Welfare Reform Bill

Anne Begg Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have to have a system that is fair both to the taxpayer who pays for it and to the recipients. As a result of these reforms, we will have a system that is fairer to those receiving support and also fairer to those who are paying for that support.

Support to find work, for those people who will be affected, will be available for all ESA claimants from the outset of their claim, through Jobcentre Plus on a voluntary basis until the outcome of the work capability assessment and, following the WCA, for those claimants placed in the work-related activity group, through Jobcentre Plus or through the Work programme. Every single person who is on ESA, including those on a contributory basis, has access to the Work programme.

Some have said that the limit is arbitrary. I do not accept that. As the Minister with responsibility for welfare reform explained in the other place, it is similar to that applied by several countries around the world, including France, Ireland and Spain, and strikes an appropriate balance between the needs of sick and disabled people claiming benefit and those who have to contribute towards the cost.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

Can the Minister clarify, for the avoidance of doubt, that someone who has been in the work-related activity group on contributory ESA for two years who subsequently gets reassessed as belonging to the support group will have their ESA reinstated even though they do not have the national insurance contributions that would allow that to happen?

[Chris Grayling]

I can indeed confirm that that is the case. We have listened very carefully on this issue, and it was a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) in Committee. We have listened and we have taken appropriate action. It is important that we look at such details to ensure that we get them right, but that does not detract from the overall principle of what we are trying to achieve.

I believe that a time limit of one year is the correct approach. It applies the right balance between restricting access to contributory benefits and allowing those with longer term illnesses to adjust to their health condition and surrounding circumstances. There is also a very strong financial argument. If accepted, this amendment would reduce the total savings in the spending review period by around a third by 2016-17, which is £1.6 billion. Given the current fiscal climate, we cannot afford to forgo these savings and this is one of a number of very difficult decisions the Government have had to make because, as the shadow Secretary of State pointed out at the time, there was no money left.

Lords amendment 18 would mean that no time limit would be applied to contributory ESA for those claimants receiving treatment for cancer if they have or are treated as having limited capability for work, or they have or are treated as having limited capability for work as a consequence of a cancer diagnosis. The whole point of our approach on these matters is that we have always looked at the effects of a condition on an individual, rather than at the condition itself. We can all think of other cases which could equally be regarded as special cases. We are trying to be sensitive to the very real concerns of individuals suffering from cancer, and since we took office we have made significant changes to improve the protection and support that we provide to them.

Most individuals with cancer are placed in the support group at the outset of their treatment. We have increased the scope of the support group for cancer patients. We have been working closely with Macmillan Cancer Relief to improve how the WCA assesses individuals being treated for cancer. We are now consulting on our proposals, following work by Macmillan and Professor Harrington, our independent assessor of the work capability assessment.

We are clear that our proposals, which are now out to consultation, include a presumption that someone with cancer will be in the support group. What we simply do not accept is that in all circumstances, regardless of the impact of cancer on an individual’s ability to work or otherwise, they should be guaranteed a position in the support group. We have not taken that approach with any other condition and we do not believe that we should take it with cancer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

No, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.

If amendment 18 were accepted, it is estimated that it would cost around £90 million cumulatively by 2016-17 based on a two-year time limit, or around £140 million cumulatively based on a one-year time limit. That would be a significant additional cost for the taxpayer, and would fly in the face of a principle that we have tried to bring to this whole process, which is that we do not bracket any condition into one absolute position. We look at each individual case to understand the impact of the condition on the ability to work.

The third area of focus this afternoon is our proposed changes to the condition relating to entitlement to ESA on grounds of limited capability during youth. These changes are part of our principled approach to reform. We want to modernise and simplify the current welfare system, focus support, avoid duplication of provision and redefine the contract between the state and individuals, in advance of the introduction of universal credit. It cannot be right that, for example, where a claimant has qualified for contributory ESA under the youth provisions and some years later they receive a substantial inheritance, they should be able to continue to receive unlimited contributory ESA without the need to have paid any contributions and without any condition from the state.

These proposals will not affect those in receipt of income-related ESA. We expect that around 90% of those who presently receive ESA on youth grounds will be eligible for income-related ESA. It will be a simple transition from their point of view. Only some 10% will not qualify because they have other means available to them—and I emphasise that that means a partner in full-time work or capital of more than £16,000. We are merely targeting the support the Government can provide to where it is needed most. I do not think it is right that someone with independent income or capital should be able to access state support on a long-term, ongoing and unconditional basis.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Can the Minister clarify absolutely that a 20-year-old who will never work and who lives at home with their parents will be able to get income-related ESA? Obviously it cannot be contributory as they have made no national insurance contributions. Even if they live in a household above income support levels, will they continue to get income-related ESA in their own right?

[Chris Grayling]

I cannot give an undertaking in all circumstances, because every circumstance will be different. But 90% of those who presently receive ESA on youth grounds will be eligible for income-related ESA. It will depend on the circumstances of each individual case.

