Cost of Living Increases

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately]

As I was outlining—I do hope the hon. Gentleman was listening—we have put multiple interventions in place to support people with the rising cost of living. Specifically on energy prices, on the one hand we have the price cap and on the other, the package of £9 billion in support announced literally last month, which his motion says he would like to scrap.

On top of everything we are doing to help people with the cost of living, we are helping people to help themselves through our plan for jobs, and that plan is working. The UK was the fastest-growing economy in the G7 last year, and the International Monetary Fund forecast, produced before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, was for us to be the fastest-growing major advanced economy again this year. Unemployment has now fallen to 3.9%, below its pre-pandemic rate, and payrolled employees are at a record high.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Helen Whately]

I will give way, because I am about to move on to talk about energy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Rodda]

The Minister is obviously covering a range of issues, both employment and the cost of living for households. As the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) mentioned, is now perhaps the right time to look again at the national insurance rise, given the pressure on families and the stalling rate of growth?

[Helen Whately]

The Chancellor has already been asked about this, and the fact is that we have taken the difficult, fiscally responsible decision to ensure that there is a long-term funding stream, both to support the NHS to tackle backlogs and to fund the cost of social care reform. That has to be the right thing to do, going hand in hand with our determination to invest in growth in this country, which I will come to in a moment.

I will just talk for a moment more about energy. We have talked about the support for people’s energy bills, but the best way to support people with the cost of energy is to tackle the problem at source and reduce the overall cost of energy in the UK, as well as reducing demand for energy, and we have already taken steps to do that. Our investment in renewables in recent years has already reduced our dependency on gas, meaning overall that bills are now materially lower than they would have been.

Looking ahead, now is the time for us to go full steam ahead with our transition to renewables. We are investing in nuclear. We are accelerating our progress on renewables, in which Scotland plays an important part, and we are boosting energy efficiency, investing more than £6 billion in energy efficiency measures over this Parliament, including £3 billion to install energy efficiency measures in low-income homes. That will save low-income households hundreds of pounds a year off their energy bill, as well as being a fabulous growth opportunity for our economy.

The motion we are debating today specifically mentions implementing a windfall tax

“on companies which are benefitting from significantly increased profits as a result of impacts associated with the covid-19 pandemic or the current international situation”.

I am sure that SNP Members are talking about a windfall tax on North sea oil and gas. I say to them, and in particular the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), that North sea oil and gas are important to our energy transition.

The UK Government place additional taxes on the extraction of oil and gas, with companies engaged in the production of oil and gas on the UK continental shelf subject to headline tax rates on their profits that are currently more than double those paid by other businesses. To date, the sector has paid more than £375 billion in production taxes. Those of us on the Government side of the House support the North sea oil and gas sector and its role in our energy security and our energy transition.

This Government have consistently acted whenever and however necessary to support families and businesses. It is our responsibility on their behalf to protect the public finances. Our level of debt means we are and have been vulnerable to shocks, including changes in interest rates and inflation. A sustained one percentage point increase in interest rates and inflation would cost more than £22 billion by 2026-27. Events in Ukraine are a clear reminder that there will always be the risk of further economic bumps in the road, and we must be ready. To that end, as we come out of the pandemic, we must focus even more on boosting productivity, growth and investment across the whole UK.

We are focused specifically on the three priorities that the Chancellor outlined in his recent Mais lecture: capital, people and ideas. That will help us foster a new culture of enterprise and drive growth. The Government continue to support business through the temporary super deduction to encourage firms to invest in productivity-enhancing plant and machinery assets. We are committing to unprecedented levels of investment in ideas: increasing investment in research and development to £22 billion a year, reforming and improving our tax credit system, improving access to finance, and helping small businesses through our flagship Help to Grow programme. The £4.8 billion levelling up fund will invest in infrastructure that improves everyday life across the UK, while the £2.6 billion shared prosperity fund will support our wider commitment to level up all parts of the UK. In these cases, we have public investment crowding in private sector investment, which is what will drive the growth of our economy. The spending review also confirmed a total of £100 billion of investment in economic infrastructure over the spending review period. Together, that adds up to an extraordinary, and extraordinarily ambitious, programme of investment in the UK.

The Government understand that this is a challenging time for British households, including in Scotland. That is exactly why we have acted in dozens of ways on multiple fronts for the entire United Kingdom, but it is also why we are looking to the future, focusing on our economic recovery, on growth and on skills—elements that together will raise the living standards of millions of people all across the Union.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I am pleased that we are debating this important topic and I thank the SNP for bringing it to the Chamber again. Opposition parties have held a number of debates on the cost of living, which is critical for every part of the country.

The cost of living crisis really matters because millions of families across the UK face the hardship of not knowing whether they will be able to pay their bills. That worry plagued many when we spoke at the Dispatch Box on the topic in January, but in the interim, the Government have done close to zero to help. Listening to the Minister, everything in the country seems to be okay, but all her words will be no consolation to those who have to make the difficult decision about whether to heat or eat. That is the biggest single indictment of the Government to date.

In the intervening period, we have of course seen the most awful, barbaric and illegal invasion of Ukraine, which has not helped and has led to higher prices in many areas as a consequence. Yesterday, the Office for National Statistics revealed that average earnings fell 1% in the three months to January, which is the biggest fall in earnings in a decade. It is against that backdrop that working people face this crisis.

Although the Government may seek to convince people that the crisis is entirely the result of the war in Europe, the reality is that it long predates the Russian invasion. Let us be crystal clear with the public: the cost of living crisis for my constituents and every constituent across the country was with us in spades before Ukraine. One of my constituents described the crisis as “everything going up” but his wages; energy bills are due to skyrocket next month with the lifting of the energy price cap and there might be much more to come later this year.

[Matt Rodda]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point that a lot of the pressure on families predates the current crisis by some months. There are an enormous number of food banks across the whole of the UK—in Scotland and England—and my experience of working with constituents and those hard-working charities is that there is an enormous need out there that predates the crisis in Ukraine. I hope that the Government will listen to that point.

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend raises a critical point and we have to keep dragging the Government back to their responsibilities as a result of being in power. Much of the crisis in our public services, including the NHS and social care, also predates covid but the Government keep telling us that perhaps that is not the case.

Inflation hit 5.5% in January and is expected to rise even further. Scots are facing the prospect of council tax, water bills and train fares rising while wages, as I have said, are falling in real terms. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Conservative party failed to back the fully costed plans of the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), to tax the oil and gas companies’ excess profits to reduce people’s energy bills. Instead, the Chancellor’s response to the crisis has been to make matters worse, not better. We have already heard about the buy now, pay later scheme using taxpayers’ money to lend money back to taxpayers via the energy companies that they will have to pay back on future bills. That is not helping; that is deferring the problem.

