Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2017 Commons Chamber

These new clauses would help to deal with the current issue facing plumbers in Scotland. Plumbing Pensions (UK) Ltd was established in 1975 to provide pensions for the plumbing and heating industry UK-wide. The scheme is managed by a group of trustee directors appointed from nominees of the Association of Plumbing and Heating Contractors in England and Wales, the Scottish and Northern Ireland Plumbing Employers Federation, and Unite the union. The scheme has over 36,000 members and assets in excess of £1.5 billion. Under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995, employers can in certain circumstances become liable for what is known as a section 75 employer debt. The debt is calculated on a “buy-out” basis, which tests whether there would be sufficient assets in the scheme to secure all the members’ benefits by buying annuity contracts from an insurance company. Legislation specifies that a section 75 employer debt becomes payable when the employer either becomes insolvent, winds up, changes its legal status, or ceases to have any active members in the scheme. While we must be mindful that the purpose of these rules is to protect pension benefits, the way in which they are currently framed creates problems for some stakeholders. We are sympathetic to the concerns raised by SNIPEF.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is because of such examples as he has touched on of unincorporated businesses at risk of losing personal assets that it is so pertinent that the Government bring forward the solution right now rather than wait for the opportunity to pass?

[Ian Blackford]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. These are complex issues. That is why we make the suggestion that we are willing to work with the Government on this. We have to find a solution to this because at the end of the day ordinary people who have done the right thing could now be faced with losing their house, and that cannot be right. This issue has to be resolved.

There are a number of options for the UK Government to consider but each one has complications for the pension schemes, employers and scheme members. We urge the Government to weigh up the interests of employers with the need to protect benefits for pension scheme members. The former Pensions Minister in the other place, Baroness Altmann, indicated that she would look closely at how a solution could be reached to this complex issue. We need the same assurances from the Minister that he will work to find a solution for the industry and use this Bill to bring forward a solution.

SNIPEF’s four objectives are to achieve an amendment to section 75 debt legislation, as its main concern is for those involved in the unincorporated businesses that my hon. Friend mentioned who are at risk of losing their personal assets including their homes. It wants the Government to conduct a review of the actuarial methods used to value pension scheme liabilities, as it believes that the calculation of section 75 employer debt on a full annuity buyout basis is inappropriate and detrimental to non-associated multi-employer schemes given current economic conditions. It argues that orphan debt in any non-associated multi-employer scheme should be excluded from the calculation of section 75 employer debt. It suggests that provided the scheme is deemed to be prudently funded, the PPF acts as guarantor of last resort for orphan liabilities. It also believes that any changes in legislation should apply retrospectively to all employers from 2005. It would be helpful to get the Government’s view on this request. SNIPEF recently met the Minister, and it has advised SNP MPs that he confirmed that the objectives may have been incorporated within the Green Paper. We are now interested to hear the Government’s view as to whether they have identified a solution.

I want briefly to make passing reference to my two new clauses that have not been selected for debate, and signal my disappointment about that. New clause 10 would require the Secretary of State to identify support for women affected by the changes to the timetable for state pension age equalisation. We are disappointed that a pensions Bill has not been brought forward to deal with the pressing injustices within the pensions system.

[Mhairi Black]

Does my hon. Friend agree that by missing this opportunity the Government are wilfully ignoring it, much like they are ignoring the WASPI women themselves?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We do not discuss new clauses that have not been selected. We have to deal with what is before us and that is the new clauses on the selection list. I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to stay in order by dealing with those, not those that have been omitted.

Housing Benefits (18 to 21-year-olds)

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. This is about encouraging family responsibility. It is about enabling and helping young people who have the choice to remain at home to stay there. For those who cannot stay at home, a very significant exemption is written in; those for whom it is inappropriate to stay in the family home will be exempted from this policy.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

Yesterday, SNP MPs joined others to try to annul this ludicrous legislation. The Government seem to be working on the incorrect assumption that young people can simply stay at home, when parents have no obligation to house their adult children. The SNP has consistently opposed the withdrawal of housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-olds, but under the current powers of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government cannot reverse the cut or provide an exemption for Scotland. Does the Minister agree that it is simply ridiculous that young people should suffer purely because the Government are obsessed with imposing austerity? Can she tell us how many young people will be affected who do not qualify for an exemption? Does she think that an unemployed young adult is more likely to get a job if they have a stable address, or if they are living in a hostel or sleeping on the streets? Will the UK Government exempt Scottish young people from the impact of the regulations and allow the Scottish Government to provide the housing support on their behalf?

[Caroline Nokes]

The Scottish Government already have a wide range of powers that would enable them to alleviate the proposed changes. Our Government are committed to working with the Scottish Government on a whole range of issues in the DWP portfolio, to make sure that they have the power and the strength to implement those powers.

Jobcentre Plus Offices: Closure

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

Many jobseekers will already travel more than 4 miles to access their nearest jobcentre, and it is important that we remember not just that, but that people in employment will also be travelling significant distances in their daily commute. We are seeking the best solutions for individuals by looking at outreach and co-location—to find ways that people can access services online so that where possible we can minimise the disruption to their looking for work.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

The DWP administration centre in my constituency is closing, and 300 jobs will be transferred out of Paisley. Has there been any assessment or consideration of the economic impact on the area? Has there been any consultation whatever; and if not, why not?

