Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jack Dromey and Guy Opperman

Monday 7th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

With great respect to my right hon. Friend, I refer him to the judgment in last Thursday’s case, a copy of which I will place in the Library of the House of Commons—in particular, paragraph 118 and the successive paragraphs in which the High Court outlines the exact work that was done in copious detail.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

Some 3.8 million women born in the 1950s who built Britain face hardship as a consequence of pension changes by this Government. Before the Court, they were told with cavalier disregard that they had no right to be consulted on the change of retirement age. Labour has already committed to some preliminary measures—early retirement and pension credit—and we will now consult with the women concerned about how much further we can go to bring justice to them. Thus far, the Government have committed to nothing. However, the Prime Minister said during the Conservative leadership contest that he is committed to doing “everything” he can to bring justice to the 1950s women. Can the Minister update the House on progress, or will this be another cynical broken promise on the part of the Prime Minister?

[Guy Opperman]

This is the matter of a court case which may be the subject of appeal. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman—who is, to his discredit, a friend of mine—the honest truth is that he should be consulting with a 1950s-born woman who was Secretary of State at the Department for Work and Pensions: the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who is also his wife and who was responsible for the continuation of the self-same policy that he now objects to. For 13 years, the Labour party did the perfectly proper thing of taking due account of equality and the rises in life expectancy, and it should stick to that, having made those decisions for 13 years.

Access to Pension Credit

Debate between Jack Dromey and Guy Opperman

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Guy Opperman]

I will not give way again, because I have a lot of points to cover.

I want to deal with the point that the hon. Lady and other Members made about the state pension age increase. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) is married to a former Minister, now Mother of House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who was in favour of the state pension age in the dim distant past in 1997, when she was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Hon. Members will understand that I am the latest in a long line of Ministers who have continued the policy of successive Governments to increase the state pension age by reason of equality legislation and the increase in life expectancy, which is light years away from the three score years and ten of our grandparents.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) raised the situation of the Scottish Government in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham; I refer the House to the letter of 22 June 2017 from my opposite number Jeane Freeman to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), in which she explains the section 26, 28 and 24 powers under the Scotland Act 1998, which provide opportunities for the Scottish Government to intervene should they so choose, particularly in respect of the section 26 discretionary payments.

I now turn to the issue of the BBC. Its decision to limit free TV licences only to those aged 75 and over and in receipt of pension credit is disappointing. We expected it to continue the concession, and we want it to look at other options to help more elderly people who rely on TV to stay connected to the world. The BBC has indicated that it will write to all existing TV licence holders, advising them of how the new policy will work and when they need to act.

The Government look forward to hearing more from the BBC about its detailed plans for communicating and implementing that change. That is clearly a matter for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport; Government officials continue to engage with the BBC, but it would be wrong not to point out that in 2015, when the decision was made, the director-general at the time stated:

“I think we have a deal here which is a strong deal for the BBC. It gives us financial stability...The government’s decision here to put the cost of the over-75s on us has been more than matched by the deal coming back for the BBC…I think being in control of our income…is a very grown-up response for the BBC and a grown-up response for any organisation”.

The House can draw its own conclusions from what Lord Hall said in 2015 and the consequent decision that it has made. I hope that the BBC will think again once it has reflected on the comments that it made in 2015 and the nature of the pushback that there has been.

[Jack Dromey]

Is the Minister seriously suggesting that the Government bear no responsibility whatsoever for the BBC’s decision? Does that not sound like the Government are washing their hands of responsibility?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jack Dromey and Guy Opperman

Monday 1st July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

The pensioners who built Britain deserve nothing but the best in retirement, yet there are 1 million households in poverty because, according to research conducted by Independent Age, the Government have held on to a staggering £7 billion since the general election in unclaimed pension credit, increasing to over £17 billion by 2022— £10 million a day. What has been the Government’s response? An online toolkit used by 2,000 people last year. How do the Government begin to justify plunging 1 million pensioners into poverty? What will they do to ensure that all pensioners get the security and dignity they deserve?

[Guy Opperman]

The hon. Gentleman will know that, actually, pension credit applications are up significantly. It is also the case that successive Governments have attempted to promote pension credit. I share the frustration of colleagues that it is not higher than it presently is, but I want to emphasise that the DWP uses a variety of means to communicate and we urge all pensioners to apply for pension credit through the usual manner, whether through trusted third parties, jobcentres, local authorities or the like.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jack Dromey and Guy Opperman

Monday 13th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

My hon. Friend raises several points, but unquestionably the situation in relation to overseas pensions has been consistently enforced by every Government of every persuasion since the second world war, and there is no anticipation of changing that.

Of course, we will ensure that individual members of DWP staff up and down the country are able to go to their line managers and then to Members of Parliament or individual members of the Government on an ongoing basis.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

Pensioner poverty halved under the most recent Labour Government; it has increased by 400,000 under this Government, with one in six pensioners living in poverty. Having broken one manifesto pledge on TV licences, Ministers are now breaking a second one, as mixed-aged couples are no longer being paid pension credit if one of them is under retirement age. How can the Government begin to justify the breaking of a solemn promise, particularly in circumstances where it will cost the couple concerned a staggering £7,320 a year?

[Guy Opperman]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the overall trend in the percentage of pensioners in poverty is a dramatic fall over several decades. The rates of material deprivation for pensioners are at a record low at this stage.

On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, couples who currently receive pension credit or housing benefit will not be affected by the change, as long as they remain entitled to either benefit. Claimants who would be eligible for pension credit or housing benefit for pensioners under the current rules but have not claimed before 15 May have until 13 August to make a backdated claim.

[Jack Dromey]

From Carillion to BHS, workers’ pensions are being put at risk by bad bosses, sloppy practices and poor enforcement. We have campaigned against that injustice. The defined benefit White Paper has proposed stronger powers and penalties. Ministers have promised to introduce such legislation, which we would support. Will the Government keep at least this promise so that we can send out a joint message that says, “Never again a Philip Green”?

[Guy Opperman]

We are agreed across the House that there must be action on defined benefits so that we stop what took place with Philip Green, and to address that the Secretary of State has brought forward proposals in the defined benefit White Paper. We propose to bring forward a Bill, when parliamentary time allows, to address the DB White Paper, collective defined contributions, Dashboard and a number of other matters, and I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman on a cross-party basis to make that happen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jack Dromey and Guy Opperman

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

If the hon. Lady sends that case to the Department, I and the Minister concerned will look into it specifically.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

In legislating to allow 140,000 Royal Mail workers to benefit from the CDC scheme, will the Government also legislate as soon as possible to compel employer contribution with the pensions dashboard and to strengthen powers and criminal penalties available to the regulator, to provide a better pension for tens of thousands of workers, to help all workers to plan for their retirement, to protect workers and to send an unmistakeable message to the Philip Greens of this world that those who rob workers of their pension security will end up in the dock?