The Government have refused to exempt VAT on skyrocketing energy bills, which was supposed to be one of the much-vaunted Brexit dividends.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

Yes, if we increase the additional rate on the oil and gas sector from 40% to 50%—10 percentage points extra—that will generate the money towards our fully costed plan for raising energy prices, but very well done for defending the Scottish National party, and both the Conservatives and the SNP knocked back the oil and gas sector’s windfall tax when it was brought to this House.

To go back to the central question of this debate on the cost of living crisis, many families are worried about the email dropping into their inbox telling them that a direct debit will treble, or the bill landing on the mat saying their energy bill will become unaffordable, yet both Governments refuse to ask the companies making the money, directly driven by the energy crisis and the energy prices that are generating those extra direct debits or those extra bills, to put a little bit more into the pot to help. With the SNP’s current policy in the motion, and SNP Members still will not tell us if it includes the oil and gas companies, AG Barr, a successful Scottish business that made more profit last year than pre-pandemic, would pay a windfall tax, but the oil and gas companies would not—taxing ginger, not taxing gas.

[Matt Rodda]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point because surely the point is that, with the super-profits for these very wealthy companies, senior leaders of a number of them have been quoted as saying that they see their own business as a cash machine. If we contrast that with the day-to-day struggles of people of this country, surely he is putting forward the right policy.

[Ian Murray]

Those with the broadest shoulders should pay the most, but I just say to everyone in the country watching this who is worried about their bills that we have two Governments who could do something about this, but they are defending the profits of the oil and gas companies rather than trying to help them with their bills. We could achieve so much more if all put our shoulders to the wheel and helped with this energy crisis.

National Insurance Contributions Increase

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

Having listened to the debate this afternoon, I want to draw the few Members on the Conservative Benches back to what our motion is actually seeking. It is very clear: it is asking the Government to cancel the planned 1.2% rise in national insurance contributions that will cost families, on average, £500 per year from this April. The issues around funding for health and social care, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) outlined, are long-standing. This did not start during covid, and it has not been addressed by this Government for successive years. When 50% of Britons are saying that they cannot afford this additional increase in the cost of living, we are asking the Government to address this and cancel this rise now to support families.

Across my constituency of Vauxhall, the reality of a cost of living crisis is nothing new for many residents. They have been trying to make the pennies last for many years. The ill effects of the universal credit system, the erosion of workers’ rights and an utter failure to tackle the housing crisis have left so many Vauxhall residents—

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I would like to ask her about the housing crisis. In my constituency, in Reading and Woodley, many residents suffer, as she says, from the rising cost of living, but they suffer particularly because of the great increases in mortgage and rental costs. Will she focus on that matter, and will the Minister also look into it?

[Florence Eshalomi]

My hon. Friend makes a really valid point. In London, the big issue of the cost of living is being pushed up by the cost of our housing crisis, and this is experienced right across the country. Household costs continue to go through the roof, including for many people in insecure tenancies and people in the private rented sector who are also hit hard.

The rise in national insurance will do nothing to alleviate the suffering felt by my constituents but will simply combine with booming fuel prices to push more and more of them into poverty. The effect of this cannot be overstated. More than 8,000 people in Vauxhall already live in fuel poverty. That means that they cannot afford to keep their home warm without dropping into poverty. How have we got to a state where thousands of people in the centre of one of the richest cities in the world, in one of the richest countries in the world, are having to make the impossible choice between living in poverty or living in a cold home? That is the reality for many of my constituents.

The Government can point as much as they want to extenuating circumstances, but they cannot hide from the failures on their own doorstep that have made the events of the past couple of years unnecessarily hard. Neither can it be said that the solutions they offer are sufficient, or progressive enough, in alleviating the costs of households. While the Government have proclaimed to be living with covid, the reality for many people in Vauxhall is that they are still reeling from insufficient support during the pandemic, and local industries face a long tail of this crisis. These include self-employed people who were unfairly excluded from Government support. Many of the people who have contacted me built up personal debt during the pandemic to stay afloat, only to be hit now with the double whammy of the national insurance and energy cost hikes.

In the lead-up to the 2015 general election, the then leader of the Conservative party talked about fixing the roof when the sun is shining. At the same time, the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition took a wrecking ball to the effective schemes introduced by Labour that were fixing a million roofs every year. The result is that, with the heavy rain of the fuel price crisis on the horizon, our housing stock still suffers from inefficiencies that will mean that more and more households face impossible choices in the next couple of months.

On this International Women’s Day, I pay tribute to the women across Vauxhall who are working around the clock behind the scenes to make ends meet: the women who are juggling insecure zero-hours contract jobs to pay their bills; the women who are forced to return to work early because of the crippling costs of childcare; the women who are at the forefront of working with our young people caught up in violence, running to the scene and reassuring the community when there has been a tragic incident; and the women who will continue to go without just to ensure that their extended family members or the people they are caring for are supported. They are the very same women who will be hit by this national insurance crisis.

The tangibility of many households in Vauxhall’s ability to cope is close to a tipping point. While there are things that the Government cannot control, they must use all the levers they have available to ensure that households stay afloat. Refusing to impose a national insurance rise now is one of those levers, and it is one that the Government must use if they have the interests of households up and down the country at heart. I ask Conservative Members to reassess their commitment to supporting working families and cancel this rise.

Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Committee debates 2nd sitting & Committee stage
Thursday 27th January 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

The Minister started off by suggesting his main concern was that the new clause seeks to go further than has been requested by the Police Superintendents Association. If that was the case, then the Minister could have easily tabled an amendment that came closer, in his view, to delivering what the PSA was asking for without going significantly further. He has not done that, so we have to wonder if he had any intention of addressing the issue had the new clause not been tabled.

We are asking the Chancellor to table a report and present it to Parliament. There is nothing in the new clause that would require the Chancellor to commit a single penny of additional spending. It does not tell the Chancellor what his or her conclusions have to be at the end of that. It is perfectly in line with the wording of the new clause for the Chancellor to produce a report to say, “We could remedy the situation by doing a, b, c, x, y and z, but I cannot recommend doing that because that would introduce unfair discrimination that would be contrary to the purpose of the Act.”