[Caroline Nokes]

The most important aspect when it comes to relocations such as that one is, of course, the staff. That is why we have been working closely with all our DWP staff to make sure that we find roles for them elsewhere and give them the assistance they need, should we choose to relocate them.

Benefit Claimants Sanctions (Required Assessment) Bill

Mhairi Black Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 2nd December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Conor Burns]

It is incumbent upon all Governments of all colours to work constantly to try to improve the systems under which we operate. The answer, however, is not to remove a sanctions regime—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South set out the matter very clearly; this is a Trojan horse Bill.

[Mhairi Black]

If I wanted to use this Bill to get rid of sanctions, that is exactly what it would say on the cover. I have explained, and I cannot be more sincere in explaining, that this Bill is not about removing sanctions. It is a genuine attempt to bring some consistency to a system that is allowing far too many people to fall through the cracks. It is about ensuring that individuals are not left without. That is compassion.

[Conor Burns]

The hon. Lady was very clear in her speech to the House earlier that her view is that it would be much better to have a system with no sanctions in place. [Interruption] That is what the hon. Lady said. What I am trying to outline is the way in which the Government are working within the existing processes to improve the arrangements of the system so that we genuinely deliver benefits to those who need them, but root out those seeking to abuse the system and therefore break the social contract with the taxpayers who are working to pay those benefits.

One of the ways we have done that was when, in December 2015, we accelerated the process for considering hardship payment claims so that they are now paid within three days. The Government response to the Select Committee included the announcement that we would trial a sanctions warning system and that we would give a further opportunity for claimants to provide evidence before a sanction is applied. That would strike the right balance between enforcing conditionality and fairness. The trial started in Scotland in March 2016 and ended at the end of September. Evaluation is currently being undertaken to enable ministerial decisions on any future national roll-out.

Sanctions are not jumped to before any other considerations; they are used as a last resort. The Government have put in place a comprehensive monitoring regime to ensure that sanctions are always, and only ever, applied appropriately. Not only is the decision to impose a sanction taken by an independent decision maker, but everyone is made aware of their right to appeal, and claimants are given every opportunity to present additional evidence. It is not a form of arbitrary and cruel punishment for those who, of innocent circumstance, were forced to be late for, or miss entirely, a meeting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Conor Burns]

I have in fact been in those circumstances. I was unemployed and had to sign on after I graduated in 1994 in the worst graduate recession since the second world war. I experienced that again after I tried to get elected to this House in 2005 and had not got the money; I had to decide whether to pay the mortgage or the council tax on overdraft. So, yes I have been in those circumstances, and I have to say: do not ever sit there and suggest to people that we do not have the ability to empathise in this House of Commons simply because we sit on the Conservative Benches. That is the worst type of class war stereotypical nonsense, which frankly we should have moved way beyond in this House a long time ago.

Let us return to the point in question. The fact is that 94% of JSA claimants stick to their commitments and are not sanctioned, and even smaller is the percentage of ESA claimants—the main in-work sickness benefit—who are sanctioned, which stands at less than 1%. However, something being uncommon does not justify ignoring it, if it is a justified issue, which brings me on to my other point.

Department for Work and Pensions research shows that 70% of people receiving JSA and 60% of those receiving ESA said that the regime made them more likely to follow the rules. This is a sensible policy, which takes account of, and goes to great lengths never to disadvantage, those genuinely in need of benefits, but which seeks to cut down any dependency culture, ensure that those claiming benefits—

[Mhairi Black]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. Has he read the NAO report published this week which shows that a quarter of all people between 2010 and 2015-16 have experienced a sanction? That is the reality; that is the real fact.

[Conor Burns]

I am very comfortable with the figures that I have given the House, and I see the Minister nodding his affirmation that those figures are indeed correct.

--- Later in debate ---

[Conor Burns]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Indeed, the Government are constantly listening and adapting the system to improve it. We heard a lot from Opposition Members about people on JSA being categorised as vulnerable, but, as the Secretary of State announced recently, the Government are extending the list of vulnerable groups to include those with mental health conditions and those who are homeless. This will mean that they can receive hardship payments from day one of their sanction. The Government have also accelerated the process of considering hardship payments so that they are now paid within three days.

[Mhairi Black]

I want to respond to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies). As the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) is sincerely saying, the job of Government is to listen, and they should do so constantly. If they do listen, they will find that there is huge disparity throughout the UK. While it is fine to say in theory that the system should be consistent, the Government should listen to the facts, and the reality of the stories that we are hearing today is that that is not happening. Let us listen and introduce something that will formalise that consistency. That is all that this Bill is about.

[Conor Burns]

I am happy to be a useful conduit for the hon. Lady to make that point to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies), but it may stretch the generosity of the Chair were I to invite my hon. Friend to reply through me to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South.

Much has been said about people who work in jobcentres, including that some of them might be callous or cold-hearted people who, on a whim or when in a bad mood or if they got out of bed on the wrong side, would somehow deliberately impose hardship. I do not recognise that characterisation from the meetings that I have had with them in my constituency. They are often berated and vilified simply for doing their job. They are honest people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

Yes, I welcome that. I am also delighted that 90% of JSA claimants who apply to the hardship fund are successful.

[Mhairi Black]

I welcome the comments made by the hon. and learned Lady and by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) on the importance of the hardship fund and the good it can do. Will she therefore support the principle of the Bill? Instead of waiting and making the individual responsible for applying to the hardship fund, the Bill would mean that the individual’s entitlement to a hardship payment is immediately assessed. Is that something she can support?