[Guy Opperman]

The hon. Gentleman and I are united in our desire for a Bill that addresses collective defined-contribution, compulsion on dashboards and the defined-benefit reforms that we all agree are both required and necessary. I am confident that with a constructive, cross-party approach, over the next few months, with the hon. Gentleman and other political parties, we can introduce those measures very soon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jack Dromey and Guy Opperman

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

Nearly half a million senior citizens living abroad, who have paid in all their life, currently enjoy the guarantee that their state pension will be uprated annually. The same is true for pension entitlement built up working in another European Union state. With 81 days to go until Brexit, does the Minister recognise that the Government’s total mishandling of Brexit means that we might crash out with a no-deal Brexit, and that in those circumstances it would be not just our jobs and economy that would be put at risk but the security and dignity of a whole generation of pensioners?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

The Government have a cross-departmental strategy on Brexit. The reality is that the policy for overseas pensioners has continued since the second world war, was endorsed by the previous Labour Government and is continued by this Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jack Dromey and Guy Opperman

Monday 19th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

It was a delight to visit The People’s Pension with my hon. Friend, to see the hundreds of local staff who are doing such a fantastic job and the work that the company is doing as a great local employer, to receive a Crawley Town football shirt—I must confess that I have not yet worn it—and to support a great local business.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

Auto-enrolment was a landmark achievement, a creation of the last Labour Government. I welcome the progress that has been made, but does the Minister agree that the threshold is too high—37% of female workers, 33% of workers with a disability, and 28% of black, Asian and ethnic-minority workers do not enjoy auto-enrolment—and that it cannot be right for workers under the age of 22 to be excluded?

[Guy Opperman]

I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that while auto-enrolment has been a cross-party success story, it was this Government who actually introduced it. The issue that he raises was comprehensively addressed by the 2017 auto-enrolment review, which was conducted by three independent support organisations, and the key points that he raises are being addressed in the current AE review.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jack Dromey and Guy Opperman

Monday 15th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

That is part of the feasibility study and something that we are looking at on an ongoing basis, but I am happy to discuss this in more detail with the hon. Gentleman.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

It is nothing short of astonishing that the Secretary of State sought to pull the plug on the groundbreaking cross-party pensions dashboard, designed to help workers know what they have saved and what they have to save to ensure a decent income in retirement, and all easily accessible in one place. Will the Minister now ensure an obligation on providers to supply the necessary information to the pensions dashboard, and can we be confident that the Secretary of State, whose capacity to get it wrong knows no bounds, will not make a renewed attempt to thwart the pensions dashboard?

[Guy Opperman]

Is it not rich that the Labour party, which never came up with or implemented a pensions dashboard, is criticising us, who are doing exactly that? Let me make it acutely clear that this is a party that works together, and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I, and all the members of the DWP team, are completely behind the pensions dashboard.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jack Dromey and Guy Opperman

Monday 2nd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

It is always good to hear the dinosaur that is my friend from the north-east, the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn). He was in government between 1997 and 2010 when he could have changed the law and did not. The reality of the situation is that the richest 1% have never paid more tax than at present and that corporation tax reductions create jobs, as has been comprehensively proved. He, I am afraid, has no grasp of the facts as they now are.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

rose—

[Jack Dromey]

Women born in the 1950s are the victims of a monumental pensions injustice. Christine is 62 and cannot retire until she is 66. Her husband has died, and she now has to do three cleaning jobs to make ends meet. At the very least, will the Government follow the lead of the Labour Mayor for Greater Manchester and introduce free bus travel for the women affected? They deserve better.

[Guy Opperman]

I merely repeat the point that I made previously: between 1997 and 2010, there was a Labour Government. Not only did they support this policy, but they expanded it through the Pensions Act 2008, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well, raised the state pension age.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jack Dromey and Guy Opperman

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

It was a Labour Government who created the Pensions Regulator in 2004, and I think we can all agree that there are lessons to be learned from Carillion and other recent high-profile cases. However, there are two options. We either try to discredit an organisation and run it down or—this is my choice—support the regulator, give it the further powers that we set out in detail in the defined benefit pension schemes White Paper and stress that the vast majority of employers do right by their employees.

[Jack Dromey]

The DB White Paper proposes criminal charges for directors who neglect their duties. Would Carillion’s directors go to jail under the proposed changes to the law? If not, why not?

[Guy Opperman]

I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman as we steer the DB White Paper into legislation, but the legislation is looking at the future—it is not necessarily retrospective.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jack Dromey and Guy Opperman

Monday 26th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

The Port Talbot shift supervisor wept as he told the story of how he had been conned out of his pension, and that 20 people on his shift had followed his lead. The ban on pensions cold-calling is welcome, but will the Minister go further to ensure that it is for the Financial Conduct Authority, not just the Information Commissioner, to play a role in enforcement, so that those who act disreputably using information obtained through cold-calling are struck off and can never practise again?

[Guy Opperman]

I will answer this question in detail tomorrow, when I have more time. Anyone considering transferring their pension should speak to the Pensions Advisory Service.

State Pension Age

Debate between Jack Dromey and Guy Opperman

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for arranging to let me have sight of it earlier this morning.

The state pension for women born in the 1950s should be set in the wider context of the Government’s—uninspiring, I have to say—track record on pensions. Last July, the Government announced that they would be bringing forward the increase in the state pension age to 68 in 2037, justifying this on the increase in life expectancy. However, in the same week, the renowned expert on life expectancy, Professor Sir Michael Marmot, described how a century-long rise in life expectancy was

“pretty close to having ground to a halt,”

and had flatlined since 2010—in part, I have to say, the consequence of Government policy on austerity.

Since then, statisticians from the ONS have revealed that by 2041 life expectancy for men and women would be a year less than had been projected just two years previously. In addition the ONS has revealed that, although women continue to live longer in good health than men, their healthy life expectancy has decreased since 2009. Yet more evidence from Public Health England shows how deep inequalities in healthy life expectancy remain. On average, people in the UK are now projected to live shorter lives than previously estimated. Does the Minister agree?

It is in this context that the Government are failing women born in the 1950s. This statement does nothing to address the pensions injustice these women face. The Government have had multiple opportunities to act, so why is the Minister again refusing to use the opportunity of a motion passed by this House to do so and to take further steps? It is unacceptable that we are having to make this same argument and raise the same points again because this Government continue to refuse to help these women, who are suffering and losing out due to the acceleration of the state pension age and lack of proper notice. This issue is not going to go away. Why do the Government continue to act as though it will? This statement is, sadly but not unsurprisingly, yet another example of the Government’s failure to give women born in the 1950s the dignity and respect they deserve. It is a missed opportunity to take real action.

