Asked by: Adrian Bailey (Labour (Co-op) - West Bromwich West)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many and what proportion of people in West Bromwich West constituency have (a) opted out after being auto-enrolled into a workplace pension and (b) saved more than the auto-enrolment minimum contribution.
Answered by Guy Opperman
Automatic enrolment has achieved a quiet revolution through getting employees into the habit of pension saving, and reversing the decline in workplace pension participation in the decade prior to these reforms. Since automatic enrolment started in 2012 participation rates have been transformed with 87% of eligible employees saving into a workplace pension in 2018, up from 55% in 2012.
The Department does not hold data for individual constituencies in relation to opt outs or the number of individuals who have saved above the automatic enrolment minimum contribution level. However, we do know that overall around 9% of automatically enrolled workers have chosen to opt out which is significantly below original estimates; and our latest evaluation report shows that, in April 2017, approximately 5.9 million eligible employees were already meeting the April 2019 minimum contribution rates1.
I am providing the following information about the impact of automatic enrolment in your constituency, as at end of September 20192:
In the West Bromwich West constituency since 2012, approximately 16,000 eligible jobholders have been automatically enrolled and 1480 employers have met their duties.
1Automatic Enrolment Evaluation Report 2018, available via the following weblink: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/764964/Automatic_Enrolment_Evaluation_Report_2018.pdf.
2The Pensions Regulator’s data on Automatic enrolment declaration of compliance by constituency, available via the following weblink:
https://www.thepensionsregulator.gov.uk/en/document-library/research-and-analysis/data-requests
Asked by: Adrian Bailey (Labour (Co-op) - West Bromwich West)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what discussions his officials had with the Insolvency Service on the draft Finance Bill 2019-20 prior to its publication on 11 July 2019; and whether views were sought on the policy to make HMRC a secondary preferential creditor in insolvencies.
Answered by Jesse Norman - Shadow Leader of the House of Commons
The Government carefully considered the case for reform prior to announcing this change last year, and it is the Government’s view that taxpayers can reasonably expect that when they have successfully paid their taxes, these go to fund public services as intended.
This measure represents a proportionate approach that balances the interests of taxpayers, the Exchequer, and other creditors.
The Government expects the impact on the sustainability of Pension Protection Fund (PPF) to be marginal. This reform will not lead to a significant change in recoveries to the PPF compared to current returns.
The Government does not expect this reform to affect significantly SMEs’ access to finance or corporate insolvencies, and in line with the Government’s commitment to open and consultative policymaking is engaging with a wide variety of stakeholders to ensure policy changes are well informed and based upon the best available evidence.
Asked by: Adrian Bailey (Labour (Co-op) - West Bromwich West)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the effect of establishing HMRC as a secondary preferential creditor in insolvencies on the sustainability of the Pension Protection Fund.
Answered by Jesse Norman - Shadow Leader of the House of Commons
The Government carefully considered the case for reform prior to announcing this change last year, and it is the Government’s view that taxpayers can reasonably expect that when they have successfully paid their taxes, these go to fund public services as intended.
This measure represents a proportionate approach that balances the interests of taxpayers, the Exchequer, and other creditors.
The Government expects the impact on the sustainability of Pension Protection Fund (PPF) to be marginal. This reform will not lead to a significant change in recoveries to the PPF compared to current returns.
The Government does not expect this reform to affect significantly SMEs’ access to finance or corporate insolvencies, and in line with the Government’s commitment to open and consultative policymaking is engaging with a wide variety of stakeholders to ensure policy changes are well informed and based upon the best available evidence.
Asked by: Adrian Bailey (Labour (Co-op) - West Bromwich West)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the potential effect of the policy to make HMRC a secondary preferential creditor in insolvencies on the number of corporate insolvencies from Q1 2020 onwards.
Answered by Jesse Norman - Shadow Leader of the House of Commons
The Government carefully considered the case for reform prior to announcing this change last year, and it is the Government’s view that taxpayers can reasonably expect that when they have successfully paid their taxes, these go to fund public services as intended.
This measure represents a proportionate approach that balances the interests of taxpayers, the Exchequer, and other creditors.
The Government expects the impact on the sustainability of Pension Protection Fund (PPF) to be marginal. This reform will not lead to a significant change in recoveries to the PPF compared to current returns.
The Government does not expect this reform to affect significantly SMEs’ access to finance or corporate insolvencies, and in line with the Government’s commitment to open and consultative policymaking is engaging with a wide variety of stakeholders to ensure policy changes are well informed and based upon the best available evidence.
Asked by: Adrian Bailey (Labour (Co-op) - West Bromwich West)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the effect of establishing HMRC as a secondary preferential creditor in insolvencies on the ability of SMEs to access finance.
Answered by Jesse Norman - Shadow Leader of the House of Commons
The Government carefully considered the case for reform prior to announcing this change last year, and it is the Government’s view that taxpayers can reasonably expect that when they have successfully paid their taxes, these go to fund public services as intended.
This measure represents a proportionate approach that balances the interests of taxpayers, the Exchequer, and other creditors.
The Government expects the impact on the sustainability of Pension Protection Fund (PPF) to be marginal. This reform will not lead to a significant change in recoveries to the PPF compared to current returns.