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) rightly identified that hardship payments are one of the steps set out in the process. We do not necessarily need legislation to identify the fact that people should be told that a hardship system is in place—that should happen. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South rightly identified that the practice works in some places. If it works in some places, it is not legislation that is needed. We need to ensure that good practice is happening throughout the country.

The hon. Lady also rightly spoke about the work of jobcentre staff, and the Oakley review said:

“All of the conversations that the Review team held with Jobcentre Plus staff highlighted their dedication to trying to help claimants back into work and ensuring that the social security system was administered fairly and effectively.”

That is what we need to keep doing.

The Bill rightly recognises that the position could be improved, because things can always be improved. There is a continuous assessment of what is right and what is wrong. We have had the independent Oakley review of sanctions, which recognised that work still needs to be done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

I will make some progress.

Secondly, the hon. Lady questioned how people can provide evidence that a bus or a train was late. I can think of a number of ways of doing so, such as taking a photograph of the dashboard or asking a member of staff to provide evidence. Thirdly, she said that staff may be affected, but I have already covered that point.

In conclusion, the hon. Lady’s Bill is important because we need to assess what works and what does not work. I welcome the call for consistency, because it is absolutely vital that we have a system that works fairly throughout the country.

[Mhairi Black]

Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

[Lucy Frazer]

I am about to finish.

I welcome the fact that we have had a review—the Oakley review—and the fact that the Government have taken on board some of the recommendations. We must consistently and constantly strive to ensure that work pays, that we encourage people to find work and, at the same time, we must protect the most vulnerable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Weir]

We are not discussing the principle of sanctions today. We are discussing a Bill that sensibly seeks to mitigate the current system. Whether there should be sanctions at all is another debate for another day, but it is not what we are debating today. Many Government Members have spoken about mitigations in the system. It is true that people can get hardship payments, but it can take many weeks. Not only that, but the hardship payments are a percentage of what people would get from benefits. Despite what many people seem to think, benefits are hardly over-generous in the first instance. People who get by on benefits find that they cannot get by on hardship payments.

Parts of my constituency are relatively prosperous. Many people work in the North sea oil industry, for example. In the downturn in that industry, people lost well-paid jobs. Many of them came to me absolutely flabbergasted at the amount of money they got by signing on because they had believed for so many years the rubbish pushed by some of our media that all people on benefits live the life of Riley, which is absolute nonsense.

The point has been made that there is nothing new in the sanctions system, which is correct—sanctions have been part of the system since at least 1996—but what is new is the number of sanctions and how they are imposed. The system is deeply flawed, and SNP Members have long called for a full independent review of it. Even the National Audit Office found in its recent report that a shocking 24% of jobseeker’s allowance claimants received a sanction between 2010 and 2015 and that the rate of sanctions varies dramatically. That is not right and the Government must listen to the concerns about the damage that the application of benefit sanctions has on individuals and their families.

The report also states starkly:

“sanctions are not rare. A quarter of Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants receive them at some point”,

which blows apart the Government’s assertion that only a small minority receive them. Worse still, there is absolutely no consistency in the figures. The report finds that some Work programme providers made more than twice as many sanctions referrals as other providers within the same geographical area, even though claimants are randomly allocated, so that case load characteristics are identical for each provider. That would not happen in a fair system.

There should be no more than a minor variation if the system is used uniformly. Clearly it is not, which the Bill would address by adding a clear code of conduct. The point is that, wherever someone is subject to the system up and down the United Kingdom, the same principles would be applied, and it would not be left to individual variance from place to place. The NAO believes that the DWP does not use sanctions consistently, noting that sanctions referral rates

“have risen and fallen over time in ways that cannot be explained by changes in claimant compliance.”

The Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South has introduced would make a start on the process. Hon. Members accept that it does not do away with the sanctions regime. She is very intelligent and knows perfectly well that such a Bill would never get through the House in its current form. However, the Bill would go a long way to ensure that there is a coherent, unified process for all jobcentres and that advisers take a claimant’s personal circumstances into account before issuing sanctions. Advisers would be compelled to take into account whether a person is at risk of homelessness and whether they have caring responsibilities or a mental health condition that could be exacerbated if their benefits were sanctioned.

It is interesting to note that in March 2015 the Work and Pensions Committee published a report, “Benefit sanctions policy beyond the Oakley Review”, which recommended, among other things, that the Government take urgent steps to implement fully the outstanding recommendations of that report. To be scrupulously fair, the Government have taken some measures. They have trialled the yellow card system and we still wait to see what the outcome of that trial will be.

[Mhairi Black]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I hope that the Minister will address that point at the end of the debate, because in a written answer to my question asking when the details of the yellow card system would be published, the answer was the end of November. We are now into December.

[Mike Weir]

When my hon. Friend has been here as long as I have, she will realise that a political month can go on for a very, very long time.

The point is that many of the people who are subject to sanctions are vulnerable or, frankly, leading chaotic lifestyles because of mental illness. In its comments on the Bill, SAMH, which has a scheme in my constituency, said:

“People with mental health problems are among the most vulnerable of benefit recipients, are disproportionately targeted to be sanctioned and are among the least likely to understand or be able to comply with the conditions attached to their benefit.”