We have already mentioned the fact that the Government amendments allow claimants to re-qualify for a further award of contributory ESA after their ESA has ceased as a result of time limiting, and they are later placed in the support group because of a deterioration in their health. That applies equally to ESA youth claimants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—indeed, I am just going on to make that very point. It is not just cancer patients who will be affected; there are many other people in exactly the same position. That is why we have argued for a two-year limit instead of a one-year limit, because with a two-year limit there is a chance for people to get back into work. The National Aids Trust makes the point:

“Many people living with HIV who are found eligible will face significant barriers to work that cannot be overcome within 12 months.”

[Dame Anne Begg]

The other group of people who will be affected by the time-limiting are those who have slowly progressive degenerative conditions. Initially on diagnosis, they may not be able to work—or they may have fallen out of work—but their conditions will not be severe enough for them to be placed in the support group, and they could spend up to 10 years without any kind of independent income-replacement benefit.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A woman with Parkinson’s disease also makes exactly that point:

“There’s no guarantee that I’ll find a job in 12 months. It could take me much longer. I’ve worked all my life and paid for decades into the system on the understanding that there will be support if I need it. To be told that all this support could have a… time limit is…unfair and stressful.”

The charity Sense points out that for some people in the work-related activity group, once their health has stabilised, they will need to retrain to get back into work. It will be impossible for them to do that within the 12-month period that is being proposed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

Those figures were quoted extensively in our debate. Our view is simply this: we should not be taking large sums of money from people who are recovering from cancer or from a stroke, and who have been told throughout their lives that if they paid into the national insurance system, they would be able to get help when they needed it. That pledge needs to be honoured, even by this Government.

Let me turn to Lords amendment 15 and the question of the youth passport. It is astonishing that the spiteful policy towards disabled young people remained in the Bill for so long. It is even more astonishing to see the Minister now trying to ram it back in today, after the other place took it out. The current principle is that people who have been disabled since birth or childhood should be passported on to a contributory benefit. In Committee, the Minister described the principle as an “oddity”, but it has been well established since the 1970s and backed by Tory Ministers throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Only now are this Government trying to scrap it. It provides an independent income for severely disabled people whose disability started before they had a chance to work. The Minister wants to deny them that. The principle that young people who are disabled from birth ought to be able to rely on a secure independent income might seem odd to him; to most people, it is simply right.

The Government’s impact assessment justifies this change, disgracefully, on the basis of simplifying the system.

[Dame Anne Begg]

The change will affect not only those who have had a disability since birth or childhood. A young person who has worked for only six months before having a major accident could also lose out and never have the chance to have an independent income-replacement benefit at any time in their life.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

The impact assessment states that the provision

“puts those previously eligible for ESA ‘youth’ on an equal footing with others who have to satisfy the relevant National Insurance conditions before they qualify for contributory ESA, which will create a simpler system”.

It will not put them on an equal footing. They have been unable to work since before they had a chance to work, or at least to build up two years of contributions, as my hon. Friend points out. They have had no chance to build up their contributions, and they are therefore at a disadvantage, compared with everybody else. Attempting to justify the proposal—in frankly Orwellian terms—as a simplification really takes the biscuit. We are talking about a small group—15,000 people—who have never had a chance to build up a contribution record. It is right that they should be treated differently. A little complexity is necessary for fairness.

It is worth looking at how much money the Government will save by overturning this amendment. It involves a fair amount of contributory ESA —Ministers in the other place said £70 million. However, many of those young people—the Minister said it would be 90%—will be entitled to income-related benefit if they lose their contributory benefit. Furthermore, the amendment from the other place is very narrow. It applies only to the support group—that is, those who the Government accept should be protected from ESA time-limiting. The net annual saving from this spiteful cut will be about a quarter of the amount that the state-owned Royal Bank of Scotland will hand out in executive bonuses this year. It will be less than £10 million a year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Anne Begg]

What has just been illustrated is the assumption that people are out of work in order to get benefit. We know—well, we hope, unless the Government are proposing to change the new personal independence payment—that there will be no capital rules, so someone with a million pound inheritance will, if they qualify and meet the criteria, continue to get benefit. That has always been in our system.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The number of people who have a million pounds can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Maynard]

I thank the Minister for that helpful clarification.

Secondly, I want to reflect on the comments pre-empted by what was said by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) and perhaps go beyond the implementation of this system to look at the wider impact on the ability of individuals to form independent relationships.

As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) has recognised, we are talking largely about the impact on human behaviour. I am concerned—it is possibly a mistaken fear—that if people were to enter into a relationship and cease to be an independent household, they might become dependent on their partner’s income. That could be a deterrent to forming a meaningful relationship. I may be a simple Member of Parliament who fails to understand this complex issue, but the all-party parliamentary group for young disabled people, which I chair, has asked me expressly to raise this issue, which is at the heart of its concerns about this amendment. I would welcome some clarification of how the Government think people will behave in real life as opposed to in the benefit system.

I shall not detain the House any longer. The Government have my full support on these amendments, but I would like more clarity about how they view their implementation.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Let me say from the outset that I support the Lords amendments and do not agree with the Government’s motion to disagree. I shall talk about two main aspects: one is the time limitation and the second is the can of worms that I have managed to open this afternoon about the youth rate.

