2020, taking powers from the UK Government to administer the welfare system?
Ian Blackford
I expected this issue to be raised, given press speculation. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman the facts of the matter: with the powers coming to us, we will control 15% of welfare spending in Scotland. We have to put in place the mechanisms for us to deliver fairness with the revenues we have at our disposal. We certainly would not punish the poorest in our society in the way that this Government have, and we certainly would not be punishing the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign women, who are not getting their just rights when they have had only a year’s notice. What I would be saying to this Government is, “Give us the powers over welfare so that we can protect the people in Scotland.” When we have put in place the mechanisms to allow us to look after people, we will certainly be doing a better job than the Government are doing today.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the point about powers is that, unlike this Tory Government, we are able to help and support people properly? We should not have to fill the black hole they have created in our budget. When we get those powers and have that agency, they will be set up properly. We will protect the people in Scotland properly.
Ian Blackford
My hon. Friend makes a very valuable point, because this is about powers and responsibilities. For us to protect people in Scotland in the way that we want to, we need powers. We were promised—since this has been raised—devo to the max. We were promised home rule for Scotland. How on earth can we have home rule for Scotland when we control 30% of our revenues and 15% of social security? I am afraid that the UK Government’s failure to protect the disabled and pensioners demonstrates that if we want to do what is necessary in Scotland, we will ultimately have to have the independent powers to do so. I am sure we will get to that point.
Let me return to what I want to address. [Interruption.] I am only responding to the Conservatives’ uninformed distractions, with which we are all too familiar.
The IFS stated:
“Normally, working-age benefit recipients would also be at least partly protected as benefits usually rise in line with prices, but, as we have discussed before, their benefits have been largely frozen in cash terms, meaning that their income from this source is fully exposed to future inflation. Those in work will, unless they are able to negotiate a bigger pay rise, find that their earnings will stretch less far than they otherwise would have done.”
Why should the most disadvantaged pay the price for Brexit and its consequences? That is what the Conservative Back Benchers should be addressing today rather than making an undisguised attack on the Scottish Government. What we need to address this afternoon is why working people will suffer from rising inflation. The weakest in our society deserve to be protected and their benefits ought to be inflation-proofed. Why are the UK Government not doing that? Why are they not seeking to protect the vulnerable in our society?
Hannah Bardell
Does my hon. Friend agree that while the tax gap in the UK sits at £36 billion, this Government should be focusing on closing that gap, and not marginalising and targeting some of the most vulnerable people in our society?
Ian Blackford
I fundamentally agree. There is a £36 billion tax gap, so let us fix that hole. I listened to the Minister talk earlier about the challenges the Government face in fixing the deficit. What they fail to recognise is the interaction between fiscal and monetary policy. It is the richest who have benefited most from quantitative easing. We should have had a fiscal stimulus package. That would have driven investment and productivity into the economy, and got more people back into work. That is what we should be doing.
Jeremy Quin
This is not the first time I have heard the hon. Gentleman refer to the great fiscal reflation he is planning. I welcome the fact that in the same speech he is also talking about the problems with inflation, but is that not a contradiction in terms?
Ian Blackford
It most certainly is not. The reason for the rise in inflation—to something between 2% and 3% next year, according to commentators—is, quite simply, that the pound has crashed, and the reason the pound has crashed is that investors do not have confidence in the UK economy, and who caused that? It is a direct consequence of Brexit, through the referendum, which was the misjudgment of the previous Prime Minister.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman not see an inconsistency in his argument, given that only a few years ago, his party was campaigning to leave the United Kingdom and, by virtue of doing so, the EU?
Ian Blackford
The hon. Gentleman has made a gross misjudgment. When we were campaigning for independence for Scotland, it was about securing Scotland’s future as a European nation. Those in the Better Together campaign continually told the people of Scotland that our European future would be secured only by staying with the UK. Well how has that worked out? I am glad that the Scottish Parliament has given a mandate to the Government of Scotland to make sure we protect Scotland’s position as a European nation and remain within the single market, and, through that, to ensure we protect the prosperity and jobs of the people of our country.
Let me come back, if I may, to the subject we are supposed to be discussing.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
While half of me is loth to continue this debate, I want us to be clear. We have here an economic crisis brought about by political instability caused by the rupturing of unions between countries. So for the hon. Gentleman to argue that Scottish independence would not have had similar disastrous effects for the Scottish economy is, frankly, disingenuous.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I remind Members to be cautious with the language they use. Also, I do not want this to degenerate into a debate about independence, and I know that the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) wants to get back to his brief and not to be tempted by those who want to go out fishing today. To those Members intervening, I say this: when your speaking time is reduced to four minutes, do not blame me.
Ian Blackford
I will take your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I only say to the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) that she has demonstrated once again that Better Together is still alive and well—and how did that work out for the Labour party in Scotland?
I will return to the issue we are dealing with. We have inflation created by Brexit and a falling the pound, and the result of this failure will be a fall in living standards for many of our poorest—falling living standards brought to you by this Government. On top of the benefit cuts next year, the Prime Minister is sleepwalking into a perfect storm for low-income families, rather than living up to her promise of delivering for just-managing families. The UK Government must use the autumn statement to end their austerity obsession and instead bring forward an inclusive programme that will truly support low-income families and their children.
The UK Government’s U-turn on tax credits last year was simply a delaying tactic that kicked cuts to universal credit further down the line. The Government should take the opportunity to reverse the cuts to universal credit work allowance in their autumn statement. The original intention of universal credit was to increase work incentives and make sure that, as the Government put it, work paid. On top of damning economic forecasts, however, which will push up the cost of living, the work allowance cut will simply push more working people into poverty. It has slashed the income of working universal credit claimants. The IFS has calculated that in the long term more than 3 million working families will lose an average of more than £1,000 a year as a result of the work allowance cut.
Ian Blackford
As my hon. Friend says, it is shameful. The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that the resulting cut in income will mean that many low-income parents cannot protect the income levels they had before April 2016.
House of Commons Library analysis from February 2016 calculates that lone parents without housing costs will experience the largest reduction in their work allowance, from £8,800 in 2015-16 to £4,764 in 2016-17—a loss of over £4,000. Is that what the Government want to defend? A person or couple without housing costs who claim universal credit where one or both are disabled will see their allowance reduced from £7,764 in 2015-16 to £4,764—a loss of £3,000. The U-turn on tax credits in the short term saved families and working people from having their benefits cut, but in the long term the work allowance cut will have a similar impact.
The House of Commons Library analysis also states that the work allowance reductions announced in the summer Budget
“will ultimately have a similar impact to the changes to tax credits which are not now going ahead, though the impact of changes to UC work allowances will not be fully felt until the roll out of Universal Credit is complete.”
By cutting the work allowance, the Government will impose an eye-watering level of marginal taxation on people in low-paid jobs and make it harder than ever for those in low-income households to break out of the poverty trap.
That point is well understood by many, including the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), the previous Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who said:
“At present, the 2016 Budget’s plan to reduce Universal Credit work allowances will not be the most effective way of controlling welfare expenditure and, moreover, it goes against the key principles. The planned reduction will affect more than three million people, reducing their income by an average of over £1,000 per year. This will reduce people’s incentive to move into work. Moreover, in November 2015 the previous Chancellor decided to reverse the reduction in working tax credits, increasing the pressure on Universal Credit as it created an artificial disincentive to move to Universal Credit from Tax Credits.”