The Minister is trying to make it seem as if the new clause is about forcing the Government to incur additional expenditure. My reading of it is that it is deliberately worded to avoid asking for a commitment at this stage, but it seeks to force the Government to recognise that there might still be a massive weakness in the Bill and to force the Chancellor to come forward with a solution that might address that weakness. If the solution proves to be unworkable or to be unfair in other ways, Parliament has the option to reject it.

Surely, it is wrong, at this stage, that a potentially serious unfairness should be left sitting in the Bill just because we are not sure we can find a way of fixing it. That is not a fair response to give, either to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, who moved the new clause, or to those officers who are likely to be affected by it.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I pay tribute to our police and fire service. I appreciate that the Minister shares that sentiment. I want to underline the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn and others that we are just asking the Government to consider this again and to produce a report. That seems to be the very least that could be asked of them at this point.

It is worth remembering that the police and fire service—these valuable services, which are at the frontline of our public service and respond to challenging issues in our communities—have been through the pandemic after 10 years of quite serious austerity cuts in staff numbers. Once again, I ask the Minister to consider this new clause that asks only for a report to be produced, which would allow further discussion to take place.

I have met the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents Association, both of which have genuine concerns, and I understand that the Fire Brigades Union does, too. We should listen to these public servants. They have genuine concerns. This is an important issue about the future and the status of these services. I ask the Minister to consider the new clause very seriously.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I rise briefly to echo the points made by my friend the hon. Member for Glenrothes. The new clause calls for a review to consider the issues further. In responding, can the Minister say what steps he will be taking to resolve those outstanding issues and through what form the discussions will take place?

Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th January 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I also declare an interest: there are members of my family who may be affected by the Bill. I am not entirely sure, but I believe that they may be affected.

I also pay tribute to our public sector workers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn said earlier, and colleagues across the House have mentioned, we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to our public sector workers. We are talking about hard-working police officers, firefighters, teachers, local government workers and many others who have been at the forefront of the country’s efforts during the pandemic—and, indeed, over many years—and offer so much to our community. We need to treat the Bill with the utmost gravity, and I am grateful for the tone of the debate overall.

I would like to point out the importance of intergenerational fairness. I appreciate that the Government and the Minister have quite rightly highlighted the importance of the remedy. The Government lost a court case and are now seeking to remedy that significant mistake by the Treasury. However, the risk in the Bill is that inadvertently the Government may impose another unfairness on a younger group of workers. Later on in the course of today’s proceedings, could the Minister reassure those younger workers once again? It is really important for them to have clarity and reassurance about their pensions—that they will not have to pay far greater sums to receive the pensions that they rightly deserve. As part of that reassurance, it is very important that the Government address the issue of the cost control mechanism and are absolutely clear about how it will work. We hope that they will provide further reassurance and information on that matter during the course of today’s discussions.

Finally, I reassure members of the public that these schemes are by and large pay-as-you-go pension schemes, to which teachers, police officers and others make significant contributions during the course of their service. They are not wholly underwritten by the Government. That is a very important point for people who do not work in public services to remember and be reassured by: as another hon. Member mentioned, we are talking about deferred payments to public servants and ensuring that they receive the pensions that they rightly deserve, to which they have contributed over many years of service to our community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Rodda]

I am grateful to the Minister for expanding on those points. I reiterate the importance of listening to the views of women workers in the public sector. They are obviously a large proportion of workers in the public sector, as he well knows. In particular, with this group of new clauses on the local government pension scheme, it is important for the Government to get that right. I urge him to continue to talk and listen carefully to the relevant unions. I should declare an interest as a member of the GMB, which is one of the relevant unions. I believe there is a great deal of knowledge in the local government profession and in the unions on such matters. Please will the Minister consult widely and listen on the fine detail, to ensure that we get it right for the many workers in local government? It is perhaps worth adding that there are a number of other issues with women’s pensions as a whole and a wider context of ensuring that pensions for women are protected and funded properly.

[Mr Clarke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said. As a former Minister for Local Government, I absolutely agree with everything he says about the value of local government workers and that women form a disproportionately substantial part of the local government workforce. They make up more than 70% of the scheme’s membership, so it is vital that their voice is listened to, and I commit that it will be.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 77 accordingly disagreed to.

Clause 78 disagreed to.

Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 80

Restriction of existing schemes

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

I share a lot of the concerns that have just been expressed so eloquently from the Labour Front Bench. I have a couple of other issues with what is in the new clauses; perhaps the Minister will explain.

I understand why the Government want to build in growth in the economy, but at the same time I agree fully with the concerns expressed by the official Opposition. In new clause 1, in what circumstances does the Minister envisage

“or any sector of the economy”

becoming relevant? In which particular sectors of the economy does he think that growth will be particularly relevant to local government or other public sector pensions?

The provision goes on,

“the growth in the economy…of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom”.

Who takes the decision that the economic performance of one particular part of the United Kingdom is relevant to a particular pension scheme or to all pension schemes? What do we mean by a “part” of the United Kingdom? Is that simply the four constituent nations? Can it be influenced more by the economy in London than the economy in Yorkshire?

As the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn mentioned a minute ago, the Bill will be far too vague at this point. It will put far too much power into the hands of, presumably, Ministers. There is no guarantee of any accountability or transparency as to the way this is operated. For that reason, my understanding is that a number of unions, although they support the intention behind new clause 1 in its entirety—I am struggling over whether to oppose the entire new clause, as I want to see a lot of stuff in there in the Bill—have significant concerns about that particular part of the economic check. If I were not opposing the new clause, I would be minded to table a more significant amendment at a later stage in proceedings. Will the Minister explain when he envisages a particular sector of the UK economy to be relevant, and when he expects that to be the economy in a particular part of the United Kingdom?

Finally, the Minister was keen to tell us what the unions had said about the previous transition arrangements. Will he tell us what the unions are saying about the economic check in this part of the Bill? Will he explain why he listened to the unions previously, but does not seem to be listening to them now?

[Matt Rodda]

I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn. She is making an excellent point, and I am glad that she will press for a vote. The issue here relates to the need for transparency and trust, and the Government must reassure worried public servants, who have worked hard and have every right to expect a decent pension and retirement, that there is no sleight of hand here.

One of the three issues the Minister mentioned is to be dealt with in regulations, and the other two are on the face of the Bill. I would like him to reassure the Committee about the nature of those regulations, how they will be dealt with by the House and when they will be brought forward. I also remind him of the views of the independent Public Accounts Committee, which urged the Government to take the matter seriously, saying that the Government should

“quickly resolve the challenges presented by the McCloud judgment and cost control mechanism”

and that that was important to rebuild trust. I hope the Minister will consider the PAC’s thoughtful advice on this matter.