The time limit is unfair to people who have worked all their lives, done the right thing and thought that part of their payment of national insurance would provide them with some kind of insurance scheme so that if an unfortunate accident or ill health befell them, they would qualify for an income replacement benefit—in this case, employment support allowance—regardless of their actual income. People believed that it would work like any other insurance policy and would pay out if the unfortunate happened. The Government are breaking that link between the concept of an insurance policy and how much and for how long it will pay.

People suffering from cancer are often used as an example of a group that will fall into the work-related activity category of ESA: cancer patients will often not be well enough to go back to work within the year. Other groups of people have fluctuating conditions and some have slowly progressive neurological conditions. From everything the Minister said today, the assumption seems to be that people in the work-related activity group will move towards work, but some will be on the opposite journey, moving further and further away from work as their condition deteriorates.

Because we assess people not on their condition but on how their condition affects them when they go through the assessment, someone with multiple sclerosis or in the early stages of Huntington’s disease might not qualify for the ESA group, might end up in the WRA group and might qualify only some time in the future. They are likely to be a group that has already been in work and will have fallen out of work precisely because they have been diagnosed with these conditions. Although many of us—and probably those people, too—want to be in work, we live in the real world where employers will often not take the risk of employing someone with that type of condition, especially if the person has already lost one job precisely because of it.

I think the time limit is arbitrary and unfair, and I wish the Government would look at it again. The two-year provision is arbitrary as well—[Interruption.] In fact, I do not agree with time-limited provisions at all, but this is the best we have; it is twice as good as the Government’s proposal. [Interruption.] I am sorry that some Conservative Members at the back of the Chamber find this so funny. The people with Parkinson’s disease and MS do not find it funny. It is their lives that are being undermined, and it is they who will not have an independent income. It is my constituents—and, indeed, those of Government Members sitting at the back of the Chamber—who, because they have saved all their lives, will not qualify for income-related ESA and will suffer as a result. They will lose their independent incomes, and their household incomes, although they may have been cataclysmically affected, may still be too high for them to qualify for income support. Despite what those Government Members sitting at the back may think, income support levels are very low, and the actual level of income on which such households will have to live will therefore not be what they may have expected.

[Mark Durkan]

My hon. Friend may recall that, in an intervention on the Minister, the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) pledged his support to the Government on the basis that, in rejecting the Lords amendments, they were removing from the system people who had been abusing it as a “lifestyle choice”. The people we are discussing are people who are suffering from life-impacting conditions such as cancer, Parkinson’s and AIDS, or young people who have had disabilities since their birth or childhood. Where does the issue of lifestyle choices come in for those people?

[Dame Anne Begg]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is not a lifestyle choice to be diagnosed with a progressive, debilitating condition. It is hard. It is difficult. Individuals in that position face enough prejudice in society already, probably from the employers who told them that they could no longer do their jobs. That is why they need to apply for and claim benefit: because they have already faced that prejudice, which the Government may be making even worse. It is hard for those people, and we are making it harder.

[Sammy Wilson]

To a certain extent I agree with what the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said about lifestyle choices, but surely, in this instance, people who have decided to save, make provision and do the right thing are being penalised for making a lifestyle choice. It is the kind of lifestyle choice of which I imagine the hon. Gentleman would approve, but the measures that we are discussing will punish people for making what he and many other Members would presumably describe as a good lifestyle choice.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Indeed. As I said earlier, the people who will be punished most are those who have done the right thing. They are the ones who have been in work, the ones who have saved, and the ones who have partners who have been in work and remain in work. It would be much easier for their partners to drop out of work as well, because they and their partners would then, as a household, qualify for the benefit. That would probably be the wrong thing to do from the point of view of the family, but given such a benefits system—I was going to say “a benefits system that would make them better off”, but it might not do that—it will become a logical choice for a working partner in those circumstances to give up work. Although it would probably be wrong, it would be logical.

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady accept the principle of means-testing? That is my first question. If so, what level would she set?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Anne Begg]

I do accept the principle of means-testing, but I am not sure why that is relevant.

[Gordon Henderson]

rose—

[Dame Anne Begg]

Will the hon. Gentleman sit down while I answer his question? The whole point of contributory ESA is that it is based on national insurance contributions. These are people who may have worked for 30 or 40 years, paying into what they thought was an insurance scheme. Does the hon. Gentleman, if he has insurance, expect the insurers not to pay out at the point at which the money is due to be paid?

[Gordon Henderson]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way to me again. I have been made redundant twice in my life, and on both occasions, because I had capital, I was not entitled to any employment relief. I was given no benefits at all, because I had about £20,000 in the bank, and although I had been paying into the system since I was 16, I had to accept that.

[Hon. Members]

What was your illness?