We have all heard often heart breaking stories from many thousands of women affected by the changes about how the situation they face is one of desperation and fear of poverty. Christine in my constituency is 62 and is now having to wait until she is 66 to retire, with both her husband and her father having just died. In her words, “Not that cleaning jobs are a bad thing, but I have never done a cleaning job in my life and I am now having to do three cleaning jobs to make ends meet until such time as I can retire.” That is wrong.

It is to this Government’s shame that they refuse to recognise the very real basis for the fears of women such as Christine. What immediate measures will the Government take to address this appalling situation? Does the Minister understand how difficult it is for many women in their 60s to retrain and access decent work? What support will his Department offer these women—or will he repeat the bizarre proposal made from the Conservative Benches that they might take up apprenticeships?

As we have repeatedly set out, there are several immediate actions the Government could and should take, but time and again they have refused. Can the Minister explain why he refuses to offer women affected by Government changes to the state pension age the cost-neutral option to draw their state pension at age 64, as we have proposed? That would allow women who choose it to retire up to two years earlier.

The pension age is due to rise to 66 by the end of 2020. We reject the Government’s proposal to increase the state pension age even further. We will act by putting in place a new review of the pension age, specifically tasked with developing a flexible retirement policy that reflects the contributions people make, the wide variations in life expectancy and the arduous conditions of some work.

It is also right to extend pension credit to those who were due to retire before the increase in the pension age, which would benefit hundreds of thousands of women. Will the Minister look again at that proposal?

In conclusion, sadly, this statement does nothing to help women born in the 1950s. Actions are needed, not words, if the Government are to restore some of the faith and dignity that many people feel they have lost as a result of the Government’s refusal to act and to introduce proper transitional procedures. These are the women of Britain—the women who built this country. They deserve nothing less.

[Guy Opperman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He seeks an independent review of the state pension age. Well, the Government did that last year. The Cridland review was independent of Government and it published its conclusion, just as the Labour party manifesto called for. The review’s findings supported the assertions that the Government have put forward.

The Labour party used to be financially credible, but sadly those days are long gone. The Labour party, under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, passed the Pensions Act 2007, which raised the state pension age. We now have the bizarre situation in which the Labour party manifesto states that the state pension age should not go beyond 66. In other words, it is going back on its own decision in 2007. Its credibility is sadly lacking.

The situation is further complicated by Labour’s reliance on Michael Marmot. The shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions keeps relying upon him, and the hon. Gentleman repeated that today. Michael Marmot made it very clear that “improvements in life expectancy at birth, which had been around a one-year increase every five years for women, and every three and a half years for men, have slowed since 2010 to a one-year increase every 10 years for women and ever six years for men.” The point is that the increase is still going ahead; it might have slowed to a degree, but life expectancy continues to rise.

The Labour party agreed in 2004 that the ONS cohort figures should be accepted and then followed them thereafter. The ONS produced a report last December on life expectancy at birth, which found that in 50 years’ time, by 2066, cohort life expectancy at birth is projected to reach 98 years for females and 96 for males, a rise of over six years for both genders. In 2018 life expectancy at birth is projected to be 92 for women and 89 for men.

Let me touch briefly on the Fuller Working Lives strategy, which I am sad to say the Labour party seems no longer to support. There are 1.2 million people over the age of 65 in employment, which should be celebrated. It is entirely right that retraining might not be suitable for everyone, but it is also right that Governments of every hue should provide opportunities for those who wish to take those things up. For example, over the most recent nine-month period, the number of apprenticeship starts for people between the ages of 45 and 59 was 53,000, and for the over-60s it was 3,400. That means thousands of people taking opportunities for retraining. With respect, that should be supported.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Debate between Jack Dromey and Guy Opperman

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Guy Opperman]

Although the Committee has finished earlier than programmed, I think it is fair to say that the Bill has received thorough scrutiny from hon. Members in all particular ways. Some measures have been more scrutinised than others, even though they were not particularly on the amendment paper as appropriate for scrutiny.

I put on the record my thanks to your good self, Mr Rosindell, and also to Mr Stringer for keeping us moderately in order and for running the sessions so smoothly. I also thank Hansard, the Doorkeepers and the Clerks for enabling us to get through the business so efficiently. On behalf of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and myself, I thank the multitude of officials who have kept us in order. I also thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, for the Opposition, and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, for the Scottish National party, for the constructive way in which they have engaged with the debate. We believe we are taking forward a Bill that all parties fundamentally support, and doing the right thing. I look forward to continuing any of those further discussions on Report.

[Jack Dromey]

To respond briefly, I echo those thanks to all who have played their part in the passage thus far of the Bill, initially through the other place and then through the House of Commons.

I will make two points. First, as I said on Second Reading, this is a good Bill and a welcome step in the right direction. The establishment of the SFGB is welcome indeed. Crucially, we now need to make it effective at the next stages. In Committee we set out, as we said on Second Reading, to further strengthen the Bill and to inject what I called a “sense of urgency” into certain of the provisions contained in the Bill.

Secondly, I hope the Government will reflect on what has been said in respect of both cold calling and default guidance on Report. In conclusion, it would be churlish not to recognise that this is a welcome step in the right direction. I thank both Ministers concerned for their constructive engagement. Would that that was always possible on all occasions on all issues with those on the Government Front Bench. Having said that, it would be churlish indeed not to reflect that engagement. I hope the Ministers accept on Report the overwhelming logic and power of argument in respect of cold calling and default.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jack Dromey and Guy Opperman

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

A Port Talbot shift supervisor was badly advised by a pensions predator preying on him who made him take the wrong choice. “I will never forgive myself”, he said, “because all 20 on my shift followed my lead.” In an otherwise welcome Bill, in the words of Baroness Altmann,

“the Government seems to have bowed to industry pressure and proposes to weaken consumer protection for pension customers. By removing a clause introduced in the House of Lords…more people are at risk of losing their hard-earned savings in scams, frauds and unwise pension withdrawals.”

She is absolutely right. Will the Government think again?