SAMH also makes the point that

“Sanctioning this group…serves no purpose other than to make their illness worse and their personal circumstances even harder to cope with—making employment a less, not more, likely outcome.”

In response to a Scottish Government consultation last October, it added that

“The number of sanctions applied in Scotland doubled in the last year, and individuals with mental health problems are disproportionately affected.”

According to Mind, figures obtained by a freedom of information request in November 2015 showed that 19,259 people with mental health problems had their benefits stopped under sanction in 2014-15, compared with just 2,507 in 2011-12. That is a 668% rise in just three years, which cannot be just or right.

These people are already vulnerable. The reason that they are perhaps not fully compliant with the rules is not that they are wilful but that they are unable to do so. A sanction will make matters worse and will not make them more likely to get a job; in other words, it is a completely counterproductive process. In fact, it could be even worse than that, because these people are also the least likely to look into how they can then get a hardship payment or how they can appeal. We get people coming into my office after they have been sanctioned completely unaware of the system and how they go about appealing a sanction or how they go about getting a hardship payment, and that happens despite the work that we do and despite the excellent work that Angus Council’s welfare benefits team do to point people in the right direction.

There are people, particularly those with mental health problems, who simply fall through the cracks, and the danger of not having a unified system is that more and more people will fall through those cracks. Many other Members will have stories of people in similar circumstances. Crucially, however, the Government also did not accept the WPC’s recommendation that they should

“establish a broad independent review of benefit conditionality and sanctions, to investigate whether sanctions are being applied appropriately, fairly and proportionately, in accordance with the relevant Regulations and guidance”

that already exist.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point.

[Mhairi Black]

rose—

[Helen Whately]

I understand that the hon. Lady wants to intervene, but will she let me make a bit of progress because I have hardly been through two sentences of what I was planning to say. I will, of course, allow her to intervene later, not least because she is so passionate about this subject.

I want to take a step back and talk about the overall system that is in place. We rightly have a safety-net benefits system so that nobody should have to live in abject poverty. This system is taxpayer funded and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) argued earlier, we should not forget that the money that funds the system comes from people’s pockets—not just from the wealthiest, but from people who are not well off and those described as “just about managing”. We always need to ensure that the welfare system gets the balance right between supporting those who need help with their income and not taking too much money away from those who do not have a huge amount of money to spend in the first place.

[Mhairi Black]

The statistics show that the price of this sanctions regime as it currently stands and the subsequently overturned decisions is £50 million to the taxpayer. The Bill would change how benefit sanctions are administered. It is not about ripping the system apart, but about trying to make it more efficient precisely because we want to save taxpayers’ money as well as a lot of the hassle that some people have to go through.

[Helen Whately]

The hon. Lady makes the important point that we should look for value for money from Government spending. That is absolutely right, but there seems to be some kind of error that the imposition of sanctions in its own right is all about trying to reduce the amount of money spent on benefits. My understanding of the benefits system is that it is part of a larger welfare system that is attempting to help people get into work. Work is an important aspect of the system and some money is spent to achieve that. It is the whole aim of the system around jobseeker’s allowance, the Work programme and so forth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

I also have a copy of the Bill to hand and the explanatory notes, and that is indeed what I am speaking about.

I wanted to make sure, however, that I had laid the groundwork on the important role sanctions play in a fair benefits system that is supporting everyone who can work to get into work. That not only reduces the number of people relying on other people’s earnings for income, and not only helps give businesses and public services a much needed supply of workers, but it is generally a good thing for the individuals involved, because we know that work is generally good for us.

A recent paper by the Royal College of Psychiatrists called “Work and mental health” observed that although work can be a stressor for some people in some circumstances, a comprehensive review of the research shows that work is beneficial to health and wellbeing. It says that when people without work are re-employed they have an improvement in health and wellbeing, while further unemployment leads to deterioration. A lack of work is detrimental to health and wellbeing, and the health status of people of all ages who move off welfare benefits improves.

We also know children in working households have better outcomes in academic attainment, training and future employment. Work provides a route out of poverty for families and improves children’s wellbeing and life chances as fewer will grow up in workless households. One of the great successes since 2010 has been the fall in the number of children living in workless households, so there are fewer children living in a household where there is often no routine, no rhythm of work, and no role model showing work is something we can, and should, do.

The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South mentioned her visit to a jobcentre in South Thanet as part of her work as a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. I have also visited jobcentres in Maidstone and Sittingbourne that serve my constituents and have observed the hard work the staff do to help the people who come to them to get into work. I have been very impressed by my conversations with the work coaches and the active and sincere interest they take in helping their clients get into work—and their celebrations when people succeed, particularly those facing a real challenge to get into work.

[Mhairi Black]

I appreciate what the hon. Lady is saying, and ask her to join me in trying to get that same experience in those jobcentres to become the norm throughout the UK? This Bill seeks to spread that consistency and good quality of staff throughout the UK.

[Helen Whately]

I agree with the hon. Lady that it would be good to have a consistently high standard of support in jobcentres across the country. I do not agree, however, that a Bill is the right way to achieve that. There are other ways of achieving improvement across all the sectors of our public services. I have done an enormous amount of healthcare work, as she might know, and I do not believe that legislating from the top is necessarily the right way to reduce variation and bring everyone up to the level of the best. There are many ways of doing that that do not involve legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

rose—

[Mhairi Black]

rose—

[Helen Whately]

I will happily give way to my hon. Friend.