[Mr Clarke]

I thank all Members for their contributions, which I will take in turn. I hope to provide significant reassurance.

On the point that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn made about the widening of the cost corridor, the Government published a full impact evaluation as part of the consultation response on 4 October 2021, so that detail is available and is modelled.

To the point of the hon. Member for Reading East just now, the cost corridor is being addressed in regulations because the current 2% corridor exists under current powers, so we are simply amending 2% to 3% and do not need to introduce anything new.

As for the 25-year guarantee and the assurances given when the pension reforms were first introduced, the Government do not believe that the reforms breach that guarantee. The elements protected by the guarantee are set out in legislation and the cost control mechanism is not included among them. The Government are making these changes following an independent and thorough review of the mechanism by the Government Actuary’s Department and a full and open consultation process. As the GAD’s report makes clear, it does not seem possible for the mechanism to protect the taxpayer unless it considers the wider economic outlook, and the symmetrical operation of the economic check acts to protect members as well as the taxpayer.

The reforms will fundamentally lead to a more stable mechanism, with both benefit reductions and improvements becoming less likely. That aligns with the spirit of the guarantee which, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn quite rightly said, is all about certainty. There is absolute conviction that that is in everyone’s interest including, most importantly, scheme members.

As for how the situation is assessed and to the point of the hon. Member for Glenrothes about how we manage the long-term GDP expectation, the check will be linked to the Office for Budget Responsibility’s independent and objective measure of expected long-term GDP growth and the long-term earnings assumptions. The check will operate purely mechanically with no scope for interference from individuals or groups from within Government or outside. It will be an independent, objectively assessed measure by the OBR. There is no sense in which any Minister from whatever party is in government at whatever time would have the ability to intervene in that process. I hope that provides reassurance on all those points.

Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [Lords]

Matt Rodda Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to close the debate on behalf of the Opposition. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) said, we do not oppose this important Bill—indeed, I welcome the serious debate that has taken place this evening—but we will continue to hold the Government to account as the Bill progresses. I thank Members on both sides of the House for their valuable contributions, and I am grateful to the hon. Members for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine).

Our public sector workers play a vital role, and I pay tribute to the hard work of our NHS staff, teachers, police, firefighters and many other dedicated public servants, all of whom are affected by this Bill. We owe these public servants an enormous debt of gratitude for their vital work during the pandemic. As we heard, these workers had to be at work physically throughout the pandemic—not at home or working online. They were caring for the sick, delivering key services or keeping our streets and communities safe. It is right that these dedicated workers can expect a decent pension in their retirement. It is not always understood that most of the schemes in question operate on a pay as you go basis, with workers themselves contributing throughout their working lives.

The shadow Chief Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East, raised a number of important questions in his speech, and I am afraid to say that, so far, Ministers have failed to fully answer them. I hope the Minister, in his closing remarks, will now reassure these hard-working public servants about a number of matters.

The most important question is, where will the £17 billion it will cost to fix the Government’s mistake in 2015 come from, and who will pay this enormous bill? Will it be the taxpayer, or will it be the pension scheme members?

The next question is about the design of the remedy the Government have put forward. I welcome their decision to accept the mechanism favoured during the consultation, but we need clarity about whether that choice will incur any costs for the pension scheme members concerned. If the Government are going to ask scheme members to take potentially significant decisions, will they commit to providing much more information to pensioners and savers to help them avoid making costly mistakes? Ministers have failed to do so in the past, and even now they seem reluctant to include pension scams in their important Online Safety Bill, despite the spiralling costs of pension fraud and mis-selling.

We also ask the Government to be clear about how the cost control mechanism will work. We were told at first that if costs breached the ceiling, benefits would be reduced, but the Government have said that no member will see benefits reduced in this case. What does that mean? How will the necessary funding be provided, and is there going to be a time after which such a guarantee may lapse? Ministers have left a number of crucial questions unanswered about part 2 of the Bill as well: what are the estimated costs to the Treasury of underpinning the liabilities of former employees of Bradford & Bingley and Northern Rock, and are those costs additional to the £17 billion budgeted for the McCloud response, or are they part of the scheme and the overall response?

Carrying on to the next part of this important Bill, which concerns the judiciary and has been the subject of much of the debate this evening, do the annual allowance and lifetime allowance not apply to judges? I ask the Minister to clarify that very important point: it is unclear, and it must be clarified. If judges are not covered by the same rules, how will the Government justify that decision to other pensioners? Indeed, does that decision leave the Government open to legal challenge in the future? Furthermore, colleagues in the other place voiced concerns that raising the mandatory retirement age for judges could make it more difficult to increase diversity in our legal system. I hope the Government will make available further details of how they plan to ensure this does not happen. We understand the need to clear the backlog of cases, but I urge the Government to do far more to increase diversity in this very important profession.

I will also take this opportunity to underline the concerns raised by the Police Superintendents’ Association and, indeed, the Fire Brigades Union. Scheme members in the police and fire services could be adversely affected by this Bill because of the ways in which the years between 2015 and 2022 are treated. We know that the Home Office said that further work was needed on this issue, and Ministers have discussed it with representatives of the police and fire services. How will the Government now address this important point? I hope the Minister will speak to that in his closing remarks.

Finally, I urge the Government to respond to the points raised by the Public Accounts Committee when it went through the proposals in a great deal of detail. We must fully understand the consequences this Bill could have for both employees and employers, and I am concerned that the Government have not properly considered the knock-on effects on public service recruitment and retention, which are both absolutely critical issues for these vital public services. There is also a risk that more means-tested benefits may be required if there are changes to public service pensions, and that public service pensions may be worse off. I hope that we will hear reassurance from Ministers on those crucial points. I assure the House and the wider public that we in the Labour party will keep raising these important questions, and I hope the Government will respond in a timely and appropriate manner.

I realise that time is pressing, so I will end my remarks with the following: on an issue of such great importance as the future pensions of so many public sector workers, the public deserve to be confident that the Government have adequately prepared for all eventualities and fully understand the consequences of their actions. Public sector workers, as well as Members of the other place, have made their concerns and questions clear, and it is regrettable that they have not been answered in full so far today. I hope that the Minister will now take his opportunity to reassure the House, the wider public, and public servants about these important points.

Working People’s Finances: Government Policy

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Liz Twist]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and share her concern about the number of people who will be affected by this cut. Being in work is not enough; we need better quality jobs, with proper conditions and adequate pay.