[Guy Opperman]

I am grateful to have the opportunity to replay the same debate that we had in the Bill Committee last Thursday. I will give the same answer, which is that, with no disrespect to Baroness Altmann, she is incorrect on this point. The Government are addressing pensions guidance. We have introduced very stringent new laws. We have improved on the point raised by the Work and Pensions Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), who sits on that Committee, agreed in the Bill Committee last Thursday.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

The behaviour of Philip Green on BHS pensions was outrageous; likewise, Carillion paying dividends and big bonuses, while running up a £900 million pensions deficit. We expect better from our universities; does the Secretary of State agree that it cannot be right that they are proposing to cut the pension benefits of staff just when one vice-chancellor alone at Edinburgh university has accepted a 33% salary hike as part of a package worth £410,000?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

With respect, this is not a matter for Government to respond on. The joint negotiating committee, which is made up of trustees, employers and unions, is responsible for approving an appropriate recovery plan to ensure the scheme is adequately funded. The universities are subject to regular assessment of their overall financial sustainability management and governance, and I am sure the Pensions Regulator will therefore be watching this situation.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Debate between Jack Dromey and Guy Opperman

Thursday 1st February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

I had anticipated that we would deal with amendments 27, 29 and 39 together. I thought that they would have been grouped, but I will address amendment 27 to start, and take your guidance from there, Mr Rosindell.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington proposes in amendment 27 to amend the Bill by a single word. The strategic function of the Bill as drafted and its three elements have been carefully designed, and I believe that the amendment should not be made. Through its strategic function, the guidance body will bring together interested partners in the sector, various services, the public and voluntary sectors and the devolved administrations with the aim of improving the ability of members of the public to manage their finances effectively. To that end, the body will develop and co-ordinate a national strategy.

The Money Advice Service has been undertaking that vital role to date, and key stakeholders agree that that important work should continue and be expanded. The national strategy will succeed only if the new body works effectively with its many partner organisations in the financial services and other sectors in a collective effort with shared ownership and accountability. Indeed, the premise of the national strategy is that one organisation working independently has little chance of making a great impact, but many working together have more. The role of the new body will be to drive the process forward and oversee its implementation, but not to be solely responsible for the delivery of the strategy in its entirety. For those good reasons, I urge the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington to withdraw the amendment.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. Briefly, in the words of the Minister, a national strategy will be pursued at the next stages, including a range of stakeholders and, I suspect, other enforcement bodies. Flowing from what the Minister said, the question is who will drive that at the next stages. The single financial guidance body will clearly and undoubtedly have a pivotal and central function.

[Guy Opperman]

indicated assent.

[Jack Dromey]

I see the Minister nodding his head in agreement. In those circumstances, we look for a dynamic body to do precisely that: drive the national strategy. On that basis, I am content not to press the amendment.

[The Chair]

Amendment 29 is part of the same group. Does the Minister wish to speak?

[Guy Opperman]

Amendment 29 seeks to add another strand to the three existing areas of the strategy set out in the Bill. The Government agree with the hon. Gentleman on the overall principle that the strategy of the new body needs to be future-proof and flexible, to meet the challenges that an evolving modern economy might bring. Clearly the Taylor review is relevant to all those factors, but we do not believe that the amendment is necessary. It lacks a specific focus and would risk diverting focus and resources from the areas that we believe the body should prioritise through its strategic function. As I understand it, the amendment is not sought by existing providers. In the circumstances, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.

[Jack Dromey]

It is not for one moment our intention to divert focus from the body’s core and strategic function. All I would say is that the changes taking place in the modern labour market are immense, complex and often profoundly disturbing. To give one example from my personal history, in 2003-04, alongside Gillian Shephard, I chaired the coalition of support that resulted in the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. From plough to plate— from the National Farmers Union to the supermarkets—it sought to tackle some of the worst abuses of workers and the undercutting of reputable providers by rogues. My experience—like that of all Committee members, I suspect—is that there is much in the modern workplace and the world of work that is profoundly disturbing and needs to be tackled. Having said that, the Minister said himself that the body would take account of the demands in the modern labour market.

As far as the Taylor process is concerned, I know Matthew very well and his report contains some valuable proposals, although I do not agree with them all. It is helpful that on the Government’s part there has been a focus on the modern labour market, including the gig economy. In those circumstances, particularly in the light of what the Minister said about the context of the Taylor review and the demands of the modern labour market, I shall not press the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

I should have said before that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Rosindell, and I welcome you to the Committee.

The hon. Member for Makerfield is right that a significant number of organisations provide, in a primary school setting, particular aspects of financial education in various shapes and forms, whether it is the Association for Citizenship Teaching, MyBnk, the Personal Finance Education Group or a variety of other organisations, and I would happily talk for some considerable period of time and overindulge the Committee on LifeSavers. As she knows, I set up a community bank in my constituency with Archbishop John Sentamu on 5 November 2015, and that community bank has bid for the LifeSavers project in Northumberland, and provides six schools with that financial education. We run six different banks in six different schools in my community. That work is extraordinarily successful. The original pioneer is in Lewisham, which I know the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford, will be interested to hear, and the success rate has been wonderful.

The proposal is that the single financial guidance body should have a look at, and then come up with a strategic assessment of, what the provision of financial education of children and young people should be. I take issue with the Opposition on whether Ofsted should judge schools on the basis of financial education. I say, with respect, that it most definitely should not. Ofsted itself does not seek that, so I definitely disagree with paragraph (a) of the amendment. Ofsted, which has been consulted in broad terms, thinks that it would be inappropriate to inspect financial education specifically, since it usually inspects not individual subjects but the curriculum as a whole.

On the broader points raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, the curriculum is ultimately a matter for the Department for Education. He is right that financial education was brought into the secondary context under the coalition Government. Successive Governments have drilled down on the importance of maths, which is an absolute prerequisite and is fundamental to the education of our young people. The maths curriculum has been strengthened to give pupils from five to 16 the necessary maths skills, and I am sure he has seen in his own constituency the success of mental maths and advanced maths in primary schools. We responded to the House of Lords Committee’s report on financial exclusion in a similar way—I make the same case here.

It will be for the single financial guidance body to target specific areas of need, and to match individual funders and providers of education projects and initiatives aimed at children. The amendment is very broad brush. I would prefer the guidance body to be able to zero in on particular areas. That is the purpose of making overall assessment one of its strategic functions. That means that it will be better able to deliver what we all want: enhanced financial education for our children.

We agree about objectives, but I am not sure that we agree about the way forward for delivery. With respect, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

[Jack Dromey]

My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield made a powerful point about the importance of primary schools as places of contact—sometimes the only place of contact—with people who are struggling in their lives. My experience from a number of projects is that what is done in primary school reads across to a child’s parents, so her point is very valuable indeed.

We can question how this should be done, but it is now public policy that children should be involved in financial education. A valuable start has been made with secondary schools, and we will seek at subsequent stages of the Bill to engage with the Government about how that might be extended further. There are questions about the context for that, including the overall maths context, but that can be teased out at the next stage.