I do not say this too often, but I fully agree with him. I would even say that, for the Government, the game is up when even the architect of much of the landscape on this issue can see the fatal flaws in what they are doing. When will they start to listen and begin to act?
We are having this debate today, and welcome though it is, it is important that we achieve a cross-party consensus on the substantive motion we are debating tomorrow, on the cuts to employment and support allowance. The House will have an opportunity to send a very clear signal to the Chancellor ahead of the autumn statement next week. It is a scandal that proposed cuts to ESA WRAG are still going ahead. The Chancellor must halt these planned cuts until the UK Government can deliver the long-awaited support promised for disabled people in and out of work. Almost 500,000 disabled people in the UK rely on ESA WRAG. This £30 cut will make the cost of living more expensive for many people—even more so in the context of the devalued pound and a possible inflation increase.
The UK Government said that these changes were introduced to
“remove the financial incentives that could otherwise discourage claimants from taking steps back to work”.
But Mencap’s review of this policy found
“no relevant evidence setting out a convincing case that the ESA WRAG payment acts as a financial disincentive to claimants work, or that reducing the payment would incentivise people to seek work”.
It is a positive step that the new Secretary of State has announced the Green Paper on support for disabled people in and out of work, and we look forward to assessing the detail of the Department’s proposals in due course. However, until the detail in the Green Paper comes to fruition, storming ahead with these cuts is simply putting the cart before the horse. The autumn statement is a key opportunity for the new Cabinet to prove it is true to its rhetoric about delivering for just-managing families. That can be achieved only by abandoning austerity by reversing these cuts and delivering an inclusive Budget fit for the post-referendum economic turmoil.
A failure to act will drive more people into poverty and the use of food banks. Recent data show that the Tories’ austerity agenda continues to push people into poverty across the UK. A survey for the End Child Poverty coalition suggested that 3.5 million children were living in poverty in the UK, with 220,000 of them in Scotland. A separate study by the Trussell Trust found that in the first half of this year there was an increase in food bank usage that included 500,000 three-day emergency food supplies distributed across the UK, of which 188,500 were for children.
A recent Resolution Foundation report has highlighted the need for the urgent delivery of support for families who are just managing. It also noted:
“Average incomes in the low to middle income group were no higher in 2014-15 than in 2004-05, reflecting not just the turmoil of the post-crisis period but also a sharp pre-crisis slowdown in income growth.”
It also points out that the projections for unemployment have been revised up since the March Budget following the referendum in June, and real pay growth is now projected to be lower than previously thought.
In conclusion, with this autumn statement, the Chancellor has the ability to re-prioritise the spending agenda to reflect the very real danger of economic turmoil resulting from the June referendum and ongoing negotiations with the EU. The Chancellor must use the autumn statement to propose measures that reverse benefit cuts and mitigate the impact of economic uncertainty on disadvantaged people.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I applaud the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) for his great passion. He speaks very eloquently. I could not resist intervening on him about the currency because I think that the key economic challenge for the country involves rebalancing. Every aspect of what we are debating today is affected by the sustainability of our growth.
I want to focus on two key points. The first is why I support the move to a universal credit system in principle, based on my experience of running a small business. The second is that, when we talk about distributional analysis, we need an analysis of the intergenerational impacts of any changes. We have to start talking about all benefits in the system, not just those that are paid out to those of working age.
Last year, we had a number of debates about tax credits at the time when the changes were meant to be coming through. I spoke about this several times, and I said then—I say it again now—that tax credits were one of the greatest mistakes in the history of the welfare state, bringing in a £30 billion means-tested in-work benefit for healthy working people to make them completely dependent and to nationalise the income of the country for political purposes. I say that not out of ideology but out of experience.
My experience of running a small business taught me about the problems of the people who are trapped on the rough edges of the welfare state. I had a member of staff who told me that she did not want a pay rise because she would lose too much in tax credits. More commonly, people working 16 or 24 hours a week told me that they did not want to work any more hours. I heard that many times, and other business owners have told me exactly the same thing. People should be encouraged to make the most of the talents they were born with, and we should not have a system that stymies that aim or disincentivises people from making the most of their talents.
What I particularly welcome about universal credit is the fact that it smooths out the rough edges by being more generous in terms of childcare and support. I am sure we all agree that we want people who are unemployed to move off benefits and into work, but we never talk about people who are on in-work benefits needing to work harder to get off those benefits. To me, however, it should be the goal of our economic system to reduce dependency and help people to maximise their income from real employment. The other part of the system that I welcome is the extra support that it will give, not just to get people into work but to get people who work part time to work more hours. That is very much to be commended.
It is quite extraordinary that, for the first time ever, pensioners are now better off than the working-age population, once housing costs have been taken into account. This is something that we need to talk about, because 68% of benefits are paid out to pensioners. The point about housing costs is incredibly important.
Ian Blackford
Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that a pension is not a benefit? People who have paid national insurance have an entitlement to a state pension, which they have paid for.
James Cartlidge
That is a very fair point. Our voters say, “Well, I’ve paid in so I should get it,” but that is not the case for the winter fuel allowance—as the hon. Gentleman knows, millionaires get that along with everybody else—the free TV licence or the Christmas bonus. Although the state pension is based on paying in, it is a pay-as-you-go system. The fact is that the current young working generation are paying in but they might not receive the triple lock. Also, we know for certain that many of them will still be paying their housing costs when they retire. We know that 94% of home-owning pensioners own their property outright. They have no housing costs. The young working generation are probably paying for the defined benefit pensions of those who are fortunate to receive them, and for the state pension of those who have the triple lock. They are also paying for those who possibly do not even have housing costs, yet they themselves will have housing costs perhaps well into their retirement. We are reaching a critical point here.
Ian Blackford
I am conscious that we should not be diverted from the topic, but the key point here is that the national insurance fund is currently running at a surplus that, according to the Government’s own figures, is due to increase. It is not the case that pensioners are taking their income from others. They have paid their national insurance contributions, which fund the amount that is paid out to pensioners.
James Cartlidge
It is a pay-as-you-go system, but the key to this is the triple lock. The hon. Gentleman is welcome to read the report on intergenerational payments produced by the Work and Pensions Committee. It has my name on it, although I have to say that I approved it having been on the Committee for only 15 minutes. I did not contribute to it, but I welcome all of it. It makes the point that we have a pay-as-you-go system and that the younger people currently paying in might not benefit from the present generosity, particularly in relation to the triple lock, which is unaffordable and unsustainable.
This is primarily a political question. During the leadership hustings, I asked the final two contestants the same question. I said, “Given the situation of many young people, is it morally defensible to continue to protect pensioner benefits?” The answer that both contestants gave me—quite rightly, given that we are a democracy and that we have elections—was that our manifesto had pledged to protect those benefits. However, as the shadow Chancellor has said—I am certainly not trying to pray him in aid—we also pledged to wipe out the deficit. That pledge is now coming home to roost. We are protecting so many budgets and forcing so many disproportionate cuts on others because of this huge cost which we will not touch, and I think we have to talk about it. This has to be done in a cross-party way. We all know the political reality of this situation. I am not naive, and I know the political price that can be paid if these things are not done correctly, but from canvassing in my constituency, I know that the older voters understand this point. They are as concerned about it as anybody else. We have to start talking about how the whole benefits system—not just the one for working-age people—can be reformed.