[Helen Whately]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will now happily take a short intervention from the hon. Lady.

[Mhairi Black]

I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene. First, I am more than happy for this Bill to be looked at and to have different inputs, so the Government should support it in principle and we can then thrash out in Committee the technicalities of how it can be implemented. Secondly, if the Government are genuinely interested in listening, it might be an idea for the hon. Lady to speak to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I have been trying for weeks to get a meeting with him to discuss the Bill, but I am yet to have even a reply.

[Helen Whately]

My experience is that the Government are genuinely listening and, as we have heard in many examples today, have repeatedly responded to recommendations about improving the system. There is a continual process of listening and improving. But, no, I do not agree with the principle of the Bill, which is to legislate to address what are essentially problems with the management and implementation of the current system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

I am going to repeat what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). The staff at the DWP are supporting the Bill. They want clarity, and they think that they do not have it. They are on the frontline doing the job, so if they think that they do not have that clarity, we should listen to them.

[Mhairi Black]

Is my hon. Friend frustrated, as I am, about the fact that Government Members seem to be applauding themselves for being so good at listening, but they have not listened for the last three hours, while we have told them how the system is not working and why we need the Bill to formalise what should be happening?

[Anne McLaughlin]

Absolutely. As I said at the start, I feel as though I am banging my head off a brick wall. In fact, I think that that might be a better use of my time.

If we are already doing this, the requirement in the Bill for someone’s caring responsibilities to be taken into account when considering a sanction happens already, does it? Tell that to my constituent Claire, a single parent who was summoned to an interview with the jobcentre on a day the following week at 3 pm, the exact time that her six-year-old gets out of school. She asked whether the meeting could be changed to 3.30. No. Could it be changed to earlier in the day? No. Could it be changed to another day? No, it had to be on that day at 3 o’clock, the time that she needed to pick up her child from school. She said, “Should I leave my child there, or should I take my child out early?” She was told, “We don’t care, as long as you get here, and if you do not get here at 3 o’clock on that day, we are sanctioning you.” Were her caring responsibilities taken into account? No. I do not want to hear that that was an incorrect decision or an isolated case. I am sick of hearing that. It was not an isolated case, because we hear about this all the time. I could talk about it until midnight and I would not get through, such is the number of times I have heard about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)]

This is an important debate today. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) for bringing these matters to the Floor of the House for further discussion. I do have very comprehensive responses to the individual line items of the Bill, and it is important that they get an airing, but, because of the way that the debate has gone, there will not be time today to go through them all. I thank my hon. Friends who pulled off the Speaker’s list in order to allow a small amount of time for a Government contribution to this debate. I look forward to speaking to those points when the hon. Lady brings her Bill back to the Floor of the House in due course.

The hon. Lady set the pace today with a very comprehensive and passionate one-hour-and-15 minute speech in which she covered a great deal of the aspect of this debate. As I have said, these are important matters, and it was important that they were brought here today.

We also heard from the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) who speaks for the Opposition. I was not entirely clear, at the end of her speech, where we stood on Labour party policy as regards sanctions, but doubtless we will hear more on that in due course.

We heard from the hon. Member for Angus (Mike Weir), who I believe is a member of the SNP Whips Office, but nevertheless spoke for 15 minutes on a day when his colleague had a private Member’s Bill to introduce. We also heard from the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) at some length.

I thank my hon. Friends on the Government Benches for their contributions to the debate, including my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) and for Torbay (Kevin Foster). We also heard speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), who reminded us of the centrality of the taxpayer in this equation. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer) talked about the benefits of work, and reminded us that sanctions should be used as a last resort. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) talked about the importance not only of getting people into work, but of getting people closer to the labour market. She thanked the jobcentre staff in Maidstone and Sittingbourne. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) not only thanked her local jobcentre staff, but reminded us of the important work done by all our caseworkers and, in fact, of the importance of casework itself in informing these debates. That is a particular strength of our parliamentary system.

There is much in the Bill that has logic to it and that would, all else being equal, be attractive from a public policy perspective, but I hope to reassure her today that much of what she is calling for is, in practice, already done, while other aspects are achieved in different ways.

[Mhairi Black]

rose—

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Lady will have to forgive me. She spoke for one hour and 15 minutes, and I have very little time. I am obviously not going to be able to get through all the contents of her Bill in the time available, but I hope she will allow me to begin.

Successive Governments have recognised the key role that sanctions have in the benefits system to encourage people to comply with conditions that will help them move into or closer to work. Much work has been undertaken to ensure all those claiming are clear about their responsibilities when claiming benefits and about the potential impact on their benefits if they fail without good reason to complete a requirement they have agreed to undertake.

Imposing a sanction is not done lightly. We invite those facing a sanction to explain exactly why they failed to meet the requirement, and we take all the circumstances into account to determine whether the requirement was reasonable for that individual and whether they had good reason for not meeting it. We do this in each case, and the proposals in the Bill present nothing new in that regard. Indeed, we have removed references in legislation to what constitutes good cause or good reason precisely to ensure that those making decisions can consider every aspect of an individual’s circumstances, not just those prescribed in a list. It would be a step back to return to having that in legislation.