Finally, if there is a coalition of support in the Committee for lobbying the Treasury on LifeSavers, I say: “Yes please, but don’t stop at LifeSavers.” On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Jack Dromey]

I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 3, page 3, line 32, at end insert—

“(d) the understanding members of the public have on how the duties placed on financial service providers under the Equality Act 2010, including the requirements on service providers to make reasonable adjustments, can enhance their ability to manage their financial affairs.”

This amendment would ensure members of the public are informed about what financial services companies need to do to comply with the Equality Act, in particular the duty to put in place reasonable adjustments for disabled customers.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that members of the public are informed about what financial services companies need to do to comply with the Equality Act 2010—in particular, but not exclusively, the duty to put in place reasonable adjustments for disabled customers. We are rightly proud of that landmark Act in this country, and I am particularly proud that it was introduced by a Labour Government. There have been subsequent problems with its implementation and, dare I say, without wishing to divert into areas where we would disagree, the implementation of clause 1 of the Equality Act is yet to take place. Having said that, on disability matters, there would certainly be consensus around ensuring that people who have problems with their health and who have disabilities of different kinds get the support that they need and are not taken advantage of.

Under the Act, a person is disabled if they have a “physical or mental impairment” that has

“a substantial and long-term adverse effect”

on their ability

“to carry out normal day-to-day activities”.

In that case, a duty to provide goods, facilities or services falls on providers, employers and a range of other parties. People automatically meet the disability definition under the Act from the day that they are diagnosed with a condition such as cancer, multiple sclerosis or HIV infection.

If an organisation that provides goods, facilities or services to the public finds that there are barriers to disabled people in the way it operates, it has an obligation to act, including to consider making reasonable adjustments. If those adjustments are reasonable for that organisation to make, it must make them. That duty is sometimes described as anticipatory, which means that an organisation cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use its goods, facilities or services, but must think in advance and on an ongoing basis about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.

An organisation is not required to do more than is reasonable for it to do—I stress that again—but that depends, among other factors, on its size and nature, and on the nature of the goods, facilities and services it provides. Making disabled customers and their advocates aware of that duty means that they will be able to ask their financial service provider to potentially adjust the GFS it offers and to remove any barriers.

Although I would be the first to accept that there is good practice in the sector when it comes to making adjustments for visual and hearing impairments, that is rarely done in the context of the legal framework. In certain circumstances, where that is not done and where conditions such as a cancer diagnosis or neuro-diverse disabilities such as autism, brain injuries and dementia are not considered, that means that people are let down and there is a failure to comply with the terms of the law. For example, the Alzheimer’s Society reports that 66% of people with dementia need some assistance when using a bank and 80% of carers said that banks need a greater understanding of lasting powers of attorney. On the one hand, there is the legal obligation, and on the other, there is an undoubted need for it to be complied with.

There is no reference to the duty to make reasonable adjustments in the Financial Conduct Authority’s handbook. Frankly, I am surprised at that. The handbook contains provisions set out in legislation that are relevant to the FCA and other provisions made by way of instruments by the FCA. It contains a mixture of rules, which are binding obligations that can result in enforcement action if not adhered to, as well as guidance. The amendment will ensure that disabled people or their advocates are informed about the duty to make reasonable adjustments and that they can use that information to ask financial service providers to make adjustments to the goods, facilities and services they provide, which could include removing physical barriers or making services dementia-friendly.

[Guy Opperman]

It is a pleasure to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s speech. I will make three key points: I will discuss whether the Equality Act applies to this body in future; I want to give some assurances to the House on an ongoing basis, because that really matters; and I will briefly deal with the point about the duty of care.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey]

I strongly agree with the hon. Lady, and that is something we might pursue, including on a joint basis, at the next stages. The “Dying to Work” campaign’s objectives are right. To make the obvious point, she will have seen at first hand what a battle it is for people like Jacci, and I am sure that all of us have come across some very powerful cases in our constituencies. The banks and the financial institutions should absolutely, without hesitation, follow Santander’s lead. Santander is to be congratulated for what it did. Do we have a marketplace where everyone conducts themselves in the same way? No, we do not, so the hon. Lady raises a very valuable point.

In terms of the Minister’s response, it is welcome that, following Second Reading, the situation with regard to the Bill is unambiguous. I want to make two additional points. First, we will return to duty of care later. Secondly, the issue of enforcement is very important. The Equality and Human Rights Commission will have a watchdog role to play, but it is important that, from the start, the single financial guidance body is obliged in law to build into the culture of its operation, as we have argued, oversight of how financial institutions conduct themselves in terms of services, goods and facilities for the disabled.

[Guy Opperman]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the whole reason we introduced the vulnerable circumstances provision in the Bill was to address that exact point. I cannot stress enough, and I have made the point repeatedly today, that the objective specifically enshrined in the Bill is that the particular needs of people in vulnerable circumstances need to be borne in mind.

[Jack Dromey]

That is welcome. All I will say is that, in our experience, there can be a law or a set of legal obligations, but are they necessarily carried out in practice? In fact, to take the Santander example once again, it took a view that it should do the right thing and that it was obliged by law to do so, but not every provider necessarily takes the same view. The issue of enforcement is key. I stress again that the Equality and Human Rights Commission has a role to play, but at the heart of the SFGB’s operation should be action to ensure that the disabled are not disadvantaged. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Specific requirements as to the pensions guidance function

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

In the circumstances, I am delighted to say that I do not believe this clause is controversial.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Debt respite scheme: advice to the Secretary of State

[Jack Dromey]

I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 7, page 5, line 24, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act comes into force, introduce a debt respite scheme.”

This amendment will require the Secretary of State to set up a debt respite scheme within 6 months of this Act coming into force.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Guidance and directions from the Secretary of State

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Guy Opperman]

The clause gives the power to give guidance to the single financial guidance body and directions specifically on the way it exercises its functions. I do not believe that it is contentions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Setting standards

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Guy Opperman]

I will briefly address the matter of the standards, which the clause will require the single financial guidance body to set out, and their enforcement and monitoring. The clause will require the FCA to review those standards and how the body is monitoring and enforcing those standards. We believe that is appropriate in the circumstances, and that we are creating this body with a degree of scrutiny in the right and proper way.