I very much welcome the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), and I welcome what has happened with universal credit. It will smooth out some of the perverse incentives created by the tax credit system, and it will encourage people to make the most of their talents and reduce their benefit dependency. Just as we had radical reform on in-work benefits, we must now start to think about what will happen to those who are retired and who will live longer and longer, so that we can all live in a happy, one nation situation in which all the generations get a fair deal.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate. Given the upcoming autumn statement and the incredibly important Green Paper, it represents a welcome opportunity for us to shape some of the decisions that will be taken. It is disappointing, however, that only two speakers so far—my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge)—have actually made suggestions about where funding could come from should any changes be made.
I want to look first at the context of the debate. This Government have introduced the national living wage, benefiting 2.75 million of this country’s lowest earners, and we have committed to reach at least £9 an hour by 2020—a whole pound higher than what was in the Labour party manifesto at the election. The increase in the personal tax allowance, taking it from £6,495 to £11,000 with a commitment to reach £12,500 and then index-link it going forward, has lifted the lowest 3.2 million earners out of income tax altogether. Despite the doom and gloom of some speeches, we are delivering the strongest economic growth of any developed country, leading to record employment—461,000 more people are in work today than at this time last year. With my old Minister for disabled people’s hat on, I welcome the news that a further 590,000 disabled people are in work compared with three years ago—a 4% increase. There is still much more to be done, but we are making a genuine difference to some of those who are most desperate to be given an opportunity to work.
Wages are also increasing at 2.3% against inflation of 0.9%. I gently remind the SNP speakers, in particular the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), that inflation fell this week. I do not know whether that news escaped them.
Justin Tomlinson
The hon. Gentleman has had plenty of opportunities to contribute to this debate and other Members still want to speak.
We are also significantly extending childcare with a doubling of free childcare coming in.
Specifically on universal credit, the key difference is that it provides additional much-needed support. We know how important it is. Only 1% of ESA claimants came off the benefit every month despite the vast majority wanting the opportunity to work. There will be additional childcare, which will be beneficial for lone parents in particular, the provision and identification of training opportunities and specific job search help. Most importantly for me, in-work support will be offered for the first time. Many people coming off that benefit will go into low-paid jobs. They will often then stay at that low level and not benefit from a growing economy. In-work support will be provided. Someone may be told, “Look, you have been going for three months. You have turned up and been a diligent worker. Perhaps it is now time to push for greater responsibility and greater earning opportunities.” That is something that is very much welcomed by people I talk to.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk highlighted the 16-hour cliff edge. He pointed out that his staff did not want to work extra hours. That is not quite the case. They were desperate to work additional hours, but they were just unable to work them, and that was blocking opportunity for them.
On ESA, I wish to take a moment to pay tribute to the staff in the jobcentres, the Work programme providers, including Shaw Trust, plus many other organisations and charities that support those activities. They do a huge amount of work that often goes unseen. They are often not thanked, but I know that they have made a real difference to many people and we are seeing that in the jobs figures.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said, there has to be an emphasis on what people can do, rather than on what they cannot do. That is highlighted right the way through the very welcome Green Paper. I am proud to have made a small contribution to bringing that forward. It is very welcome that organisations such as Scope, Leonard Cheshire, the Royal National Institute Of Blind People, the National Autistic Society and hundreds of others are using their expertise and first-hand experience to help shape policy. I will continue to raise the importance of making them a priority in policy development and in delivering in the future.
We have already seen with the additional £60 million rising to £100 million that we will have more of a personalised and tailored approach. There will be quicker assessments, which is particularly important because 50% of people on ESA also have a mental health condition, and it is vital that we get support to them as quickly as possible. There will be a place on the new Work and Health programme, work choice for those who choose to volunteer, and additional places on the Specialist Employability Support programmes.
If anyone visits a jobcentre, they will understand how desperate people are to have those extra places. It is a bit like getting tickets for a very popular concert—first thing, once a month, it is about getting on the phone to try to grab those one or two available places. Job clubs will provide support, which will be delivered by peers, particularly those who have disabilities, who will give their first-hand experience and support. For many people, trying to return to the work environment is a very, very scary prospect.
There will be the new community partners and increased access to work for young people. There are also future opportunities, particularly through the Disability Confident campaign, which is very proactive in identifying to employers the huge wealth of talent that is out there if people will make a small change. I am particularly excited by the encouraging early results from the Small Employer Offer, which, in effect, doorsteps local employers saying that there is a wealth of talent out there. It asks what their skills gaps are and whether they can find the people to match them. Some really impressive results have been achieved.
We have seen increased funding for Access to Work. At the moment, it assists about 38,000 people. There will be funding in place for an additional 25,000 people. People who do not understand the scheme may say that it only helps 38,000. They ignore, or simply do not understand, how often we need to help people on only one occasion to then be able to get them into work. It could be by purchasing equipment, or by providing additional training. That person could then end up having a long-term sustainable career.
The other area is to make sure that the Fit for Work service supports people earlier than the four weeks, because, often, it is simple early advice, particularly to small employers, that will help keep people in work. It is far easier to keep people in work than to try to get them back in. Finally, we need to make sure that the charities are central to the delivery, because they have so much proactive experience. Their policy teams are constructive. When I was a Minister, it was a real pleasure to work with those organisations. Through the Green Paper, they can help to make a real difference.
State Pension Age: Women
Ian Blackford Excerpts(8 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered acceleration of the state pension age for women born in the 1950s.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall, and to appear in front of the Minister. I look forward to a positive response from him to all the remarks made today.
A woman born on 6 March 1953 retired on 6 March 2016, aged 63. A woman born a month later, on 6 April 1953, retired on 6 July, aged 63 and three months. A woman born on 6 May 1953 retired a few days ago, on 6 November, aged 63 and six months. A woman born on 6 June 1953 has to wait until 6 March 2017, when she will be aged 63 and nine months. A woman born on 6 July 1953 will not receive her pension until her 64th birthday, in July 2017. We are beginning to get the picture. For each month that passes, women’s pensionable age increases by three months. Let us just dwell on that—a three-month addition to someone’s pensionable age for each month that they were born later than their neighbour, friend or colleague.
I spoke of a woman born in March 1953, who retired this year aged 63. A woman born a year later, in March 1954, will not retire until September 2019, when she will be aged 65 and a half. She will be two and a half years older than a woman born a year earlier before she receives her state pension. A woman born six months later, in September 1954, will have to wait until she is 66, in September 2020. Over an 18-month period, women’s pensionable age will have increased by a whopping three years. As we keep saying, we are not against equalisation of the state pension age. The issue is the pace of change, as well as the lack of appropriate notice.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and on making these compelling historical points about women. For that reason, and because of the documented evidence that he has submitted here today, does he agree that there is a compelling need—and an imperative on the Government—to bring about transitional protection and transitional payments for these women?