I want to mention the energy price cap rise and the inevitable cost rises that will follow. Many of these families will feel the impact of that. Many may be living in poorly insulated homes and may feel the need to increase the heating in their properties. We know that there are links between poor quality housing and poverty and, indeed, poor health, so the energy price cap rise will have a significant impact on those families—probably more significant than for some of us. Labour wants to keep the uplift until we can replace universal credit with a better, more compassionate social security system that properly supports those who need it.

I want to refer also to the increase in universal credit claims as a result of the pandemic. I have managed to get information from Gateshead Council showing a significant increase in council tenants across Gateshead claiming universal credit. Indeed, from April 2020 to the end of March 2021—almost exactly that whole year of the pandemic—there were 1,758 new universal credit claims. Some of those dropped off during the year—perhaps they were not eligible, or whatever—but there was still an increase of nearly 1,100 tenants claiming universal credit.

One other issue, which we have talked about often and must not forget, is the five-week wait, which leads to incredible arrears, certainly in Gateshead. By 31 March, 69% of Gateshead tenants were in arrears by an average of £666. Clearly, those arrears need to be resolved at some stage. They are a debt around the neck of those people.

I want to talk about the national insurance rise. Research from the New Statesman and the Resolution Foundation shows that people in the north-east will lose a higher proportion of their disposable income than those in the south of England due to incomes on average being lower in the north-east: people in the north-east will lose up to 25% more income than those in the south-west. When it comes to social care, people will still need to sell their home to fund their care, especially people with lower value homes. They will still face a substantial cost before the cap kicks in. Homeowners in the north-east could face care costs of up to three fifths of their assets, including the value of their home, while homeowners in London face costs of just 17% of their assets due to the difference in the value of housing. That is deeply unfair, on top of the additional contribution for many workers who, as I said, are in relatively low-paid jobs.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a compelling and powerful speech about a wide range of issues affecting her region, and I commend her speech to the whole House. I was particularly moved by the point about housing and the difficulty for many tenants. Does she agree that there is a huge need for more council houses in this country?

[Liz Twist]

I absolutely agree about the need for additional council housing.

The rise in national insurance will disproportionately affect younger people and those on low incomes. It is absolutely right that we need more money for the NHS and social care after years and years of cuts, but it cannot be right that it is the lowest-paid earners who pay for it. The Government’s plan will not end the crisis in social care or help to fix the backlog in the NHS.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jessica Morden]

My hon. Friend is right. We owe a debt of gratitude to all those out there in the community—in churches and in other organisations—who have stepped up to help those who are suffering the most.

According to the BBC food price index, food prices have risen by 8.3% since January, with meat and fish up by 22% and fruit and vegetables by 14.7%. As has already been said today, the Government have done very little to address the supply chain issues which are leading to higher prices yet again. We are seeing HGV driver shortages and delays at borders and ports, and we need the Government to address those problems. As we have seen in many news reports, the costs of raw materials for many goods and services have risen as well, affecting the cost of furniture, women’s clothes, vets’ bills, second-hand cars and more. So much for the positive strategy from this Government for shaping our future post Brexit.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making some excellent points about the wide range of problems that families are facing—not only the deeply mistaken cut in universal credit and the end of the furlough scheme, but wide-ranging price rises linked to supply chain issues and the Government’s ineptitude in so many respects. All those problems are hitting ordinary people across the country very hard. Do we not face a perfect storm for many of our residents?

[Jessica Morden]

My hon. Friend is spot on. It is indeed a perfect storm, with all those factors coming together at the same time.

Petrol and diesel are also more expensive, costing more than they have since 2013, and the cost of buying a home has skyrocketed in Newport East. Home-Start Cymru has highlighted the huge rise in prices in Monmouthshire, and we have seen the same in Newport. That has put the opportunity to buy beyond many people, particularly our local young people trying to get on to the housing ladder. Housing insecurity has increased, with more mortgage arrears and more people pushed into renting. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South mentioned the research carried out by Zoopla, which has reported that rental prices have risen by 5% in the last 12 months, while wages have remained stagnant for many. Average rail fares are rising three times faster than wages, and are 50% higher than they were in 2010. Studies by the Office for National Statistics suggest that those who commute to work are set to experience the steepest increase in rail fares next January. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), it is all coming together in a perfect storm.

There are further problems on the horizon. This week we have seen the crisis in energy costs and soaring prices. Fuel debt is already the third most common type of debt with which people seek help. The energy price cap for October—just as the cold weather sets in, furlough payments end and the universal credit uplift is scrapped—is set at £153, higher than the warm home discount payment, which has been set at the same rate since 2014. As Martin Lewis has said on his website, that payment should be increased in the Budget, and I hope that the Ministers are listening to that too.

The CAB estimates that 2 million households are already behind in paying their energy bills. As I have mentioned the CAB, it is important to note that while demand for debt advice has gone up and up, funding for debt advice services has decreased. If the Government do nothing else as we come into the autumn, they should at least look at properly funding our debt advice services.

The cutting of the universal credit uplift will be the biggest overnight cut to social security, with 8,630 households in Newport East alone seeing their money cut by £20 a week. I know at first hand from my constituents, as many hon. Members do, how the uplift has been a lifeline for those struggling to buy essentials.

Health and Social Care Levy Bill

Matt Rodda Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I must agree with the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) in one regard: we are talking today about not a small tax rise but a whopper. This levy takes us back to 1950s levels of taxation.

The post-pandemic recovery is currently particularly fragile. Usefully, the House of Commons Library sent me the statistics on the jobless figures today—I am sure many other Members have theirs—and in Hornsey and Wood Green there are 6,430 jobless people. That is 4,000 more than pre-pandemic, so the idea that the recovery is secure is for the birds. There is a real question mark in my constituency over job retention following the end of furlough, because the recovery in the service-based economy is yet to take off securely.

What is on the minds of my constituents in Hornsey and Wood Green? First, the likely cut of £20 per week for those on universal credit, which will affect 12,970 households in Hornsey and Wood Green.

Secondly, the two-child limit. If people in Hornsey and Wood Green have large families and rely on the benefit system for some assistance, only the first two children get any help. I am a third child. I do not know how many Members are third, fourth or fifth children, but they should think about their parents cursing them because they were born third, fourth or fifth.

Thirdly, energy bills are about to go up. I am sure the Minister has done his own analysis of the fact that we did not have a windy summer, which meant that the renewables did not do as much as we had hoped. We will be reliant on gas and even coal, which we should not be given all our commitments in respect of COP26. For those reasons, we will see increases in our energy bills this winter.