[Jack Dromey]

We rehearsed this morning the importance of the independence of the body, in terms of its operational role, on the one hand. On the other hand, there is common ground that there should be proper accountability and oversight. We are content with the proposed arrangements.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Financial assistance from the Secretary of State

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

Can I answer the point raised directly? It is absolutely the case that merging three bodies and having one building rather than three will create some degree of potential cost efficiencies, but we are absolutely of the view that those efficiencies should then be directed into frontline services. I can unequivocally give that assurance to the Committee.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the original response to the consultation. It is true that there is an expectation that rationalising the provision will create some operational efficiencies. One would expect that. However, that same response made it very clear that the intention was for any savings to be channelled to frontline delivery of debt advice, and money and pensions guidance. I could not be any clearer on that in any way whatsoever.

I manifestly want to make that point, but I also disagree that there will be an insufficiency of funding, and the reason for that, it seems to me, is threefold. First, this is effectively not taxpayer-funded; it is done by a levy. The levy is a moveable feast, depending upon the need identified by the individual organisation, and it is something that can be assessed and increased on an ongoing basis, to provide the service that, it seems to me, we all wish to ensure is there. Secondly, there is capacity to top up the levy, should the Secretary of State wish to do so, and the financial guidance body on an ongoing basis, and that additional funding can be provided.

The proposed amendment has the bizarre, counter- intuitive effect of removing the discretionary nature of the financial assistance that the Secretary of State can provide. I simply make the point that while we are keen to ensure that this body is run more efficiently, in terms of amalgamating most probably into the High Holborn offices of the Money Advice Service, we certainly believe that this is something the levy will be able to fund, and if it is the case that this expands the provision—the House of Lords seems to have done so and this House may do so as well—then the levy may go up to accommodate the need as has been described. With those assurances, I respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

[Jack Dromey]

The assurance that this is not a cost-saving measure is very welcome, but I stress again: is there an economy of scale? Are there possibilities, for example, of freeing up, by locating in one location, which is very likely to be the case? All of that is absolutely true, but right at the start, as we go down this path, to see a welcome mechanism created, we need to be confident, and to send a message to the people out there that they can be confident, that the new organisation will be effective, dynamic and properly resourced. Therefore, on the basis of the assurances given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 13 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Minor and consequential amendments relating to Part 1

Amendment made: 19, in schedule 3, page 34, line 22, leave out paragraph 13—(Guy Opperman.)

This amendment removes the amendment to s.137FB of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 in the Schedule 3 which was needed in consequence of the Bill, because this is now dealt with in the new clause inserted by NC1.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 21 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Amanda Milling.)

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Jack Dromey and Guy Opperman

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 1st February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Guy Opperman]

It is a pleasure to work under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and I welcome all colleagues to the Committee. I am grateful to those Members of the House of Lords who contributed to the Bill—it started in the other place—expanding and improving it in a significant and important way.

The Bill builds on a Government commitment to ensure that members of the public can access good-quality, free-to-clients and impartial financial guidance and debt advice. Those services are currently provided by a number of different organisations, including financial services firms, utilities and those in the charity sector. Government-sponsored pensions guidance, money guidance and debt advice is provided by the Money Advice Service, the Pensions Advisory Service and the Department for Work and Pensions under the Pension Wise banner.

There have been a multitude of reviews, Select Committee assessments, consultations and calls for evidence since 2015, by which we reached the state in 2017 when the Bill was introduced in this Parliament. Consequently, clause 1 establishes a new non-departmental public body, to be referred to in legislation as the single financial guidance body. The clause introduces schedule 1, which provides details of the proposed governance and accountability of the new body. The provisions within the schedule deal with, for example, the appointment of the chair, non-executive members, executive members and staff, the delegation of duties within the body, the constitution of the committees, and the statutory reporting and accounting procedures.

Clause 1 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to replace the phrase “single financial guidance body” in legislation with the actual name of the body—the body will be named nearer to the time it becomes operational. The regulations that name the body will be created through a statutory instrument under the negative procedure, which is subject to annulment by either House of Parliament.

Clause 1 dissolves the consumer financial education body now known as the Money Advice Service. Schedule 2 allows the transfer of staff, property, rights and liabilities from the Pensions Advisory Service and Pension Wise—in effect from the Secretary of State to the new body. The schedule allows similar transfers from the Money Advice Service to the new body. I have met all three organisations and discussed the proposed merger with them. I can assure the House that all three are keen to merge, which is rare in Government mergers and should be applauded.

Amendments 1 and 18 are technical in nature and extend the power to make transfer schemes under schedule 2 to the devolved authority. Schedule 2 already allows the Secretary of State to transfer staff, property, rights and liabilities from the Money Advice Service to the new single financial guidance body. This is required to ensure continuity of provision, including on contracts held, and avoid disruption to services in the creation of the body. The devolved authorities will have responsibility for the provision of debt advice in their areas once the new body is established. Devolved authorities have been consulted on this and are very much in agreement. Amendment 1 therefore helps to avoid similar disruption to debt advice provision in the devolved authorities when the new body is established.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Let me start by paying tribute to the three organisations that are being merged into one—the Money Advice Service, the Pensions Advisory Service and Pension Wise—for the work they have done over many years. The Minister is right that all three agree about the good sense of bringing them together into one body. Why? Because all three know from experience, and have advocated, that high-quality advice—independent, trustworthy and there when it is needed—is of the highest importance, particularly in circumstances of redundancy, death or divorce, when the financial consequences for the citizen can be very serious.

I will give some examples. In Port Talbot, the staff supervisor told Michelle Cracknell, the chief executive of the Pensions Advisory Service, that he was distraught that he had been badly advised on pensions and that the 20 others on his shift had followed his lead. He burst into tears when he said, “It’s not just the mistake that I’ve made; it’s the mistake that others have made following my example.” I remember a victim of domestic violence in my constituency saying, “I borrow to pay the debt, because I borrow to pay the debt, because I borrow to pay the debt.” That is the downward spiral into which citizens all too often fall at a time of crisis in their lives. A Kingstanding dustman said to me, “I’m an agency worker on a zero-hours contract and I would love to buy a house, because my wife is pregnant and we’re paying a fortune in rent.” He went on to say, “It’s not just that: because I’m on a zero-hours contract, I can’t plan. I keep getting into debt. I’ve had bad advice.”—he used stronger words than those—“Where do I turn?”

That is why we made it clear on Second Reading that this is a welcome Bill and a strong step in the right direction, and it has been strengthened by constructive debate in the other place. Our intention is to make a good Bill better still and to inject a sense of urgency into some of its proposals, because the dignity and financial wellbeing of our citizens, in opportunity or adversity, is of the highest importance.

We agree to the concept of the new organisation and support the direction of travel. We will seek to amend the Bill in certain key areas in order to strengthen it further, so that it delivers, particularly for those in desperate need and in circumstances in which there are still too many rogues taking advantage of the vulnerable. There is a joint determination across the House to ensure that nothing but the best is provided in the future for the British people. I am talking about high-quality advice that they can count on in all circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

No.