Ian Blackford
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. She makes a telling point. The significance of having the debate today, for which I am grateful, is that next week we will have the autumn statement. That is the opportunity for the Government to respond to the injustices that women are facing and to do the right thing. We often hear about people who have been left behind. The Women Against State Pension Inequality have been left behind, and the Government must act.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. He has certainly done women a great service, because he has been working on this issue for a long time. The other dimension to the issue, which we see when we do an analysis of it, is that it affects women in different ways. There are different poverty levels involved, so things such as bus passes may not be accessible to them.
Ian Blackford
Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I will come later to the proposals that my party has made. We have been able to test the number of women who would be taken out of poverty as a consequence, and it is a very important point.
We should remind ourselves what a pension is. It is deferred income. Women and men have paid national insurance in the expectation of receiving a state pension. That is the deal, plain and simple: people pay in, and they get their entitlement. They do not expect the Government, without effective notice, to change the rules. What has been done to the WASPI women has undermined fairness and equity in this country.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman is certainly painting a picture. Does he agree that the impact of the changes to the state pension age cannot be seen in isolation from the impact of historical gender inequality?
Ian Blackford
Absolutely. The hon Lady makes a valid point, because women have faced inequality in pension entitlement, whether in the state pension or occupational pension schemes. In the past, they were even denied access to occupational pension schemes, and we are still battling for equal pay for women. It is simply not right that in addition to all the injustices that women have faced, they now face the injustice of having to wait much longer than they expected for their pension.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He is making a compelling case and outlining the lottery of the current arrangements. The WASPI petition was signed by 2,249 of my constituents and I also received many letters. Does he agree that additional transitional arrangements are needed to support a group of women who in the past have often been working mothers and are now carers for elderly parents and sick husbands, and who have often had low-paid manual jobs and just have not been able to build up private pensions?
Ian Blackford
Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point and demonstrates, rightly, why hon. Members across the House need to unite. This is not about one party—let me make that absolutely clear.
Ian Blackford
I will in a second. This is about all of us recognising that, as a House, we have a responsibility to do the right thing. It is about giving encouragement to the Government, just as happened last year with tax credits when we realised that we were going to be punishing hard-working families, to do the right thing by the women affected by this issue. That is what the Government have to listen to and respond to in the autumn statement.
Dame Caroline Spelman
Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), the fact that this issue kicks in at the latter stages of a woman’s career, when her caring responsibilities can increase significantly because of elderly parents and her own health may start to deteriorate, means that the level of uncertainty and anxiety is greatly increased. Suddenly, the prepared-for pension does not materialise, and women with caring responsibilities are left in limbo.
Ian Blackford
The right hon. Lady makes a valid point, and I will come later to the notice period because the issues are both the lack of time that women have had to prepare for the changes and the caring responsibilities that many women in particular have. She is right to raise that point. I will take one more intervention and then move on.
Ian Austin
This is a very important point. I have lost count of the number of women in Dudley who have told me that they have not had time to make plans for the new arrangements. They have had to take time off to bring up their children, or reduce their hours or retire early to care for ageing parents or grandchildren. Other women have told me that they have lost their husbands and have not just had to come to terms with the bereavement, but have been thrown into financial turmoil as a result.
There is an additional unfairness in former industrial areas such as the black country, where women typically left school at 15 or 16, started work and did hard work all their lives. That is very different from someone graduating in their early twenties and doing an office job. Women in the black country have done their bit, and that is why the Government should be coming up with proper transitional arrangements so that they can plan properly for their retirement now.
Ian Blackford
I agree with that point. Many of the 2.6 million women affected have made more than 35 years’ worth of national insurance contributions. They have paid their way. They have paid their dues. This is about us accepting our responsibility. As I mentioned, 2.6 million women are affected by the increase in pensionable age and have an entitlement to a pension that they should have had. They need to be treated fairly—no more, no less.
The Government often state that the increase in pensionable age under the Pensions Act 2011 means that no woman will have to wait more than 18 months for their pension. That is disingenuous, as it came as an addition to the changes in the Pensions Act 1995, which are still being implemented. It is a fact that women’s pensionable age is increasing by six years over a very short period. That is the issue and the reality. It is about the combined impact of the 1995 Act and the 2011 Act. The Government have a duty to be truthful about the matter.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ian Blackford
I am conscious that many Members want to speak and I do want to take interventions, but I will press on, if I may, and take interventions later.
The issue is not only the sharp acceleration of pensionable age, but that many women were unaware of the increase in pensionable age. As the Select Committee on Work and Pensions reported in March this year,
“more could…have been done”
to communicate the changes, especially between 1995 and 2009. Women have been let down not only by the rapidly increasing pensionable age, but by a failure of communication. We face the rapid acceleration of pensionable age and also the nightmare scenario for many women that they were not aware that it was coming. They have had little notice and no time to prepare for an increase in pensionable age. They have not been able to adjust accordingly, and in many cases we are talking about women and families who are struggling.
The Prime Minister talks about those who have been left behind and the duty the Government have to deal with it; the WASPI women have been left behind and it is now our responsibility to deal with it. We cannot just shrug our shoulders and blame past Governments for the failure to give women notice. We have a collective responsibility to deal with this issue and we have to show leadership. We cannot take the line that the last Parliament made a decision and there is nothing we can do; that is an abrogation of responsibility by all of us.
When the Government came forward with proposed changes to working tax credits that would have damaged millions of families in the UK, after much opposition, the Government ultimately relented and removed the proposals. We need to campaign in Parliament and throughout the United Kingdom to achieve the same objective here. We are not going away. The Government have to recognise that women should not be punished in the way that they are being by this increase of three months for every month’s difference in their age.
The Government have asked what we would do. That is why, in September, we in the Scottish National party published our own report looking at various options. We suggested a return to the timeline of the 1995 Act, which would slow down the increase to a pensionable age of 65 by 18 months, and defer the increase to a pensionable age for women of 66 years into the next decade. The cost of deferring over an additional 18-month period would be £7.9 billion. The Government estimated that the acceleration of state pensionable age in the 2011 Act for both women and men saved around £30 billion from 2016-17 to 2025-26, but that is simply not the case. That was scaremongering from the Government and, not for the first time, they got their numbers wrong. Depending on the timescale for the increase to age 66, there will be additional costs in the next decade.
I am grateful that, through the Backbench Business Committee, we have secured this debate, which is supported on an all-party basis, with a number of Conservative Members supporting the motion that was originally put forward. Of course, that happened on the back of many of us here today and in Parliament putting petitions down on behalf of the WASPI women. The WASPI women are going to be knocking on Members’ doors this week, next week and until we do the right thing.
We are often told that this is about the money. “We can’t afford it,” they say. This is not about women getting something they are not entitled to; it is about entitlement based on national insurance payments and about the Government meeting their obligations out of the national insurance fund—yes, for those who were not aware, inside Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs there is a national insurance fund. I am grateful to the Government, or more specifically the Government Actuary’s Department, for stating that there is a projected fund surplus of £26.3 billion at the end of 2016-17, rising to £30.7 billion in 2017-18. The argument that the Government cannot do this is therefore bunkum. The money is there. These women have paid into the fund and we should meet our obligations. Women have paid their dues, the fund is in surplus and the Government can make restitution.