[Dame Anne Begg]

I think—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) has asked a question, Dame Anne Begg wants to answer it, and I am sure that other hon. Members would love to hear the answer as well. They may wish to intervene later.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I think that the hon. Gentleman’s intervention illustrates some of the confusion that exists. Some Members seem to believe that losing a job because of ill health is exactly the same as losing a job by being made redundant, but it is not. As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the chance of obtaining another job is far, far higher for someone who has been made redundant than for someone who has lost his job because he has received a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis, or because he has had a major road accident which means that he is now dependent on a wheelchair to survive. Those conditions are different, and they should therefore be treated differently in the national insurance and, indeed, the benefits system.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady accept that any responsible policy must be fully costed? If so, will she answer the question that the shadow Minister failed to answer, and tell us how much it would cost for the one-year period to be increased to two years, as the amendment proposes?

[Dame Anne Begg]

At present, those on incapacity benefit—the existing benefit, which the Government are to replace—who have made the necessary national insurance contributions will keep that benefit until they return to work. Is the hon. Gentleman saying the costing should be done on any other basis? Obviously, the reason the Government are introducing the time limit is to save money: there can be no other reason, as the hon. Gentleman has effectively admitted. This is the result of a money-saving decision by the Government. It is not about being fair; it is about saving money to deal with the debt and the deficit, which were not caused by the people—and their partners, wives and husbands—who have tried throughout their lives to do the right thing.

I am conscious of the time, but I now want to say something about the youth rate. When I intervened on the Minister, I was genuinely trying to obtain some clarification, but I have ended up even more confused than before about how the youth rate will work and which groups of young people will no longer receive an independent—that word is important—income replacement benefit. They may receive non-means-tested benefits and, for instance, disability living allowance or the new personal independence payment, but they will not have any income.

Let me give an example of someone I think will be caught by that, someone who came to my constituency office a number of years ago. He was a young lad of 20 who had been in work for six months when he was diagnosed with a virulent condition. I cannot remember what it was, but it meant that he would be unlikely to work again, and indeed his condition was going to deteriorate. This young man lived with his girlfriend, who earned about £15,000 or £16,000 a year, just over the income support level. Under the measures proposed by the Government, he would not qualify for any income at all. He would be wholly dependent on his girlfriend, and the household income would consist only of her income. That does not strike me as right, and it does not strike me as fair. I should be grateful if, before we vote on the amendment, the Minister would tell us exactly which group of people will lose out as a result of the abolition of the contributory youth rate.

[Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady accept that that young man would probably qualify for disability living allowance? He would therefore have some income, even if he did not receive means-tested ESA.

[Dame Anne Begg]

The household might possibly get housing benefit, but that goes on paying the rent. The young man might get disability living allowance, but that is paid because he has extra expenses due to his disability. What he does not have is an income. He has no money to go to the pub for a pint, to buy clothes, or to do anything that the rest of us, disabled or not, take for granted. He has no independent income. It is totally different if someone is out of work and unemployed. I am disappointed that those on the Government Benches cannot see that distinction, and cannot see that those who are long-term ill or disabled, and who have no prospect of improving their financial circumstances themselves because of the level of their disability, are being penalised by the Government. That is partly why I most certainly will support the Lords amendments this afternoon, and I encourage right hon. and hon. Members to do so, too.

[Jenny Willott]

Returning to the issue of the time-limited employment and support allowance, there is real concern about an arbitrary time limit. As was kindly pointed out by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), at a party conference the Liberal Democrats showed their concern by passing a motion against arbitrary time limits. However, the amendment from the Lords and the Government’s original proposal both set arbitrary time limits; it is just that one is longer than the other. Neither of the options in front of us would get rid of an arbitrary time limit, as a number of Members have highlighted.

One way to make the system less arbitrary is to ensure that people are in the right category in the first place, with those in the greatest need in the support group, so that they are not affected by a time limit. My colleagues and I have looked long and hard at the issue, and the important thing is to get the assessment right in the first place and make sure that people are in the right category, as those in the support group are exempt from the time limit. We need to make sure that people who need long-term, indefinite support are in the support group and can get that. That is a more effective way to protect those who need the most help than changing one arbitrary time limit for another.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

I do not agree. We have to ask why people save. They save for a rainy day. They save in case they lose their job or have an illness. The changes will still mean that the most needy in our society will be looked after. There will still be a safety net that will help those who most need help in our society.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Will the hon. Gentleman be advising his constituents to take out private insurance to protect against unemployment or ill health? After all, he is supporting the limiting of the state’s role in that respect.

[Mr Nuttall]

Some constituents might choose to do that, but that is a matter for them. I am not going to recommend whether that is the right or wrong thing to do because it is a decision they have to take for themselves. It is about personal responsibility. Hon. Members should be in no doubt that at a time when the welfare bill is spiralling out of control and this country has run out of money—we are essentially bankrupt; we are having to borrow money every single day to pay our way—it is essential that we bring the welfare benefits bill under control. It is only by taking tough decisions that that will ever be done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anne Begg Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I recognise that, and the point is that although the vast majority of those who receive local housing allowance make their payments on time, there is always a group that does not. The way to deal with that is to recognise that we need to help landlords by not allowing those kinds of people to get away with it—for example, by paying a little bit at the two-month point, which sets the clock back to zero. We can make adjustments that way, and we can also deal with those who have difficultly by assisting them and, where necessary, making direct payments. However, those payments should always be the exception, to try to help people manage their budgets.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

10. What estimate he has made of the average cost to a small business of real-time reporting of PAYE information to enable calculation of universal credit entitlement.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

Real-time information—there was a question about this earlier—should not be an additional cost to business, and I do not believe it will be. Ultimately, it will help to reduce administration burdens for employers. RTI will also be good for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, because it will help to eradicate some of the errors caused by HMRC waiting a year before adjusting what it has already paid and then trying to chase people for that money. The fraud and error savings that will arise from the RTI programme—which the DWP considers vital for the universal credit—should be around £700 million, which is an important feature.