The Government does not expect this reform to affect significantly SMEs’ access to finance or corporate insolvencies, and in line with the Government’s commitment to open and consultative policymaking is engaging with a wide variety of stakeholders to ensure policy changes are well informed and based upon the best available evidence.
Asked by: Adrian Bailey (Labour (Co-op) - West Bromwich West)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, with reference to the recent agreement between Royal Mail Group and the Communication Workers Union on pension schemes, whether legislation to permit the use of Collective Defined Contribution (CDC) pensions schemes will be introduced before the end of the current parliamentary session.
Answered by Guy Opperman
This Government is committed to legislating to facilitate the delivery of collective defined contribution schemes when parliamentary time allows.
Asked by: Adrian Bailey (Labour (Co-op) - West Bromwich West)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for what reasons the mini-bond market is not regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
Answered by John Glen - Shadow Paymaster General
It is not a regulated activity for firms to issue their own securities, including mini-bonds, due to an exemption within the Regulated Activities Order 2001. This exemption exists to ensure that companies in the real economy can raise finance to fund their business without having to become authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).
However, to protect consumers, the marketing and promotion of such securities, including mini-bonds, are subject to the financial promotion restrictions set out in the Financial Services and Markets Act. This requires that the content of any financial promotion be approved by an FCA authorised firm unless an exemption applies. It is the responsibility of the FCA authorised firm to ensure the financial promotion is clear, fair and not misleading. Authorised firms that fail to meet these requirements may be subject to enforcement action by the FCA.
HM Treasury keeps the regulatory framework for financial services under review, and updates it as necessary. We are committed to maintaining a strong and safe financial system, with high standards of consumer protection. On 1 April, I announced that I will direct the FCA to launch an investigation into the events at London Capital & Finance, a firm which issued mini-bonds in order to fund loans that it made to other parties. This followed a request from the FCA Chair, Charles Randell, to launch such an investigation.
Asked by: Adrian Bailey (Labour (Co-op) - West Bromwich West)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
What recent progress has been made on the treatment of myalgic encephalomyelitis.
Answered by Caroline Dinenage
In September 2017, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence announced its plans for a full update to the existing clinical guideline on the diagnosis and management of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) to ensure that treatment reflects the latest available evidence. The revised guideline will be published in 2020.
Since 2011, we have also invested £6 million into research into CFS/ME via the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research.
Asked by: Adrian Bailey (Labour (Co-op) - West Bromwich West)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, for what reasons people with progressively deteriorating conditions are subject to repeat personal independence payment assessments.
Answered by Justin Tomlinson
Once someone has been awarded Personal Independence Payment (PIP), which can be paid at one of eight rates, that award will be reviewed. Reviews of PIP are a key part of the benefit to ensure that awards remain correct where needs may change (including where needs increase and the award may need to increase) and that we maintain contact with the claimant, both features that are missing from its predecessor Disability Living Allowance. The length of an award is based on an individual’s circumstances and can vary from nine months to an on-going award, with a light touch review after ten years.
We introduced updated guidance for case managers and an updated PIP Assessment Guide in 2018 which will ensure that those people who receive the highest level of support under PIP, and where their needs are unlikely to change or may get worse, will now receive an ongoing award with a light touch review at the ten-year point. In line with PIP’s aim to be needs-based rather than condition-based, the change to the guidance is not condition specific. However, we believe the changes will ensure that those with severe and/or progressive conditions receive the most appropriate award duration that reflects their condition and the needs arising.
Special considerations also apply to claimants who are terminally ill, and our arrangements recognise the particular difficulties faced by people who only have a short time to live. Claims by people with a terminal illness are fast tracked, are not subject to a face-to-face assessment and they are guaranteed the enhanced rate of the Daily Living Component; nearly all also receive the enhanced rate of mobility.
Asked by: Adrian Bailey (Labour (Co-op) - West Bromwich West)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if she will make it her policy to ensure that people with progressively deteriorating conditions do not receive reduced support from her Department following repeat personal independence payment assessments.
Answered by Justin Tomlinson
Once someone has been awarded Personal Independence Payment (PIP), which can be paid at one of eight rates, that award will be reviewed. Reviews of PIP are a key part of the benefit to ensure that awards remain correct where needs may change (including where needs increase and the award may need to increase) and that we maintain contact with the claimant, both features that are missing from its predecessor Disability Living Allowance. The length of an award is based on an individual’s circumstances and can vary from nine months to an on-going award, with a light touch review after ten years.
We introduced updated guidance for case managers and an updated PIP Assessment Guide in 2018 which will ensure that those people who receive the highest level of support under PIP, and where their needs are unlikely to change or may get worse, will now receive an ongoing award with a light touch review at the ten-year point. In line with PIP’s aim to be needs-based rather than condition-based, the change to the guidance is not condition specific. However, we believe the changes will ensure that those with severe and/or progressive conditions receive the most appropriate award duration that reflects their condition and the needs arising.
Special considerations also apply to claimants who are terminally ill, and our arrangements recognise the particular difficulties faced by people who only have a short time to live. Claims by people with a terminal illness are fast tracked, are not subject to a face-to-face assessment and they are guaranteed the enhanced rate of the Daily Living Component; nearly all also receive the enhanced rate of mobility.