Next week we will have the autumn statement. If the Minister chooses, he could tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the strength of feeling on this issue. Next week the Chancellor could, if he is minded, deliver some good news for the WASPI women. Will the Minister demand that the Chancellor uses the surplus to do so? The money is in the national insurance fund to allow the Government to take action—to right a wrong, to reflect on the injustice of a sharp increase in pensionable age, to show leadership and to recognise that Parliament collectively got it wrong with the timetabled increases. This is, after all, about fairness. Men are seeing a one-year increase in pensionable age; for women it is six years, over too short a period. The Minister can be a hero to 1950s women by addressing the injustices that many are facing.
We are often told that there was no choice in the scale of the increase or the timing, and Europe was forcing equalisation upon us. In our report, we published the scale of increases in pensionable age in each European country. There are only two countries that are seeing such a rapid increase in pensionable age: Italy and Greece. When the Prime Minister took office, the first debate she fronted was on Trident renewal. The motion did not have a price tag, but the Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), informed the House that it could be as much as £205 billion. The Government effectively asked Parliament to give them a blank cheque. We can find hundreds of billions of pounds for weapons that can blow humanity to smithereens, but we cannot meet what should be a contractual obligation to 1950s-born women. Where is the fairness? Where is the humanity? Of course, the Government will be prepared to find £7 billion to renovate this place. If I had a choice, I would fund the WASPI women’s pensions first, and not spend a fortune on this place.
I know that a number of Conservative Members are here, and they are broadly supportive of the WASPI campaign. It is a pity that we do not have those who so far do not support it, but I say to the Conservatives: is there anyone on the Government Benches who is prepared to stand up and say that it is right for women’s pensionable age to increase at the rate of three months per month? How can anybody possibly think it is right that pensionable age should increase by three months per month? I would be happy to give way to anyone who wants to stand up and say that it is right, but I suspect that we will get what we always get: silence—silence and the hope that we, the Opposition, the Tories who support this and the WASPI women will go away. As I have said, we are not going away. We have given the Government an option and, unlike their Trident nuclear weapons commitment, it is costed. More importantly, not only are we not going away; the WASPI women are not going away.
The Pensions Commission that reported in 2005 suggested that at least 15 years’ notice should be given on any future increase in pensionable age. Given that, I ask the Minister: how can the Government defend the 2011 Act and some women receiving pretty negligible notice? Does the Minister think that is acceptable? There would be uproar, and no doubt legal challenges, if occupational pension schemes behaved in such a way. Can we imagine the outcry from Members of Parliament if we were told, with little notice, that our pension payments would be deferred by an additional six years?
Ian Blackford
I want to make a little progress, and will take interventions later.
Just as workers pay into occupational schemes, men and women pay national insurance in return for a state pension. Why should women be treated so shoddily? It is little wonder that WASPI women are considering legal action. For too long women have suffered injustices as far as equal pay is concerned. They tend to have much poorer workplace pension protection than men and are now facing state pension inequality. Why do we not stop, take stock and put in place mitigation? Let us have equalisation, but let us do so fairly. When we consider what has been done as far as communication is concerned, it is dismal. Women should have been written to at the earliest opportunity, letting them know what was changing and allowing them to consider their options. Yet in 2011, the Government said their approach was to inform women through leaflets and publicity campaigns. That was a failure of responsibility to act and inform appropriately.
It was only in 2009 that the DWP began to take responsibility and proactively write to women to tell them about the 1995 Act. They started to tell women in 2009, but it took the DWP years to issue all the letters. Last night I was given the response to a freedom of information request on the timeline of the letters—perhaps the most damning thing about this whole debate. Women born between April 1953 and December 1953 were formally told of the increased pensionable age only in January 2012. Women born between December 1953 and April 1955 were told only in February 2012. A woman born in April 1953 under the old regime of retiring at 60 would have expected to retire in April 2013. She was given just one year of formal notice of her new retirement date of July 2016. It was 17 years after the 1995 legislation before the DWP could be bothered to formally tell the women involved—too little notice; too little, too late. We should all hang our heads in shame at the way the WASPI women have been treated. If there is one issue that should force the Government to agree to change now, it is that new information and the timeline of notice given.
Why have we been able to find this out through a freedom of information request from the WASPI women? Why have the Government not come clean about this before? Who knew about this in Government? Did the Minister know? I have had many letters on this issue from the women affected. Rosina wrote to me:
“When the 2011 Pensions Bill was announced, it accelerated these changes, so that Women’s SPA would be 65 by November 2018 and then both Men’s & Women’s SPA would rise together to 66 by 5th April...Letters began to be sent out...but many never received them. I received my letter in early 2013, just before my 58th Birthday and just 2 years before my expected retirement age of 60. The letter advising me that I would now have to wait until I was 66 before I could draw my pension! How can I be expected to plan for a 6 year increase with just 2 years notice? How can this be acceptable? I had already made plans for my retirement. I will lose over £40,000 of pension because of this. I have paid into the system in good faith and the system has now failed me. I want the Government to stand up and admit that they have ‘wronged’ us Women of the 50’s by their gross mismanagement and...that they will now do the right thing and pay us what we are due.”
I cannot put it any better than Rosina. Will the Minister now accept that we have a responsibility to Rosina and the 2.6 million women who have been cheated out of their entitlement?
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
My hon. Friend has come forward with a shocking revelation today, thanks to the WASPI women who made the FOI request. Nearly half a million women had only a year’s notice to change their retirement plans. I do not think that is acceptable, particularly given everything we have heard about why women are more likely to be dependent on a state pension and likely to be in poverty in old age. Does he agree that it puts an absolute moral imperative on the Government to take responsibility for their failure to let women know before a year in advance that they were going to lose out in such a way?
Ian Blackford
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I know that the Minister is a decent and honourable man. I hope he listens to the evidence and will go back to his colleagues in Government and recognise that the surplus we talked about is there in the national insurance fund. He would make us all happy, but more importantly he would make the WASPI women happy, if the Government showed they were prepared to act.
Peter Aldous
The issue of notice is raised a great deal, and it has been said that notice was given in magazines and the like. Given the high-profile television campaign at the moment for workplace pensions, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue should have been on television 15 or 20 years ago?
Ian Blackford
Absolutely. There has been a gross failure of communication at all levels. Many of us have access to occupational pension schemes. We are members of the House of Commons scheme. We get an annual statement of our pension entitlement. That is what the DWP should have been providing, rather than waiting 17 years before communicating with the women involved.
I am conscious of time and I want to begin to wrap up. Much of what I have been talking about was picked up by the Select Committee report in March this year. It said:
“Well into this decade far too many affected women were unaware of the equalisation of state pension age at 65 legislated for in 1995.”
The National Centre for Social Research stated:
“In 2008, fewer than half...of the women who, at that point, would not be eligible for their state pension until they were 65 were aware of the...change.”
That statement referred to research carried out in 2011. Given that we knew there was a lack of appreciation of the 1995 changes, why pour oil on troubled waters by accelerating the timescales in 2011? That was simply vindictive and cruel. Today, let us correct that. Let us show compassion and deliver fairness to the WASPI women.