We are confident that the training and guidance available to decision makers give them the tools to make fair and robust decisions. We have a well-established system of hardship provision for claimants—provision that can be accessed by those who are sanctioned. Where a claimant demonstrates they cannot meet their immediate and most essential needs, they can apply for a hardship payment. We tell claimants regularly about the availability of hardship payments, and we have worked hard to ensure that payments are paid within three days. Work coaches identify claimants they feel would be considered vulnerable for hardship purposes and, where a sanction is imposed, they contact them to instigate the hardship process straightaway.

Not only is our approach to sanctioning claimants considered and fair, but it is a key factor in improving the employment rate and curtailing unemployment. The Department invests significant resource to help people move quickly into employment. As a result, employment, as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South will know, is up by 2.75 million since 2010, with the number of workless households at a record low.

Evidence shows that sanctions can have a positive effect on behaviour. In “The Jobcentre Plus Offer: Final evaluation report”, published in November 2013, it was noted that 70% of JSA, and over 60% of ESA, claimants say that sanctions make it more likely they will follow the rules. The recent “Universal Credit at Work” evaluation, from December last year, found that 76% of claimants felt that the potential for universal credit to be stopped or reduced encouraged them to meet their conditions. The same report demonstrates that 72% of claimants agreed that the potential for sanctions meant they were more likely to look for, or take steps to prepare for, work.

In addition, qualitative research found that people perceived the claimant commitment as critical to the upkeep of their claim. They were generally very clear about the time they were required to spend on job-search activity and the need for them to evidence this, and about the fact not fulfilling their requirements could result in a sanction.

If I may, I will start to go through the elements of the Bill. The Bill seeks to amend sections of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 concerning the claimant commitment and sanctions, to introduce measures to check a claimant’s circumstances prior to a sanction being considered. A significant proportion of the measures proposed in the Bill are measures the Department already undertakes through guidance. For example, the Department ensures that health issues, caring responsibilities and homelessness are noted and taken into account when dealing with claimants. We ensure work-related requirements are fully explained when they are set, as well as the action the claimant should take if they fail to complete the requirement, and the potential impact on their benefit if they do not. The fact that the claimant’s circumstances and any information provided by them are considered before a sanction is imposed should also be acknowledged.

A huge amount of work has been undertaken following recommendations from the Work and Pensions Committee and, as has been referenced by a number of my hon. Friends, from Matthew Oakley’s review of benefit sanctions, to ensure that our staff, when setting requirements for benefit claimants, do so reasonably. That is especially true, of course, of claimants who are identified as having complex needs or who require additional support to enable them to access DWP benefits and to use DWP services.

In addition, we ensure that claimants are advised about their conditionality requirements and about the associated consequences if they fail to meet them. At the point of the claim, staff clearly explain to claimants what they have to do and what will happen if they fail to do it. This is followed up in writing with the claimant commitment documentation. We ensure all appointment notifications and notifications to participate in mandatory programmes also include these requirements clearly in writing.

Turning to the contents of the Bill, clause 1—

State Pension Age: Women

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

I hope that the Government are beginning to get the picture. For each month that passes, women’s pensionable age is increasing by as much as three months. We should just dwell on that—a three-month addition to pensionable age for each month that someone was born later than their neighbour, friend or colleague.

I spoke about a woman born in March 1953 who retired this year at age 63, but a woman born a year later, in March 1954, will not retire until September 2019, when she will be aged 65 and a half. [Interruption.] Conservative Members seem to think that this is funny, but we are talking about women who are being significantly disadvantaged over too sharp an increase in women’s pensionable age. Those Members might find that acceptable, but I am afraid that I, my colleagues and many millions of other people in the country certainly do not. A woman born six months later, in September 1954, will have to wait until she is 66 in September 2020. Over an 18-month period, a woman’s pensionable age will have increased by three years.

As we keep saying, we are not against equalisation of the state pension age—[Interruption.] My colleagues and I have said that in every speech we have given in this House. We have made it crystal clear, as have the WASPI women, that we agree with equalisation. It is the pace of change that is the problem, and Conservative Members are burying their heads in the sand over it and are refusing to face the reality.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

I must echo the very clear position that my hon. Friend has outlined. Does he agree that anybody who believes that, purely because someone is a woman and happens to have been born at a certain time they should lose out, is advocating a very warped and strange definition of equality?

[Ian Blackford]

Absolutely. Of course we have to face the gender inequality that has been with us, with women paid less for such a long time and women gaining less access to occupational pension schemes, but Government Members just seem to want to make things worse. As we keep saying, we are not against equalisation of the state pension age; it is the pace of change and the lack of appropriate notice that are the real issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

I have to start by saying that I am feeling very, very humbled here today, because the Conservative Benches are the busiest that they have ever been for me, talking on this issue.

Unfortunately, I have to start off on a negative point. Earlier, the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) talked about Members of Parliament finding themselves continually criticised for their point of view, whether that be on Twitter or when they meet people on the street or in their surgeries. The response to that should be for MPs to go away and reflect on whether they are in the right position and have the correct opinion. You do not turn round and call an entire fantastic, intellectual campaign hate-filled. You do not accuse them of having a hate campaign; you listen to them and you form your views.

We have debated this issue five times, I believe, so this is the fifth time I am speaking on it. It is important to reflect back on how we ended up in this position. Nearly a year ago today, I stood pretty much on this spot and argued for the WASPI campaign. I argued that this problem was happening and explained how it came about, and I tried to give the Government the benefit of the doubt. We said, “You have to accept that the Government have messed up. You have to accept that problems have been created and you have to come up with something.” It is truly an embarrassment to this House that we are still waiting on a Government plan for making this better.