[Guy Opperman]

No, it is your amendment 23, to schedule 1, in relation to the independence of the single financial guidance body.

Schedule 1

The single financial guidance body

[Jack Dromey]

I beg to move amendment 23, in schedule 1, page 27, line 9, at end insert—

“(3) The Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the single financial guidance body is as independent from Government as reasonably possible in determining its activities.”

This amendment will ensure that the single financial guidance body has the autonomy to fulfil its functions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey]

My hon. Friend, who is part of an honourable tradition of giving high-quality advice to people in times of need, particularly through citizens advice bureaux, is absolutely right. The evidence is damning; the need is apparent. It is now a question of how best that need is met. The new body is a step in the right direction, but it should not be the last word; it is the first “next step,” but it is an important step in the right direction.

[Guy Opperman]

I am grateful to colleagues for their comments. The Bill sets out absolutely clearly that the single financial guidance body will be at arm’s length from Government. That distance from Government means that the day-to-day decisions the new body makes will be independent, as they will be removed from Ministers and civil servants. Nevertheless, there is a sponsoring Minister, who remains answerable to Parliament for the activities of the new body, its effectiveness and its efficiency, including any failures, especially in the case of a body that receives public funds. It is important that there is a balance—I think all of us recognise that—between enabling the Department to fulfil its responsibilities to Parliament and to be accountable, and giving the new body the desired degree of independence.

Conferring functions on the new body involves a recognition that operational independence from Ministers in carrying out its functions is appropriate, and the new body will support delivery of the objectives of both the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions, to create a more effective system of publicly funded financial guidance and to give savers the confidence to save and access money in the future. The new body’s activities will be funded by a levy on the financial services industry and on pension schemes.

On Second Reading the hon. Member for Makerfield addressed one of the criticisms levelled at the Money Advice Service. All of us support what MAS is trying to do, its broad objective and the efforts it is making. However, one of the strong criticisms of it in its early years, which came from both the independent Farnish review and the Treasury Committee, which obviously operates on a cross-party basis, was that MAS lacked accountability and that the activities it delivered, and the money it was spending, could not be held to account by Parliament and the respective Minister.

The Farnish review, which is one of the reasons we are creating this body in the way we are, suggested that the Money Advice Service accountability regime was weak, and recommended that it be strengthened. The Treasury Committee expressed concerns that the Money Advice Service had moved its service away from its intended focus. I am certain that the hon. Member for Makerfield will be directing it to have a “laser-like focus”—the expression she used on Second Reading—on commissioning services, towards direct delivery and building up its brand name.

Lord knows, all Governments like to be held to account by Oppositions, and quite rightly too, but let us imagine that the single financial guidance body chose to do something that any Member of the Opposition or of the Government felt was inappropriate. The inability to hold that body to account and to hold a Minister to account would not be something the House would want. In the circumstances, it is appropriate that the responsible Minister is able to make representations, but it is very much a partnership system that needs to work well between the body and the Government, and there must be clarity about expectations and the approaches to accountability.

The correct way forward is to have a framework document setting out that particular method of working. That framework document approach, setting out the partnership so that there is due accountability to Parliament, while at the same time allowing the body to get on with the job that we all agree it should be doing, is well established and has been under successive Governments. In the circumstances, I believe that placing the requirement in legislation, as set out in amendment 23, is both unnecessary and undesirable, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

[Jack Dromey]

The Minister has said some helpful things, and he is absolutely right that it is about getting the right balance between accountability and operational independence. The proposal for a framework document is welcome. I simply ask that there is consultation on the nature of that framework document, including with stakeholders, at the appropriate stage.

On the establishment of the new body, the governance of it and precisely how that will be structured, we have heard what has been said thus far, but it will be important that we have high-quality and independent individuals engaged in the governance, including on a day-to-day basis.

On the basis of what I and the Minister have said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2

Transfer schemes under section 1

Amendment made: 18, in schedule 2, page 32, line 3, at end insert “and the devolved authorities.”—(Guy Opperman.)

See explanatory statement for amendment 1.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2

Objectives

[Jack Dromey]

I rise to support the proposition. We will deal with the issues of vulnerability and disability later in the Bill, but although it is true that not everyone who needs urgent and independent advice is necessarily in circumstances of vulnerability, the nature of the world of work and of the economy means that a lot of people’s backs are against the wall, especially after the high-profile collapses of late. We should make explicit what is implicit: the new body should proceed in the right way. I hope the Minister will give the assurance that everyone who turns to it will receive high-quality independent advice. A specific focus on support for the vulnerable is a legitimate objective.

[Guy Opperman]

I am keen to give assurance on that specific point. If the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South will allow me, I will walk her through how we got to the situation where the Government chose to amend the Bill to add in the vulnerable circumstances clause that is the basis for her amendment. The Government take the view that the amendment is not necessary in the circumstances, and I will explain why.

The body’s activity towards the people who are most in need and in vulnerable circumstances has been the priority of all parties since the creation of the Bill. Vulnerable circumstances were not originally spelt out, but they were certainly spelt out on Second Reading in the House of Lords. There was extensive debate in the House of Lords on a cross-party basis with representations by Baroness Finlay, Baroness Coussins, Baroness Hollins and the Labour Lord, Lord McKenzie, about the need for clarity on access to financial guidance and awareness of financial services for people who find themselves in vulnerable circumstances.

The Government decided in the other place to state explicitly in clause 2(1)(d) that the body’s objectives include the need to support people in “vulnerable circumstances” when exercising its functions. An amendment was introduced to strengthen the objectives to ensure that the body’s

“information, guidance and advice is available to those most in need…bearing in mind in particular the needs of people in vulnerable circumstances”.

The Government’s amendment has created a statutory framework that will give clear direction to the new body to support people in those circumstances. That means that the body will be required to focus its efforts and resources on that area, and will look at the best ways to provide guidance to vulnerable people in different places.

A general principle of the Bill, which I will expand on in relation to this and other points, is that there is a danger of being overly prescriptive to a body that one is setting up with the specific purpose that it has the latitude to exercise the appropriate commissioning and employment of charities and organisations in particular places. Asking the body to have a generality of specially trained advisers and guidance risks being too prescriptive in the Bill. We want to ensure that the body has the latitude to take advantage of its expertise to find the best interventions and the best channels to address the needs of people in vulnerable circumstances now and in the future. That is not to say that the body itself may not choose to do exactly what the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South has fairly set out, but that is for the body to do under the circumstances that it sees fit.