[Dame Anne Begg]

I do not think that the businesses I speak to have any idea whatever that this is about to hit them ahead of the introduction of auto-enrolment, which they are more conscious of and worried about. However, that may be academic, because from what I am hearing, HMRC’s timetable for real-time information has slipped. It will not be ready to roll out RTI universally across the country on the date that the universal credit is introduced. What happens to universal credit if RTI is not in place on its launch date?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

From the word go, we have not needed the full system of real-time information to be ready for universal credit. We get our information from essentially two feeds, which we have already been working on with HMRC, long before any further timetables. The reality is that RTI will dovetail nicely with universal credit, but we do not need it for that, and we are not expecting it to be ready at the start of universal credit. We were never expecting that, and we have been working on that basis. However, RTI will come in—it is “on timetable”—and those involved will be working hard to produce it.

Remploy

Anne Begg Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Ann Clwyd]

I could not agree more. I have two quotes, the first of which is from the general secretary of Unite:

“This report spells the death knell of Remploy factories—it is a blueprint to run-down and close the factories. The government needs to commit itself to making substantial pump-priming available to guarantee that the plants become successful as businesses in their own right—they won’t succeed without such cash.

The prospect for those who will have to battle it out for mainstream jobs is grim—it is a major blow for them. What will happen is that disabled people will be at the back of the employment queue and when they do succeed in finding work, too often, they are bullied and forced out of work. It is a vicious revolving door.”

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

In Aberdeen, we have a factory that struggled for a number of years, but in the past two years or 18 months it has turned itself around and is now going great guns, with new orders and new businesses. In fact, it has managed to rent out some of the factory to other businesses and social enterprises, so things are really looking up. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a supreme irony that, at the very point at which the Aberdeen factory looks, for the first time in many years, to have a successful future, it should be undermined by a decision taken by the Government?

[Ann Clwyd]

Again, I absolutely agree and thank my hon. Friend for making that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) for securing the debate. It is interesting to note that when I saw the subject, I had a couple of conflicting thoughts. One thought was, “Stephen, if you speak in this, you can pretty much guarantee that it will be you against the massed ranks. Do you really want to do that considering that you have been an MP for a mere year and a half?” The other thought was, “You should contribute because you really believe that what you have to say is right.” I am glad to say that, in my judgment, I chose the latter.

It is a privilege to speak in this very important debate. I have been involved with the issue, on and off, for nigh on 19 years. I would like to tell the Chamber a little bit about Liz Sayce, who wrote the report. In the field of disability, Liz Sayce is held in tremendous respect and regard by both disabled and non-disabled disability consultants. I hope that even if the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley disagrees fundamentally with the review, she agrees that Liz Sayce knows of what she speaks with regard to disability. I have had the privilege of knowing her for many years.

I am fully aware that this is a debate against the closure of Remploy factories, but I want to take the opportunity to make the case for something I feel profoundly exercised about: supporting disabled people to realise their employment potential. An outsider might think that the Sayce review is solely about closing Remploy factories. In my judgment, it is not about that. It is about the future of disability employment support and making sure that the money is used where it makes a real difference to as many disabled people as possible. It is also about disabled people’s employment aspirations as well as, crucially, society’s attitude towards disabled people.

There is a story to be celebrated, which is that disabled people’s employment levels have risen significantly in recent years, especially among disabled graduates. I remember, years ago, campaigning for the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 when John Major was Prime Minister. Compared with where we were 15 years ago, where we are today might as well be a completely different planet. Disabled people have higher aspirations, are increasingly breaking through the job market, and are rightly becoming ever more visible in public life. The increase in support for disabled people, and new employment rights and changed attitudes towards disabled people have certainly helped.

Since 1994, Access to Work has helped tens of thousands of disabled people to get a job or stay in a job, despite its being called Whitehall’s best secret. At this juncture, I pay tribute—so that it will be in Hansard—to the enormous investment that the Labour Government put into Access to Work. Many years ago, I remember meeting the then Minister with responsibility for disability, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge); another former Minister is in the Chamber today—the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), who I knew in my previous life. They put tremendous investment into Access to Work, for which I have always been very grateful.