I have been dealing with this issue on a UK-wide basis, but I want to briefly touch on Scotland. To put this into context, there are 243,900 WASPI women in Scotland. I would dearly love for us to have responsibility for pensions in Scotland, but we do not. The commitment the SNP has given in supporting the slowdown of the increase in pensionable age is one we would legislate for if we had the powers, but we do not. The powers that Scotland has over social security are limited to 15% of such spending in Scotland. We have limited powers. Section 28 of the Scotland Act 2016 grants exceptions to reserved areas where we can top up payments, but this does not include pensions assistance or payments by reasons of age.
I mention that because the Secretary of State, responding to a question I asked about WASPI mitigation last month, said that the SNP
“now control a Government who have the power to do something about this and put their money where their mouth is.”—[Official Report, 17 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 580.]
The Secretary of State created the impression that we hold powers in areas where we do not. I sought to be charitable to him in a point of order I raised later that day; rather incredibly, I received a letter from the Secretary of State on the 19th arguing that his statement was correct. Let me be clear: it was not. I then raised a further point of order on the 19th, when the Speaker suggested I apply for a face-to-face debate. I am grateful the Minister is here, but it is unfortunate that the Secretary of State is not. He should be dragged to this House and forced to accept that he cannot blame the Scottish Government when they do not have competency for the failures of this Government, and it must stop.
This is an important matter. We cannot have the UK Government suggesting that the Scottish Government have powers that they do not have. I wish we did have powers over pensions. If we had those powers, we would do the right thing by the WASPI women. Until such time as we have such powers we will push the Government to accept their obligations. This Tory Government have ducked their responsibility to the WASPI women for too long. It is time to face up to reality. Pensions are not a privilege; they are a contract, and the UK Government have broken that contract with the WASPI women.
Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)
I am looking to start the contributions from Front Benchers at 10.30 am, so based on the number of speakers I have been notified of, that will mean about five minutes maximum per speaker. I call Tom Elliott.
Richard Harrington
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which I will attempt to answer in a moment, after I have thanked the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) for opening the debate and hon. Members from both sides who contributed.
I must say that this is the first time that my rather limited attempts at jurisprudence between 1976 and 1979 have been mentioned in the House. At least they will now be recounted in Hansard rather more than they are by my tutors of the time. The serious point that the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) makes is that hon. Members feel that the Government have broken some form of contract, presumably non-written, with state pensioners generally or WASPI women specifically. I have heard that point made several times today, but the Government’s position is very clear: this was not a contract. State pensions are technically a benefit. I add no value judgments to that, but since he made a legal point, I felt I should place the answer to it on the record.
Richard Harrington
I think I should continue, but the hon. Gentleman will have time at the end.
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.
Ian Blackford
The new information that I provided in my introductory speech was that a woman who was born in July 1953, who would have expected to retire in July 2013, was told by the DWP only in January 2012 that she would not be retiring until 2017. When did the Government and the Minister know of those facts? Why will they not now listen on that basis? The statement is that there will be no further changes, but these women have been seriously negatively impacted. The Minister must respond.
Richard Harrington
I shall respond in due course. I want to finish my point about the welfare system. The Government are spending £60 billion on supporting people on low incomes, £50 billion on supporting disabled people and £15 billion on incapacity benefits for working people. According to some of the contributions we have heard, it would appear that the Government are really not spending any money at all.
Ian Blackford
I thank all Members who have spoken in the debate. I have enormous respect for the Minister, as I think he knows, but I must say that I am plain disgusted with the response we have had this morning. To that end, I shall be contending that we have not considered the acceleration of the state pension age for women born in the 1950s.
This is not acceptable, because we are now looking at a cliff edge. As I explained, there is an increase in pensionable age of three months for every month that passes. The Minister talked about a leaflet—a leaflet!—that went to the women concerned. We now know that a woman born in 1953 was given just over one year’s notice in 2012 that her pension age was going to increase to July 2017. We now know that a woman born in September 1954 found out in February 2012 that, rather than retiring in 2014, she would be retiring in 2020. Where is the fairness? Where is the notice from this Government?
I have heard various figures from the Government, but this is the first time the House has been told about that £14 billion. The Minister should come with me and I will take him through the Institute for Public Policy Research model. I stand fully behind the £7.9 billion. To hear him dispute that figure is disingenuous, to say the least. The Government have failed to accept responsibility for the WASPI women. The Minister should hang his head in shame. The Government must act, and we will continue to push them.
Question put,
That this House has considered acceleration of the state pension age for women born in the 1950s.
The Chair’s opinion as to the decision of the Question was challenged.
Question not decided (Standing Order No. 10(13)).
Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)
The fact that the Question is not decided shall be reported to the House. It is possible for the Question to be put to the House subsequently for a decision without further debate.
Ian Blackford
On a point of order, Mr Nuttall. Given that this debate was granted by the Backbench Business Committee, I understand that it is open to any Member to take this to the Committee and ask its members to push for a vote on the matter in the House. The Government must and will be held to account.
Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)
As Mr Blackford will be aware, that is not a point of order for me. He is aware of the rules relating to access to the Backbench Business Committee, as all Members are.
Could Members who are not taking part in the next debate leave quietly and quickly, so we can make progress?
Improving Lives: Work, Health and Disability Green Paper
Ian Blackford Excerpts(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Green
As my hon. Friend knows, we have had private discussions on this point, and I have heard her discuss it on a number of public platforms as well. I can only repeat what I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith): although we are not looking for new cuts in the welfare budget or welfare benefits, we have no plans to reverse anything that has already been legislated for.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I welcome the Green Paper in the broadest sense if we can have a dialogue about improving the lives of disabled people, but the point has just been made that we need to ensure that the funding is on the table to protect people going back into work and those who need support. Perhaps two words are missing from the document and the Minister’s statement: “compassion” and “dignity”. Let us hope we get them in the Government’s response.
Damian Green
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman and am grateful for his general support. I absolutely agree that the system should show compassion at all times, and that those who deal with the system should feel that they are being dealt with with dignity, and that it is being preserved. We are at one on that.
AEA Pension Scheme
Ian Blackford Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am glad that my right hon. Friend raised that point. It has been said in previous debates and in correspondence with successive Ministers that the point about the availability of independent financial advice is material. To the argument I am making it is not material, because even though the pensioners could have sought independent financial advice, and even if it were the case—as a matter of fact, I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire is right that it would not be the case—that the independent financial adviser had advised them about the overall risk profile of the two possibilities, we would still have to ask why advice was given by the Government Actuary’s Department. If the pensioners were meant to rely exclusively on independent financial advice, the only appropriate posture for the Government Actuary’s Department would have been to say, “We’re not offering you any advice. This is not for us. Go to an independent financial adviser.”
On the contrary, the Government Actuary’s Department very unusually constructed a paper, of which we all have copies, and handed that to highly intelligent people with the intent of persuading them that it described the situation, which is the only presumption we can make. Why else would the Government Actuary’s Department give someone such a paper?