The risk outlined on Second Reading—I can see that I will have to refer to the hon. Member for Makerfield on several occasions—was the danger of duplication. Whether or not one feels that the Government or individual local authorities are providing appropriate services, other services are being provided, whether that is universal support or the visiting service, that support claimants with a face-to-face service and by offering to manage their claims. There is a duplication risk, which was the specific problem of the Money Advice Service in the past.

The general point is that we believe that it is wrong to be too prescriptive and to predefine a whole series of obligations, functions and capabilities of this organisation. That does not mean that we will not have a discussion going forward, nor that the body will not address these specific points, but I do not want to predefine and subdivide every single part. It should be left to the body to make those decisions as it goes forward. That does not in any way diminish the need for these things to be addressed, but I would not want that in the Bill. It is for the body, when it is fully formed, to address those points. In the circumstances, I invite the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South to withdraw the amendment, having taken due note of the assurances that I have given.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s expertise in such matters, and I thank him for his intervention. Support for self-employed people is covered by the Bill, because the self-employed are members of the public, in the way he outlined. Any personal business debt of a self-employed person is covered in respect of them being an individual member of the public.

I take my hon. Friend’s point about loans. I am delighted to say that I am not able to answer it right now, but I will definitely get back to him. In seriousness, we need to consider that point and work out whether there is any way of changing it and taking on board the views of the organisations that have practised in this area for some considerable time. I will certainly write to him with a specific answer and circulate that answer to all Committee members.

[Jack Dromey]

The hon. Member for South Thanet is absolutely right, and his examples about the complexity we face are fascinating. The Minister’s response has been helpful. The new service is welcome; there is a degree of confusion about exactly what it can do for the self-employed, but that has already been substantially clarified. We recognise the complexity the hon. Gentleman summed up so well, so if the issue of business advice—if I can use that as a shorthand term—is not addressed effectively at this stage of the Bill, it will have to be addressed at another stage. Even if we cannot make progress in Committee, the Minister’s undertaking to engage in discussions will be warmly welcomed by organisations such as the Money Advice Trust and the Federation of Small Businesses.

[Guy Opperman]

May I briefly clarify a point that I should have addressed in my response? I applaud the Money Advice Trust’s work, but in the briefing that it submitted to our Committee, it seeks broader business support, arguing that the single financial guidance body should address a host of other things and be available to small businesses more broadly—a mission creep that I would oppose. The MAT is a laudable charity and I respect entirely its good work, but that is a classic example of the mission creep that we want to avoid. Both the hon. Gentleman and I support the charity and its good works, but I believe that there is a limit to the assistance that the FSGB should give to that charity and its objectives.

[Jack Dromey]

It is legitimate mission creep. What is good about our exchange is that we recognise that making progress with the issues identified by the MAT and the hon. Member for South Thanet may be difficult in Committee, but we can move forward at a later stage. The Minister’s point is absolutely right, but no one is suggesting that we should duplicate the functions of other bodies. If we can move forward at a later stage, jointly engaging with the organisations that represent the self-employed and those who advise them, it will be welcomed both by the organisations concerned and by the self-employed who need that advice and guidance. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

I am delighted to have the opportunity to update the Committee on the pensions dashboard, which is a project I have very much taken to heart in the seven months I have had this job. I am massively committed to it. I endorse utterly the broad thrust of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington says. It is a groundbreaking project that will provide the holy grail of access to the variety of pension pots we have, in various shapes and forms, as we get older in life—state pension, private pensions or other types of pensions—on one accessible portal.

However, the proposal to launch the dashboard was taken only in autumn last year. The Department for Work and Pensions is undertaking a feasibility study, which will be finished in March. I propose to report to the House of Commons by written or oral statement before the end of this term. The objective, which is very ambitious, is to launch the dashboard in some shape or form by May 2019.

I resist the amendment on the simple basis that, although it is very possible that the single financial guidance body will ultimately run the dashboard, that simply cannot be said at the present stage. There are a considerable number of complexities with the dashboard: the retention of a huge amount of different types of data, whether from state pension data or private pensions; who has access to that data; who controls it; and whether that is something that should be done by the Government, as ultimately the most trusted provider—regardless of whether one trusts or does not trust any particular Government—or by a relatively independent quango such as the single financial guidance body. There is an issue about what body would take it forward and hold the data, and the extent to which the data is accessible, to whom and in what way. There is a lot of devil in the detail, but the objective is utterly clear.

The amendment seeks to put in the Bill that the single financial guidance body will be in charge of the pensions dashboard and will take it forward. This slightly goes to the earlier point from the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South about three months. I would be nervous of saying to the single financial guidance body, which has a big job ahead of it, that it is being set up to merge these organisations, provide all these services, do all of the things we want it to do, and then say, “By the way, on top of that, you have to do the single most complex piece of administration of all aspects of all pensions straightaway within six months of your creation.” In my view, that would be a significant burden on that body at a very early stage. If it was a business, we would be asking, “Why deviate from the core purpose right now?”

It is possible that once the dashboard is up and running, the logical organisation to take it forward and run it would be the single financial guidance body, but I would be reluctant to commit to that in the Bill. I certainly do not want it to take that on right at the very start. I am happy to work with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington and colleagues across the House as we go forward. I do not think there is a single naysayer to the project, but one should not underestimate its size or complexity.

For present purposes, I will resist the three amendments. I am happy to sit down with the hon. Gentleman and other Committee members and explain the issue in more detail, as I did when I appeared before my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar and his colleagues on the Work and Pensions Committee. The Chair of that Committee was very dubious about the likelihood of a dashboard coming into existence. He said that it would not happen during his lifetime, but I robustly assured him that it would. I hope that it will be up and running by May 2019, and that the body will advise it. I therefore respectfully resist the amendments.

[Jack Dromey]

I agree that this is a groundbreaking proposal. We have believed for some years that a pensions dashboard is essential, and there is common ground across the House that one should be introduced. We will not press the amendment to a vote, but we argue that such a dashboard should be part of the core purpose of the new SFGB.

What the Minister said is helpful. It is right that there is a feasibility study that includes investigation of the complexities, not least because, as I mentioned, on the one hand we want individuals to have access to high-quality advice and guidance, but on the other we have to protect data and ensure that individuals are not put at risk as a consequence of data leaks of one kind or another. I would be the first to recognise the complexity of that, and I welcome the fact that there will be a report in March.

Let me make two concluding points. We strongly believe that the SFGB is the best mechanism, but let us have that discussion at the next stage. I welcome what the Minister said about being prepared to sit down and talk that through at the next stage, including with the industry and stakeholders. All that is already happening, but it needs to be done in respect of the construction and final shape of the dashboard and precisely where it is located. I look forward to those discussions at the next stage and, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.