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 secured rights for disabled people to be free of discrimination. Those rights have been strengthened, most recently through the Equality Act 2010. Furthermore, the UN disability rights convention, signed and ratified by the UK Government, explicitly recognises the right of disabled people to work in open employment. Earlier this month, an organisation I know very well, the Employers’ Forum on Disability, celebrated 20 years of achievement and very hard work on behalf of disabled people. It supports its members, companies and organisations large and small to become disability confident, thus making it easier to recruit and retain disabled employees, and to serve disabled customers properly. Its members, and many other employers, are committed to breaking down barriers, because they recognise that it benefits them to tap into that huge pool of talent. They know that employees—disabled and non-disabled—function better in an environment where everybody is treated with respect, and where they get the support they need.

The EFD, and other organisations, know it is not the disability, but the person that matters—otherwise known as the social model of disability. My very good colleague, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, has, like me, been campaigning for the social model for a long time. When I first started doing so with other disabled people, we were seen as if we were talking double Dutch. There is much greater understanding of the social model of disability today.

Despite that progress, 50% of disabled adults of working age remain unable to access paid work. This is 2011. What a shocking waste of talent and experience. The figure is probably even higher for certain disabilities, such as profoundly deaf British sign language users, and those with mental health issues and other specific disabilities.

[Dame Anne Begg]

I call the hon. Gentleman my hon. Friend because we have served on the Select Committee together. During the recent visit of the Committee to the Port Talbot-Neath Remploy, we met a group of pupils and a teacher from a local special school who were getting work experience in that factory—the only place where those youngsters could possibly get any kind of work experience. In the Aberdeen factory, the Remploy employment service is now in the factory, and the factory provides work experience places for people with disabilities. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a role for the factories to help to support disabled people in obtaining experience that they can then use to access open employment, or other employment opportunities?

[Stephen Lloyd]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I agree entirely. Later on in my speech, I have a cunning plan about how Remploy could be better used, and that was a very good example.

There is a real need to step up the level of support available to disabled people, as well as tackling outdated and ignorant attitudes among career advisers and employers. I heard a good example only a couple of weeks ago. One of my constituents complained to me about the cost of fitting

“all these wheelchair ramps into shops.”

I agreed wholeheartedly on the proviso that rather than spending all that money providing, say, escalators for non-disabled people to use at underground stations, why do we not just chuck a rope over the edge so that they can climb up? I think I lost that chap’s vote, but there you go.

How best can we support disabled people into sustainable employment? That is the $64,000 question. The Sayce review makes a recommendation on how the coalition Government can use the £330 million budget for specialist disability employment support to help more disabled people into employment, and to help more effectively disabled people already in employment. This is the key: employment and retained employment. Currently, that budget is spent on Remploy, Access to Work and residential training colleges. To my mind, after years of studying these things, there are three key issues at stake: how our resources can be best used to help as many people as possible in the most effective way; whether disabled people should be supported in open employment or whether there is a place for sheltered employment; and how the future of current Remploy workers can best be protected.

On the first point, I offer some facts. We are spending five times as much on a Remploy worker as on a disabled person in open employment, yet with the right support, disabled people can have real careers—I know many disabled people who do—alongside their non-disabled peers in the open workplace. They are similarly skilled, similarly unskilled, similarly bright, and similarly less so. In fact, they are pretty similar to all of us here, but with different needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on forcefully making the case to the Backbench Business Committee to secure this debate. The debate has been extremely well attended, particularly by the Opposition, considering the many other distractions on a Thursday afternoon, including an important by-election.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) for his fantastic work with the Fforestfach factory. He brushes over it lightly, but the work of going out to get all the public procurement, simply from a meeting back in March and in just three months over the summer, to change the situation of having virtually nothing in the order books to having those books absolutely full and going out to big purchasers, such as the national health service and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, to ensure that there is work for that factory, shows what can be done.

I endorse the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), who said that there is no divide between the factories and other schemes to help people get into work, and we need both mechanisms. In theory, nothing stops a worker in a Remploy factory from finding a job elsewhere, but the reality is defined by the shocking unemployment figures—an increase was announced yesterday, and further increases are predicted in the new year. Many Remploy factories are situated in unemployment hot spots. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who was present earlier, 20 people are chasing every single vacancy, and I know that many hon. Members have similar situations in their constituencies.

Remploy workers find themselves competing with a whole range of people who have been made redundant from public sector jobs and private sector companies that rely on securing sales contracts, which have been drastically cut, with the public sector. Many in the private sector are not surviving the economic disasters that we are encountering at the moment. All those people are looking for jobs, and people from Remploy factories find themselves in a difficult position, particularly if a large number of them are made unemployed at the same time. I am not patronising Remploy workers, because the same would be true if any other factory in my constituency were to close. If a large number of people with similar skills enter the jobs market together, they will have many difficulties in finding employment.

The key is economic growth. We are currently looking for mechanisms to create more jobs in the private sector, but we have seen little in the way of strategy from this Government. We have not seen an upsurge in the private sector, which is not creating jobs in the way it was supposed to. There do not seem to be any Government strategies for doing so. Where we have Remploy factories, infrastructure, machinery, products and some markets, why are we throwing all that away? It is nonsense. Every individual factory needs to be looked at carefully, and strategies need to be developed for each factory to maximise its potential, so that its products can be marketed properly.