The SNP went away and spent our own money to get a constructive report. We could easily have said, “Get rid of the ’95 Act altogether;” we could have said a million and one things, but instead we went away and found credible economists, put together a cracking report and tried to build a bridge that all parties in this House could cross. Instead—[Interruption.] If the Secretary of State wants to make an intervention, I am more than happy to take it. Until then, I suggest he listens.

When we put forward our report to the Government, so that they could listen to it, what was their response? In the Westminster Hall debate a couple of weeks back, the Minister said that,

“the Government’s position is very clear: this was not a contract. State pensions are technically a benefit.”—[Official Report, 15 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 44.]

That utterly pathetic response shows that this Government are determined to wriggle out of their responsibility for these women.

A Government Member said earlier that we now say to women that they have to pay in 35 years of national insurance and that that is how they are entitled to their pension, but the women we are talking about have paid in for 40 years, for 45 years and some of them for 50 years, yet we are being told that they are still not entitled to their pension. The Government are refusing to pay women what they are owed, and I am sure that the 2.6 million women will remember that the next time they are standing at the ballot box in an election.

The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) said earlier that Germany made these changes in 2009 and he asked what the problem was with our doing it in 2011. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman—who, by the way, has a majority of 806, if I remember correctly, which I imagine consists of a lot of WASPI women who will remember his speech at the next election—that our report shows that the only other country in Europe that has made this level of change at this accelerated pace is Greece. As I said in the last debate, that is a country that a couple of weeks ago was teargassing pensioners who were campaigning and protesting against austerity measures. Is that really what we want to base our arguments on? Is that the kind of model we want to follow?

This has been said a million and one times in the debate, and I have been biting my tongue the whole way through because of the incredible hypocrisy and lack of knowledge on these Benches—I was going to say on the Conservative Benches, but now unfortunately I have to add the Labour shadow Minister to that. Scotland does not have the power over pensions. If anyone wants to dispute that, I suggest that they get the Scotland Act 1998 and go to section 28, and they will see that in all the reserved matters that we are entitled to top up, pensions is not included.

Even if we did have the power to create pensions, and to fix them, I tell you something—and I think I speak for my colleagues not just in this Chamber but up the road as well—we are sick to the back teeth of using taxpayers’ money to fill all the holes that this Government create: a Government with policies that we have never voted for in Scotland, that we actively rejected in the general election. We cannot be expected to plug every single hole that this Government create with their shambolic policies.

The Government now say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) alluded to earlier, that they will never make changes to pensions unless people are within 10 years of reaching pension age. How can they justify that position but not do anything for these women, who have been told that they have to wait six or seven years to get their pensions?

The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) said that this was not in our manifesto. If he goes to page 21 of the 2016 manifesto for the Scottish elections, he will see it says that we support the WASPI campaign. He said that he would vote against our motion tonight because it is the younger generation who will pay—people in their 20s and 30s. I am included in that category, funnily enough, and I have to say that the issue is bigger than just the WASPI generation, because I want to know that when I am paying national insurance throughout my working lifetime, I am not going to be shafted at the last hurdle—that I am not going to be told at the last minute that the goalposts are moving. This is bigger. This is about the Government setting a precedent that pensions can change anywhere at any time, and that is not a healthy position for any Government to have.

The issue is altogether bigger than WASPI. The justification for the change is that we do not have enough money and this is about austerity. But the thing is that it is women that suffer under austerity. That is the reality; whether it be pensioners, single mothers or young women, it is always women that bear the brunt of this austerity.

[Alan Brown]

On affordability, is it not the case that the Government can revisit the £20 billion of tax giveaways in the last Budget—£8.5 billion in corporation tax and £5.5 billion in capital gains, inheritance tax and higher tax threshold relief? The Government can revisit those in the forthcoming spring Budget.

[Mhairi Black]

My hon. Friend makes his point very eloquently.

The Women’s Budget Group has done tremendous work. I urge Ministers to look at it and see the impact that they are having on women’s lives because of the Government’s detrimental policies. The group’s director said:

“We’ve known for some time that the poorest households and women have shouldered the greatest burden of austerity measures.”

In fact, 85% of the burden is forecast to fall on women by 2020. These women are not unfortunate casualties. They are not people who just happened to get unlucky. This Government cannot claim ignorance. They cannot plead innocence and say that they have no idea of the impact that they are about to have on people’s lives. These women, for whatever reason, are suffering under Conservative policies for no other crime than the fact that they are female and they are poor. That is the reality of what this Government are doing.

The legacy that this Government are leaving is absolutely shambolic and no amount of sympathy and flowery words from hon. Members is going to pay bills for people. It is not going to move things forward; it will not make sure that your citizens have a good, high-quality standard of life. The idea that the £8 billion spread across five years, as proposed in our report, is not affordable is an absolute joke. The national insurance fund, as we have said multiple times, will be sitting on a surplus of £30 billion. That figure has been disputed from the Government Benches, but it is worth pointing out that it comes from the Government Actuary’s Department. It is a Government figure.