Fourthly, the potential for higher food costs is on my constituents’ minds—that is, if they can find the food that they like in the supermarkets after the effects of Brexit and covid.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that very good point. Does she agree that it is fundamentally unfair for hard-working younger people, who face dramatically increased costs of living and high rental costs, to have to pay more than their landlords, who will not be taxed under the Government’s proposal?

Health and Social Care Levy

Matt Rodda Excerpts

1st reading
Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I will not, actually, because I am very low on time.

That is the sword of Damocles that hangs regularly over the head of our Chancellor, so that leads us to taxation. If we look at taxation and the amounts involved here, there are only three taxes that we could consider. About two thirds of all tax is raised through income tax, national insurance and VAT. We then ask ourselves, “What criteria are we going to apply to the tax measures to test whether they are the right ones or not?” There are at least two. One is that we should look after the least advantaged in our society—the lowest-paid—and the second is that we should look after those who are the youngest, who have borne the greatest brunt of the economic consequences of the pandemic.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mel Stride]

I will not—I am very short on time. We are looking to the younger generations, to some significant degree, to fund predominantly the needs of elderly people and social care. If we look at those taxes, income tax rises would have been very progressive—there is no doubt about that. We would have had to have about twice the level of increase that we are looking at with national insurance to have raised the same amount of money. I think we need—the Minister made this point—a UK-wide solution to this, not one based on income tax, where, of course, elements of income tax are devolved to other nations across the United Kingdom.

If we put up VAT, that would be hugely regressive, particularly at the level of income received rather than expenditure. That would therefore have been wrong. We are also up at 20%, I think—near the upper limit of where VAT should be, given the distortionary consequences of going further.

That inevitably leads us to national insurance, just what Labour was led to in 2003. The original proposal, it seems to me, failed both of my tests. If we just put up national insurance, it would have been regressive. It would have hit the poorest hardest, but what is right about the Chancellor’s approach is that he has extended it to those beyond the state retirement age and those receiving income by way of dividends. That critical move makes this, in general, the right approach.

There are many issues that the Committee will no doubt look at. One of them is that a regrettable consequence of the increase in the employer’s national insurance rate is that it will exacerbate the so-called “three people problem”, whereby the different tax treatment of the employed, the self-employed and those receiving income through their own company will be widened, with consequences for IR35. I am out of time, but I support this motion today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Lady is absolutely correct. The Government have learned nothing from the austerity that caused so much damage with the last crash. They are about to repeat their mistakes, and those on the lowest incomes will be hammered most, again.

The Institute of Directors has called the hike “political opportunism” and has highlighted the tax on dividends, which will hit sole traders and small company directors, many of whom were completely and unjustifiably excluded from UK Government support during the pandemic. It really does rub salt in the wounds.

[Matt Rodda]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way on that excellent point. In my constituency in Reading, many of the same families will be affected; she is wise to point that out, and I reiterate that point. It appears that the same very hard-working groups of people, many of whom are key workers or are with small businesses, are being affected disproportionately by this unfair tax rise. At the same time, it is not solving the fundamental problems with social care.

[Alison Thewliss]

Absolutely. It does nothing to resolve either issue, and it makes it all the harder for people who have suffered so hard during the pandemic and been excluded from support to get back on their feet and bring money back into the economy. It makes no economic sense whatever.

Of course, the unjust effect of the national insurance hike will be compounded in Scotland because the Prime Minister is proposing that Scottish tax contributions be used to fund England-only policies. My constituents and people across Scotland are generous people, and I am sure that very few of them would begrudge the principle of funding the NHS and fixing social care after the pandemic, if indeed they had any faith that this Government were capable of fixing anything. But as things stand, the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish stand to be taxed twice: first for the health and social care system that they actually receive from their own Government, and then for the NHS and social care in England, for services that they do not have access to, where money more often than not appears to be squandered on dodgy contracts and cronyism scandals.

We know from the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and other Tory Brexit legislation that we cannot trust Government Members to respect our hard-won devolution. I am not reassured in the slightest by all the talk yesterday from the Prime Minister about directing money raised from the new levy into health and social care services in Scotland.

Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill (Second sitting)

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[John Glen]

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

[The Chair]

[Matt Rodda]

A fundamental change is under way and it needs to be addressed. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that. First, the scope of who is compensated for fraud has been drastically expanded by the High Court judgment. Secondly, the industry structure has radically altered since the levy was first designed. Both of those points are important, and combined they will, potentially, have a huge impact on the rest of the sector. Careful consideration neds to be given to that. An impact assessment is necessary to give parliamentarians, sector experts and decision makers in the round a broader understanding of this complicated situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

[Matt Rodda]

[The Chair]

[Matt Rodda]

These are crucial funds that support large numbers of savers—indeed, increasingly so in this country, as we enjoy the success of auto-enrolment, which is a great step forward for pension savers, and indeed future pensions across the country, providing greater access to pensions. Millions of workers across the country, at different stages of their lives, pay into these schemes and rightly expect their pension pots to be given the best possible chance to grow. Yet because the levy is passed on to savers through charges, it is current Government policy to ask savers to do the right thing in order to pay for the damage caused by criminals. As we heard earlier, this is not happening on a small scale but on quite a large scale.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

[Matt Rodda]

[Guy Opperman]

[Matt Rodda]

[Guy Opperman]

[Matt Rodda]

Committee rose.

Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill (Second sitting)

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[John Glen]

Out of courtesy, I am very happy to respond to my colleagues. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East asked why the 80% figure was not 100%. As I have tried to explain through the submissions that I have made, the Government have been trying throughout to balance the interests of bondholders and the taxpayer to ensure that we have a fair level of compensation in respect of the financial losses incurred. The scheme is based on the FSCS level of compensation but, as he knows, it is 80% up to that cap of £68,000 to reflect the unregulated nature of the LCF product.

I emphasise that it is imperative to avoid creating the misconception that Government will stand behind bad investments in future, even where the FSCS does not apply. That would create a moral hazard for investors and potentially lead individuals to choose unsuitable investments thinking that the Government will provide compensation when things go wrong. To avoid creating that misconception, and to take into account the wide range of factors that contributed to the losses that the Government would not ordinarily compensate for, the Government will establish the scheme at the level of 80% of LCF bondholders’ initial investment up to the maximum of £68,000. With any investment, there is clearly a risk that sometimes investors will lose money, and the Government and taxpayer cannot and should not be expected to step in and compensate for every failure and every loss. It would not be right or fair for investors in non-regulated products to receive fuller compensation than those who have invested in regulated products, for which the maximum amount is capped at £85,000 under the FSCS.