Marketing seems to be key. If the marketing strategy is put right, as seems to be the case in Wythenshawe, Aberdeen and Swansea West, the purchases will come in and the order books will fill up. If we can do that, we can make the factories as viable as possible, and we can help to create jobs. If we do not do that, the on-costs and health costs of people being unemployed will be enormous.

We would do a much better job if we made the factories as viable as possible, while keeping the Government support at a sensible pace. We cannot turn the factories around overnight, but we can make them more economically independent and viable over a period. We would always welcome a mix of workers with disabilities and workers who do not have disabilities. That would bring people together, and we would like to see that mix, which is already happening in many factories. We want viable places, and we want the products that are made to be sold.

That brings me on to public procurement. Assembly Members have a policy by which they purchase their furniture from Remploy factories. I have purchased furniture from Remploy factories for my office. We need much greater awareness. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) asked why it has not happened before. Well, it used to happen, when there was a greater coming together of public purchasing. For example, local authorities once purchased everything for their schools together, before they began to have local management of schools and began to buy their own things in different ways. We need to return to the same sort of consortium purchasing, where we look at what is available or to make what is available more obvious. I have learned, even in this afternoon’s debate, of some products I did not know Remploy was involved in producing. There is a lack of awareness, because an awful lot of people just do not know what can be purchased.

[Dame Anne Begg]

When my Select Committee visited the Neath Port Talbot factory, we discovered that it had had full order books, because it had won a contract for Building Schools for the Future, which was, of course, cancelled by this Government. It was beginning to struggle a bit.

[Nia Griffith]

Absolutely. Remploy factories, just as many other private firms, have suffered considerably in the cuts to the construction programmes and Building Schools for the Future, which have kept much of the private sector going when the construction sector has been in absolutely dire times since 2008. That is an important point.

We need to look at public procurement policies thoroughly. We must encourage every single sector in public procurement to look at the whole range of products available from Remploy and conduct specific marketing on that. I am absolutely convinced that we can make the factories more viable by doing so.

Currently, we need continued support and an individual assessment of each factory to ensure that everything is being done to make each factory the best and most viable business possible. We also need a determined public procurement policy to save our Remploy factories.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs McGuire]

My hon. Friend is correct. I do not blame Liz Sayce for that, as her report dealt with principles and the direction of travel, but we can criticise the consultation for lacking fundamental details on some of the questions affecting the disabled people who currently work for Remploy.

If the businesses are to be transferred, what provision will be made to safeguard terms and conditions? Will they be guaranteed under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, or will people be sacked and rehired under inferior terms and conditions? Liz Sayce complimented Remploy on delivering good terms and conditions for its workers, but again, the consultation says nothing about that.

The consultation mentions a comprehensive package of support, which is one of the Sayce recommendations. What does the Minister have in mind? What kind of support will it be? How will it be delivered, and by whom? Has she factored the costs of that support into her budget for the winding-up of Remploy? What assessment has she made of the costs involved in selling off the factories and winding up Remploy enterprises, including all the calculations relating to redundancy payments, liabilities and creditors, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes? How do they relate to the current budget, and how much money will actually be transferred to other Government support programmes after all those issues are taken into account?

[Dame Anne Begg]

On the Government’s Work programme and their desire to get more disabled people into work, without the factories, there will be fewer opportunities for work experience to give people the skills, expertise and background that will allow them into open employment. We cannot do away with the factories if we are serious about getting people with severe disabilities into open employment. The only employers likely to be able to give them that experience are those such as Remploy factories.

[Mrs McGuire]

My hon. Friend makes an important point that has been echoed by other colleagues in this debate. The Remploy factories have changed how they operate, including working with local special needs schools. They open up opportunities. She will know that they are not a destination but a stepping stone to the world of work. Disabled people can work in a range of industries and with a range of skills. I support the opening up of opportunities, with the support of trade unions, workers and management, as part of modernisation. At a factory in Causewayhead in my constituency last week, I was told how many people were coming to the factory through the training annexe. Training opportunities were being opened up to a range of disabled and non-disabled people. She makes a good point.

I have left one important issue until the end. Why has the Minister decided effectively to renege on a deal made with people who decided to stay with Remploy under the modernisation programme? I refer her to page 19 of the consultation document, which says:

“The implication of the recommendations in the Sayce Report is that, if accepted”—

she has already said that she is minded to accept them—

“Remploy in its current form would not exist…The Government will therefore not be able to give undertakings that staff”,

who are covered by protection of their working conditions, salaries and pensions,

“will not be made compulsorily redundant as a result of such changes, including the modernisation group.”

Modernisation came about as the result of protracted and difficult discussions. I will be disappointed if the Minister and her Government run away from the decisions and agreements made and accepted by her party when they were in opposition to maintain terms and conditions even for those who chose not to or were not in a position to move into other full-time employment. That was our deal with people who had given a lifetime of service to Remploy. Frankly, if my interpretation of her consultation document is accurate, I am disappointed.