In every one of these debates I have said that politics is about choice, and I have lambasted the Government for choosing to bomb Syria instead of paying pensions. I have lambasted them for spending billions on Trident. I have had a go at them for doing up this Palace of Westminster for £7 billion, which funnily enough we can afford. I understand that sometimes it can be quite dull when politicians repeat things time and again, but now there is something new. We can now also afford to pay up for the Queen’s house; we can now find the money to refurbish Buckingham Palace. So my question to the Minister would be this: are we going to be doing up Downing Street anytime soon? Are there any other houses filled with millionaires that need to be done up—that need a lick of paint? It is a ridiculous notion that we can afford to fork out money for palaces—literally, palaces such as this and Buckingham Palace—but we cannae pay pensions. It is a joke.

Our job here is to represent; it is to maintain democracy, to make sure that people watching at home feel as though they have a voice, to make sure that they feel there are people listening and standing up for them. When you see the quality of the debate that we have just sat through, no wonder people are quite depressed and disillusioned with politics. We have debated this subject five times. We have had 240 petitions all across the House. People are affected by this. Every single Member who handed in a petition has not just a professional duty but a moral duty to walk through that Lobby tonight and vote with us, because if they do not, as my WASPI mother would say, hell slap it intae ye at the next election.

State Pension Age: Women

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. This is the fifth or sixth time that we have had this debate, and every single time the Government’s response and stance has been littered with absolute hypocrisy. This Government lecture the Opposition about how they are the Government of responsibility, the ones making the difficult choices and the ones who can be trusted, yet they do not even allow people the chance to be responsible for their own pensions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) made clear in his speech, women were not given the slightest notice. Some of the women with the steepest hike were given a year’s notice. How does that encourage responsibility?

If anything, the Government have shown how irresponsible they are in working out solutions to problems in society. We have said for years now that people have to make 30 or 35 years’ worth of national insurance contributions to get their pensions. The generation of women that we are discussing have been paying in for 45 or 46 years now, yet they are being told, “Sorry, you still can’t get your pension.” We say that we care more about our pensioners than anybody else, and we pride ourselves on how we look after them, yet as has already been stated, the only other European country that has hiked the pension age at such an incredible pace is Greece, which a few weeks ago tear-gassed pensioners for protesting against austerity. Is that really where we want to put ourselves in terms of how we deal with constituents?

The thing that blows my mind is that if a private company were acting in this way, it would be taken to court. By the sound of things, if the Government do not act soon, they might be taken to court as well. We cannot blame individuals for being pushed to it; the Government are leaving them with no option. This is the last chance for the Government to do something right.

In every debate on this subject, we have called for transitional arrangements, and the Government’s response has always been, “What transitional arrangements are you asking for?” The Scottish National party has gone away and paid our own money to commission a report. I have printed it out, and I am happy to give it to the Minister at the end of this debate in case he does not have a copy.

Our report—I must give credit to Howard Reed of Landman Economics, which did a power of work for it—found independently that the figure of £30 billion being thrown about by the Government was nonsense. Implementing some form of transitional arrangement would cost £8 billion spread across five years. Bearing in mind that we are spending money on nuclear weapons, airstrikes in Syria and renovations to this building, I think it is about time that we got our priorities straight in terms of who needs what most. Even if we were to forget or not bother criticising the poor choices made by this Government, by the end of this year, the national insurance fund will sit at a surplus of £26.3 billion, which is expected to rise to £30.7 billion. The idea that we cannot afford it is nothing other than a bare-faced lie from the Government.

I must say, not just for the Government’s benefit but for that of any women from Women Against State Pension Inequality who might be watching, that we know that our report is not completely perfect and involves an element of compromise. We recognise that this Parliament has only a couple of months left to make an effective change to get something for these women. Therefore, we suggest delaying things for the people with the greatest hike for another two and a half years, to give them an extra chance. Also, all women benefit from the fact that the rise to 66 is pushed to the next Parliament, so the report affects every single woman affected by the changes, although in different ways. We have been reasonable and tried to be genuinely conscientious in coming up with something that the Government can support.

I am at my wits’ end to know what we need to do for this Government to act. We have proved that women in every constituency and from all backgrounds are affected, brought hundreds of petitions before Parliament with thousands upon thousands of signatures, had umpteen debates and gone away and done the Government’s homework for them, and yet we are still told that the Government will not act. What more do we need to give them in order for them to give us something?

I thought that the Government were just arrogant, but now I see that they are both arrogant and incompetent. They do not know what notice they gave women. They do not know the effect that the changes have had on people. They do not even know what powers they have given to the devolved Administrations to deal with things. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber said, the Scottish Government do not have the power to top up pensions. Even if we did, I would ask why the Government should effectively ask the Scottish Government to tax Scottish people twice so that they can receive a pension they have been paying into all their lives. However, we do not have those powers. We have argued that we would quite like them; if the Minister is prepared to move on that, we are more than happy to listen.

Most of all, the Government have managed to allow a genuine problem that transcends party political leanings and affects every constituency to become a party political issue in their own minds. The Government are so adamant that they cannot give the Opposition an inch that they are prepared to put this on the backs of women who have suffered their whole lives from inequality and unjust policies. That is completely unforgivable. If this Government are so arrogant and obsessed with not giving the Opposition an inch, they should come up with their own plans to sort the issue. We have jumped through every hoop that the Government have put before us since I first raised the issue during this parliamentary term.

Surely by now the Government recognise that this issue is not going away. It is a reasonable ask, and it is doable. The Government are out of excuses, and hell mend you if you do not do anything to fix it.