On the remarks of the hon. Member for Glenrothes about the individuals involved in an ongoing serious fraud inquiry, I am not familiar with the detail, but obviously I am happy to receive any representations. I hope that brings satisfaction to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Loans to the Board of the Pension Protection Fund

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 7, at end insert—

“(3) No loan shall be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament an impact assessment of the means of repaying the loan, including specifically the impact on pension schemes from the Fraud Compensation Fund levy.”

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making a loan to the Board of the Pension Protection Fund for the purpose of compensating eligible pension schemes until he or she has laid before Parliament an impact assessment of the Fraud Compensation Fund levy on different pension sectors.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 2, line 7, at end insert—

“(3) Before making a loan under this section, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an assessment of the levels of fraud in the pensions system.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the levels of fraud in the pensions system before making any loan under new section 115A of the Pensions Act 2004.

Amendment 6, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, at end insert—

“(5) Within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the operation of the Fraud Compensation Fund in connection with any loan made under section 115A.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report, within twelve months of this Act being passed, on the operation of the Fraud Compensation Fund in connection with any loan made to the Board of the PPF under new section 115A of the Pensions Act 2004.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Rodda]

We have tabled a number of amendments seeking to improve the Bill. Amendment 3 seeks to ensure that we have clarity and certainty before taking the step of asking key pension schemes to fund the majority of the bill for the Fraud Compensation Fund. It is perhaps worth reflecting on the evidence we heard this morning, which was so illustrative on this issue. One socially important pension scheme—the People’s Pension fund, which we heard about today—was asked to put forward a large amount of money to help support the compensation fund. The fund is known to take a large number of people—many of them women, on low incomes or self-employed—who have started to save for a pension through auto-enrolment. I am sure the whole Committee will agree that it is a worthwhile objective of Government policy to encourage pension savings by a wide range of people, not just the wealthier sector of the community.

Specifically, amendment 3 would prevent the Secretary of State from making a loan to the board of the Pension Protection Fund for the purpose of compensating eligible pension schemes until he or she has laid before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the Fraud Compensation Fund levy on different pension sectors, thereby allowing Parliament to consider the issues affecting them. That is essential because, as we have heard, the burden of compensating victims of fraud is falling disproportionately on certain groups. As we heard this morning, just two schemes—the People’s Pension and the National Employment Savings Trust, which are both not-for-profit operators—have historically ended up paying the lion’s share of the fraud compensation levy, despite their size and the fact that there is no tangible connection between those funds and the fraud that we are trying to address.

It is perhaps helpful to mention the figures again, for the sake of clarification. To recap, the PPF’s 2019 annual report and accounts reported that the FCF levy raised £6.9 million. What is truly surprising to casual onlookers, however, is that 37% of that was paid by the two pension schemes that I mentioned—NEST and the People’s Pension—even though they managed only £20 billion of the roughly £2 trillion of assets held in UK workplace pensions. They were managing just 1% of the total, which is a tiny amount, as I am sure everyone will agree. There is clearly a mismatch, and I am sure that the Minister, who has obviously followed this in great detail, will want to respond because something strange seems to be going on. With the figure now enlarged significantly to hundreds of millions of pounds, and with the potential repayment of the loan via an increased levy, it is understandable that the schemes are anxious about where the burden of repayment will fall. That is a fair point, and one that I am sure we would all want to consider thoroughly.

We have been promised a review of the levy later this year, and I appreciate that the Government are willing do that. However, it does not seem right that, given the significant sums involved for the loan, the legislation should proceed without pausing—all we are asking for is a pause—to consider its impact. Both of the pension schemes I have mentioned play a hugely important part in expanding pensions coverage, and I am sure that members of the Committee are aware of the national policy challenge of encouraging more people to save for their pensions. We all want a much larger proportion of the community—ideally, everybody—to have access to a pension scheme that they can save into as well as the state pension. The two organisations I have mentioned have many low-income savers who I am sure we want to support. It is crucial that we consider the long-term viability of those schemes as we consider the structure of the levy, and that the long-term viability of the two pension schemes is not jeopardised.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

In case any Member did not quite understand what I said at the top, all of the proposed amendments to the clause are being debated now, including amendments 5 and 6. Mr Rodda, to confirm, are you aware of that, and do you wish to speak to amendments 5 and 6 now?

[Matt Rodda]

I am very grateful, Ms Ghani. I would like to speak to amendments 5 and 6. Amendment 5 obviously covers a very different area. I sponsored it because I think that the central principle of this country’s pensions system—I am sure the Committee agrees—is that people who work hard all their lives and who contribute and save diligently are able to receive a decent pension in their retirement. I hope there is cross-party agreement on that. I am sure there is; historically, that has been the case.

In recent years, however, it has become clear that an increasing number of pensioners—and, indeed, people approaching retirement, who are also an important group and are in some ways quite vulnerable—have been set back significantly as a result of what are commonly called pension scams. As the Bill Committee, we have a duty to protect people and to help them prepare for their retirement. Amendment 5 therefore seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the levels of fraud in the pensions system before making any loan under new section 115A of the Pensions Act 2004. We believe that that is a crucial first step in tackling pension scams. Obviously, there are a whole series of ways to tackle them, and we appreciate that the Government are taking other steps. This is important because the consequences of the scams can be utterly devastating for those directly affected. They are also potentially expensive and damage trust in the pensions system as a whole and the operation of many businesses in the sector. It is critical that we have a system that is robust and protected against scams. The Bill highlights the consequences for everyone, including other scheme members, when fraud is allowed to spiral unchecked.

The pandemic has, sadly, given rise to an increase in fraud, as many criminals have taken advantage of the confusion and, in some cases, the isolation of vulnerable people to prey on those who, sadly, can fall victim to these dreadful crimes. However, pension scams were already on the rise. It is worth noting that, since George Osborne’s pension freedoms were introduced in 2015, fraudsters have taken advantage of confusion around what the rules precisely allow. We warned at the time that those reforms would significantly increase that risk. The Government must acknowledge, as I am sure they will, the failings of pension freedoms and their associated tax problems, as in the case of the NHS.