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in effect, what the Government Actuary’s Department has done is to give a subtle inducement to those who were in the UKAEA scheme to move across? At the end of the day, the Government should have some responsibility for exposing those pension plan holders to risk as a consequence of what has happened.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I agree that there was probably a subtle incentive, but I will come on to that in more detail in a moment. At this stage of the argument, all I am saying is something that I think is unchallengeably certain: the Government Actuary’s Department gave advice that did not bring to light the material difference in risk between one situation and another. That is fact. Beyond that, one can speculate, but that is fact.
When I say that the Government Actuary’s Department had a duty to highlight that difference of risk, I am again not speculating. Although at the time it did not exist, the Government Actuary’s Department now has a statement of practice. I have a copy of it in my hands. Under the heading “Security”, the statement of practice—essentially a code of conduct—says:
“It is recognised that the security of a private sector scheme cannot be provided in the same form as that applying in the public service”.
It is practically impossible to imagine that the Government Actuary’s Department would offer advice now in the form it did then, because it would be guided by its own code of practice. If it were not, I imagine rapid action would be taken to correct it, because if a Government Department issued a code of practice and then did not follow it, that would lead a Minister quickly to do something. Therefore we know that the Government Actuary’s Department had a duty, which unfortunately was not at that time written down in the code of practice, that it did not observe to bring to light the difference in security between the two positions. It did not do that.
It is important to make one last point about what the Government Actuary’s Department did. A freedom of information request has revealed an interesting sequence of events about which I intend in due course to write a little monograph, because it is very instructive about what happens inside Government and agencies when they engage in commercial transactions. The FOI revealed that there were exchanges of drafts between the Government Actuary’s Department, UKAEA and AEA Technology. The drafts went back and forth, and the various parties commented.
When the draft of the very section to which I am referring, which was at that time labelled 3.1.1 instead of 3.2.3—I will come on to that point, but it is ipsissima verba—was sent to AEA Technology, the person looking at it from AEA Technology noted in handwriting, “Delete”. So even an observation that it was possible the AEA Technology scheme might conceivably go bust, or that the UKAEA scheme might not deliver, was objected to by AEA Technology. It tried to get that deleted. To be fair to the UKAEA people and the Department then in charge of them, which is effectively now the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, that did not get deleted.
I mentioned, however, the numbering, which is also instructive. Section 3.1.1 became section 3.2.3 because UKAEA supported the AEAT proposition that the advantages of preserving—in other words, staying in the public sector—should not be presented before the advantages of transferring, as it was in the original draft, but vice versa. Indeed, that change was made. That whole sequence of events illustrates very clearly that AEA Technology and UKAEA had a joint interest in trying to get as many pensioners as possible to transfer into the AEA Technology scheme—not because they were evil schemers, but because they wanted that scheme to be viable. They were putting as much pressure as they could on the Government Actuary’s Department, to get as close as they could get it to go to telling the pensioners that that was a good thing to do.
To be fair to the Government Actuary’s Department, it did not say that that was a good thing to do, but it also did not illustrate the fact that if we looked at the risks, it was a very bad thing to do. That is a very important point. The Government Actuary’s Department did not just fail to point out the risks; it failed to point out the risks under conditions in which some pressure upon it was being brought not to reveal those risks in full.
I want to make one last point about the advice from the Government Actuary’s Department before I move on to the law. The role of the Government Actuary’s Department, which comes out clearly in the whole of its advice, was to look at the benefits of the two possibilities—remaining or transferring the accrued rights—and to see whether, on an actuarial basis, one was superior to the other or the other to the one. The Government Actuary’s Department concluded that there was not really anything to choose between them. That was translated into the view that all in all, the benefits were as good in the one case as the other. Of course, for a particular individual—this was pointed out—it might be different, but by and large, people got the same kind of benefit in the two cases.
We have the word of the Government Actuary’s Department that there would be no financial difference for pensioners, by and large, whether they stayed or went to the AEAT scheme—except, of course, that there was a huge difference. In the one case, they were getting the same benefits guaranteed, and in the other case they were getting the same benefits not guaranteed, because they were supported only by a commercial firm that could have gone bust and did go bust, and whose pension fund could have been in deficit and was in deficit—and lo and behold, they have indeed suffered.
Under pressure from those responsible for the transaction, the Government Actuary’s Department assessed the two schemes as being of equal value to employees without taking account of the difference in risk. It failed to point out that difference and therefore led the pensioners to believe that there was nothing particularly wrong with transferring their accrued rights to the AEAT scheme. They could have had the benefits guaranteed permanently had they remained in the UKAEA scheme, but they did not ever realise that great difference in risk.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) on bringing this—
Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
Order. Mr Blackford, I should have said that there is five minutes each for you and the Opposition spokesman and 10 minutes for the Minister, so if you could limit your remarks to five minutes, that would be great. Thank you.
Ian Blackford
I will do so, Ms Dorries, as I was intending to.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for West Dorset on securing this important debate. He has been assiduous in pushing the case, and his suggestion this afternoon of looking at amending the law as it affects the ombudsman certainly has some merit.
I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey). He has very accurately shown what happened with the advice that was given, some of the deficiencies that were there, and the possible interference from AEAT in that process and the advice that was given.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan) said in his concluding remarks, we need to remember that pensions are a contract, not a benefit. Those who have paid in to pension schemes deserve to get their due entitlement. It is the responsibility of the UK Government to ensure that there is confidence in the pensions industry throughout the UK. We all look forward to a time when people can save in pensions, secure in the knowledge that they will get their due entitlement. We need to have that confidence, and it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that the Pensions Regulator and the ombudsman discharge their obligations to ensure that the consumer interest is protected.
It is clear that pension scheme members in this case, as we heard last week in a debate in the main Chamber on the BHS scheme, are not fully protected—they are not protected to the extent that they should be. Lessons must be learned and appropriate action taken. Whether that is done through the ombudsman or the regulator is a moot point and we can come back to it in due course. What needs to be remarked on today is that, with the AEAT scheme ending up in the Pension Protection Fund, those who worked for the company when it was in the public sector have, among others, lost pension entitlement. The Government cannot walk away from their obligation to what were public sector workers. That is not acceptable.
It is clear from its conduct that the UK Government Actuary’s Department has ducked its responsibility to the AEAT pension scheme members. Liability has to lie somewhere. As discussed in a Westminster Hall debate on this topic in March last year, the Government Actuary’s Department was the author of a leaflet designed to inform pension scheme members of their next course of action in the light of the creation of AEAT. According to evidence given to the Pensions Ombudsman Service, that leaflet suggested three options, but also said that it was unlikely that the UKAEA scheme would fail or that
“the benefit promise made by either the UKAEA scheme or the AEAT scheme would ever be broken.”
That was in my book an inducement and assurance to the scheme members. Who will stand behind the scheme members who were made those promises? Will the Minister accept that the Government at least have a moral and ethical responsibility?
Richard Fuller
I heard the hon. Gentleman make these points in the British Home Stores debate last week. Does he not think that it will be very difficult for the Government to take action on employer behaviour that seems to fall below the norms that they would expect if they do not keep their own ship in order?
Ian Blackford
The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point. I argued last week and argue again today that we must learn the lessons of the failure that has taken place. We have to ensure that we create confidence in pensions—that is what emerges, whether we are talking about BHS, the AEAT scheme or many others. We have to look at the responsibility that the regulator and the trustees have, but it is a responsibility, ultimately, that we all have as legislators.