One of the most egregious abuses of pension freedoms has been a scam by sophisticated criminals who trick people into accessing their pensions before the legal age of 55, relying on confusion about the rules, and then abscond with the funds, leaving people in a desperate situation. In some cases, the victims suffer a double injustice: not only do they lose their entire pension pot in some cases; they are also aggressively pursued by HMRC for tax penalties, having broken the rules on money they no longer have. There are some truly heartbreaking cases of innocent people being misled and sadly losing their life savings, as well as being left with tax debts of tens of thousands of pounds.

We would like reassurance that the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury will look into tackling this problem in the wake of the Dalriada judgment last year. The Government could provide that reassurance by supporting amendment 5 as a crucial first step. They should also find a way for HMRC to work with the authorities to make sure that these crimes are properly investigated, targeting the promoters, not the victims, and recognising the dreadful circumstances in which those victims find themselves through little fault of their own.

The High Court judgment that is at the centre of the loan we are discussing today is linked to exactly that type of fraud. In its recent report on pension freedoms fraud, the Select Committee on Work and Pensions recommended that particular aspects of pension freedoms and the Pension Protection Fund be reviewed in further detail in that light.

We agree with the Select Committee. Our amendment, which calls for an assessment, could form an important part of tackling the issue. It is important that the Government publish the report the amendment seeks, in order to show the public that they are not simply looking at the symptoms of fraud, but tackling the causes. I am sure the Minister will want to consider that point. The Government should set out an action plan to protect pension savers and an assessment of the level of fraud in the system as part of that work.

I know the Minister campaigned to tackle cold-calling last year in the Pension Schemes Act 2021. The Bill quite rightly tackled telephone cold-calling, but people can be approached in a cold manner online. I ask the Government to consider that avenue for scams. There has been some mixed messaging, but I hope the Minister, who I know is in touch with the sector, will take the point on board. I have written to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to ask that the Government act on this point and include it in the online harms Bill, which is an appropriate place to tackle these serious scams, alongside many others.

Pension savers are particularly vulnerable in the few years just before retirement, when savings have accumulated but before they have actually retired. Pension transfers, especially for those in defined-benefit pension schemes, can be targeted by criminals, alongside pensions liberation fraud, which we are talking about today. This is where the Money and Pensions Service should play a bigger part. As Members will know, the service is a Government-funded body that offers free pensions advice to people aged over 50, through its Pensions Wise service.

Is it possible for Pensions Wise to play a bigger role? I hope the Minister will consider that point. It could be helpful and supportive to individuals, as well as helping the operation of the sector—the businesses that are operating legitimately, as the vast majority are.

It was disappointing that the Government rejected a proposal in proceedings on the Pension Schemes Act that would have booked a default Pensions Wise appointment for everyone in the five years prior to their retirement. The amendment was put forward by the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), and was supported by the Opposition. It would have meant that everybody would automatically get some basic knowledge about where they stood, better protecting them against scams.

Finally, I would like to share some research from the People’s Pension and the Police Foundation that demonstrates the scale of the problem and why we need to act urgently. The true level of pensions fraud in the UK, though large, is unknown, but could it be as high as £14.6 billion, based on the average pot size of £63,700.

I hope the points I have set out are helpful and that the Minister will consider them. We would like to see this area addressed by the Government. I urge the Minister to respond to my points.

Ms Ghani, should I speak to the other amendment now?

[The Chair]

The amendments are grouped, so they are all to be debated together. Do you have a contribution on amendment 6?

[Matt Rodda]

Yes. I will move straight on. I appreciate your tolerance.

Amendment 6 seeks to perform another important role—ensuring that the PPF and the Fraud Compensation Fund work effectively and efficiently for all parties, which I am sure everyone here would support. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report, within 12 months of the Act being passed, on the operation of the Fraud Compensation Fund in connection with any loan made to the board of the PPF under proposed new section 115A of the Pensions Act 2004.

In the debate on amendment 3, I set out why we needed a fuller understanding of the way the levy works and its impact—I mentioned the two not-for-profit organisations that are doing such valuable work—in order to improve the situation for savers and pensioners. I will not go into the detail of those arguments again, but they are applicable and equally important for this amendment.

It is crucial to highlight the context in which we put forward the amendment. A very limited number of schemes are currently propping up the fraud compensation levy by paying disproportionate contributions, even though they do not have a meaningful connection to fraud at this time.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Let us try to ensure that we get through this portion of business before the Division. The Opposition spokesperson may of course respond, but let us keep it brief.

[Matt Rodda]

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I feel that he is being somewhat generous in his description of the Government’s assessment of this problem and the level of response. I urge him to redouble his efforts and to focus on some of these points in further detail.

I think that the hon. Member for Glenrothes is right to draw attention to the subtle legal difference on the issue of the impact assessment. Surely, given the scale of what is going on, it would be wise to carry out an impact assessment. I appreciate the pressure of time, but perhaps with the considerable resources of DWP, which has the largest staff quota of any Department and a very able group of civil servants, it would be possible to carry out an impact assessment on a rapid turnaround, given the scale of what we are talking about and, indeed, the problems of the sector as a whole.

On the ongoing consultation and the possibility of reviews in this area, will the Minister agree to meet me and the not-for-profit providers to explore the particular issues affecting them?

[Guy Opperman]

I will, of course, agree to meet them. I already meet NEST and the People’s Pension regularly, and they have made a very good pitch for a reduced levy. It is already a reduced levy, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, and there is already a 0.75% cap, but of course I am looking forward to meeting them as part of the ongoing consultation.[Official Report, Vol. 697. 17 June 2021, c. 3MC.]

[Matt Rodda]

I am very grateful to the Minister and put on the record my thanks to him for offering that meeting. I look forward to seeing him and discussing the matter.

On amendment 5, the Minister mentioned the regulations in the Pension Schemes Act 2021, but will he write to me to discuss some of the ways in which the specific parts of the regulations relate to this issue? He has been reported in the media as suggesting that it might be wise to consider pension scams in the online harms Bill. Perhaps he will comment on that now or write to me separately, because we would like to work constructively with the Government on this matter. I appreciate that online harms are a huge and wide-ranging issue, and I have a constituency interest in violent crime in respect of a tragic incident in Reading.

[Guy Opperman]

I would be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. He can read in detail what I said in The Times on both occasions, and that is pretty much all I can say on that matter.

[Matt Rodda]

I thank the Minister for his candour and for offering me a cutting from The Times, which is a fine newspaper.

Finally, on the PPF annual report, the issue is that while these documents are very worthy, and we should all read them, there is a delay. I urge the Minister to consider the need to reassure organisations in the sector, pension savers and pensioners themselves in the near term, rather than our having to wait well into 2022 before the 2021 annual report is available.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.