The pensions ombudsman said that the scheme’s post-privatisation survival, and hence scheme benefits, were not guaranteed:
“AEAT was a private sector company and so there was a risk of the company getting into financial difficulties or failing altogether.”
It is clear that the circumstances surrounding the information provided by GAD at the time of the transfer, or the lack thereof, warrant thorough investigation in the light of AEAT being unable to meet its commitments. If it is the case that vital information was left out of the leaflet, it is a serious matter and must be treated as such.
This would certainly not be the first time that a UK Government Department has been found guilty of misinforming pensioners. The shambolic handling of the notification process for the WASPI women has meant that thousands of women born in the 1950s face hardship, having unexpectedly to push back their retirement by years. The members of the AEAT scheme deserve a full and thorough investigation that incorporates the timelines from the creation of UKAEA to the present so that mistakes can be identified and those responsible held to account. When hard-working employees are promised a pension and it is not delivered, there should be a concerted effort to establish a thorough and independent investigation to determine accountability and all avenues that can be explored to protect pension rights.
The Scottish National party has long called for the establishment of an independent pensions commission to build the architecture to ensure that employees’ savings are protected, and that a more progressive approach to pensions is taken. Will the Minister commit the Government to doing that today? There are far too many issues affecting pensions policy and they need to be addressed in a holistic manner. Establishing a pensions commission would be an important step in ensuring fairness in pensions policy, dealing with problems such as this one and building confidence in pension saving.
In summary, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. For the first time in his capacity as Pensions Minister, I welcome him to the debate, and also welcome the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham).
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Blackford Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Green
I hope the hon. Lady will recognise that the figures I have quoted on a number of occasions show that child poverty and the number of children living in workless households has fallen. Clearly, there will be different percentages in different constituencies around the country, but we will continue on a path that gets more people into work and means that fewer children are in workless households, so that the prosperity can be spread across all parts of this country.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
The Minister will be aware that independent research commissioned by the Scottish National party has found that the Government’s figures on a solution for the WASPI women were wrong. Instead of £30 billion, mitigation could cost much less, at £8 billion. Given that there is a surplus in the national insurance fund, why does he not do the right thing and ensure that those women get mitigation?
Damian Green
Since September, the Scottish Government have had the power to pay benefits in many new areas; they can create new benefits and top up reserved benefits. The days when this Chamber was just a relaxing place where SNP Members could come to whinge are over. They now control a Government who have the power to do something about this and put their money where their mouth is.
Social Security
Ian Blackford Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I welcome the Minister to his place. It is a pleasure to see him here. We on the Scottish National party Benches look forward to working with him to the benefit of pensioners when it is appropriate to do so.
We welcome the measure in so far as it enables the award of certain income-related benefits to be adjusted automatically when the new state pension is uprated, but when the measure was drawn up was consideration given to the results of the EU referendum and the uncertainty that arises for the 400,000 UK pensioners living in EU countries? The House will be aware that long-standing rules enable the co-ordination of social security entitlements for people moving within the EU. One result is that the UK state pensioners resident in EU countries receive annual increases to their UK state pension. Elsewhere, the UK state pension is uprated only if there is a reciprocal social security agreement requiring this.
The Government could have taken the opportunity today with these measures to address the concerns of the 400,000 UK pensioners living in the EU. Why has this not been done? Does the Minister agree that those UK citizens residing in EU countries who are entitled to a UK pension and all annual increments, as would be the case if they were living in the UK, should have those rights protected after the Brexit vote? Can he give an assurance today that this will happen?
In a parliamentary answer on the issue on 8 July the then Minister for Europe, now Leader of the House, said:
“It will be for the next Prime Minister to determine, along with their Cabinet, exactly the right approach to take in negotiating these provisions going forward but the Government’s guiding principle will be ensuring the best possible outcome for the British people.”
Given that the Prime Minister has had time to settle in, there has been ample opportunity to address this question. May we have an answer today and remove this uncertainty for UK pensioners? Prior to our entry into the EU, the UK had bilateral arrangements with a number of European countries. What will be the situation where this was previously the case? Do those arrangements remain in force and can the Minister reassure pensioners in those countries?
The measures before us also fail to address the issue of the 500,000 UK pensioners living in territories where there is no annual uprating. Why are not the Government bringing forward today plans to restore annual uprating to all British pensioners, based on entitlement and regardless of domicile? It is morally unjust and truly unfair for the Government to strip pensioners of their right to equal state pension payments. There are a host of reasons why a pensioner may choose to move abroad in later life, such as wanting to be closer to family or friends, or to enjoy a different lifestyle. It is simply wrong to punish them for making that choice.
Pensioners who have paid the required national insurance contributions during their working lives, in expectation of a decent basic pension in retirement, will find themselves living on incomes that fall in real terms year on year. Payment of national insurance contributions in order to qualify for a state pension is mandatory. All recipients of the British state pension have made these contributions, and although historically the level of pension received has varied according to the level of contributions made, it is clearly unfair to differentiate payment levels by any other criterion.
Pensioners will now face ending their days in poverty because they chose to live in the wrong country, in most cases without any knowledge of the implications of their choice for their pension. Others are forced back to the UK, away from the family they love, just to secure an income on which they can retire. All should receive their full and uprated pension according to their contribution, regardless of where they choose to reside. Reform would bring the UK into line with international norms, as most other developed countries now pay their state pension equivalents in this way. We are the only OECD member that does not do so.
Most pensioners had no idea that their pension would be frozen when they chose to emigrate. The frozen pension policy acts as a disincentive to pensioner emigration. As the International Consortium of British Pensioners put it, people currently living in the UK who would like to emigrate and who are aware of the frozen pension policy know they would not be able to afford to live on a state pension at its current level in their older years, by which time inflation will have decreased its value, and accordingly they decide not to move.
There is a real disparity in the treatment of UK pensioners and no consistency in how overseas British pensioners are treated. Those who live in the US Virgin Islands get a full UK state pension; those who live in the British Virgin Islands do not. Overseas pensioners are entitled to fairness. The state pension is, after all, a right, not a privilege. It is not a benefit; it is an entitlement to a pension based on paying national insurance contributions.
Given that the measures before us are provisions that support the annual exercise to uprate social security benefits in payment, will the Minister clarify the Government’s position on the triple lock? There have been suggestions that the triple lock may not survive. We on the SNP Benches fully support the continuation of the triple lock. It is the right thing to do to protect the interests of our pensioners. Will the Minister join me in championing the triple lock and commit the Government to continuing with it?
As we are talking about pensioners’ rights, equity and fairness, can the Minister tell us why, when we are discussing the state pension, there is no mention of the WASPI—Women against State Pension Inequality—women and no solution to the injustices that many face in this secondary legislation package? It is not right that women born after 1953 are having to wait so much longer than those born in previous years to collect their state pension. The Government will have to bring forward mitigation to deal with these injustices, and do so quickly. Why are there no measures in this package to deal with those issues?
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Blackford Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
This is about doing what is right. We are talking about British pensioners living overseas who have paid national insurance. Why not remove that uncertainty? Why not guarantee what they are entitled to? It is all about doing the right thing with a new Prime Minister. Let us get off on the right foot and make sure that happens..