The Minister cannot distance herself from the economic situation in which we find ourselves, a situation underlined by yesterday’s unemployment figures. Does she accept that even if she is minded to make that decision, making it in the current economic environment looks almost like abandoning her duty of care to the disabled employees who have given many years of service to the company that she effectively owns?

The Minister cannot hide behind the views of the disability lobby to justify her actions. Indeed, one leading disability organisation, Scope, while accepting the principle of closure, says on page 101 of the Sayce review:

“However, given the harsh economic climate, we recognise the need for transitional protection for the 3,000 employees currently located in the Remploy factories and suggest that full closure is deferred until the employment environment has recovered.”

Even one of the organisations supporting the direction of travel says that now is the wrong time to make that decision.

During the past two hours or so, the Minister has heard the passion and commitment expressed by hon. Members from all parties. I hope that she will seriously consider those points of view. I hope that her phrase that the Government are “minded to accept” was an unfortunate slip of the pen and that her mind is still open. Not only do disabled people fear unemployment, they experience fear every day due to negative media headlines about disabled people and their lives in the community. I think that she is an honourable lady, and I hope that as a result of this debate, she will take away some of the points made and see that there is a flexibility of approach and that nobody is tied to a model of Remploy that is stuck in the past. We want a network of supported factories in local communities and linking into local networks that deliver good-quality jobs and experiences for many young people for many years to come.

Unemployment

Anne Begg Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Heald]

The hon. Lady should talk to young people in Spain, where youth unemployment is very high—as much as 30%, I am told. The same is true in Italy. The fact is that youth unemployment is a European problem that must be tackled in the eurozone and right across the continent.

The Government are concentrating on a Work programme that, after 12 months, gives people individualised help to look at what skills and assistance they need to get them back into work, and that, for the first time, gives the disabled a chance of getting the help they need. That is a good thing. That programme and the youth contract, with its job subsidies and extra incentive payments, are not signs of an uncaring Government.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

Everything the hon. Gentleman describes counts for nothing if there are no jobs for those people to get. That is the problem that we face today: there are simply not enough jobs in the economy for everyone who is out of work to get into work.

[Oliver Heald]

The hon. Lady makes the very important point that we need growth in our economy, and that to achieve that we need a range of measures to stimulate growth. I agree, and that is what the Government announced in the autumn statement. She should not, however, treat the whole country as though it were the same. We have much lower unemployment in my constituency—indeed, it has fallen this month—and there is no doubt that jobs can be found, but that is not true everywhere. The picture is different in different parts of the country, but if one looks at the overall picture one can say, month on month, that we have more people in the work force than we had last month. We have seen an improvement in some parts of the country, such as the part I represent, so the picture is not hopeless. The Government have a difficult task and are tackling it seriously, but sometimes we should look a little more widely at the labour market and the trends within it. We are asking people to work to an older age and to take on jobs that they might not previously have done because they were on incapacity benefit or were otherwise out of the labour market. So, we are asking more people to try to find work against a background in which that is not easy, but I believe—certainly the research shows this—that it is possible for us to see our GDP rise and our people go into work. What the Government are doing is along the right lines.

Sir John Rose said in a speech about a year ago that in Britain we train people to be hairdressers when we need engineers and IT specialists. One of the good things about the Government’s apprenticeships and skills programme is that it is targeted on areas in which we have found it difficult to create skills and on areas that are hard to fill, so there is a better match between skills and vacancies. The number of vacancies runs at between 400,000 and 500,000 each month, about 40% of which are in areas with skills shortages or areas that are hard to fill. If we can better match the skills to the vacancies, that could help. Overall, I think the Government are on the right lines.

Benefits Uprating

Anne Begg Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend is quite right that we have already taken, I think, just over 1 million families or individuals out of tax. We have a long-term goal of a £10,000 tax-free allowance, which would take out millions more, but what is often not understood is that couples in which both members go out to work to make ends meet get twice as much benefit. Each benefits from the personal tax allowance increase, so it helps precisely those most hard-pressed families in which both parents work all hours to keep their family going.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

People can get the uprating only if they get the benefit in the first place, and, despite what the Minister said about protecting those who have worked hard all their lives, there is a measure in the Welfare Reform Bill which time-limits contributory employment support allowance to one year, so a large number of people who work all their lives but drop out of work because of ill health will get nothing after that.

[Steve Webb]

As the hon. Lady, the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, knows, that is a measure in the Welfare Reform Bill being considered in another place, but we have put in place two safeguards—that the most sick and the most poor are protected. In other words, those in the support group will continue on an un-time-limited basis to get ESA, and those with no other household income will continue, through income-related ESA, to be helped. So, at a time when we have to find savings, protecting the most vulnerable and the poorest seems to us to be a priority.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anne Begg Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

As my hon. Friend points out, at the moment not only do literally millions of people in the private sector not have a moderate pension; they have no pension at all. Auto-enrolment remains key to our policy goals, and as I just observed, more than half the work force will have been auto-enrolled by the next election.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

I am disappointed to hear that there will be a delay in the roll-out of auto-enrolment, but I appreciate that the Minister was under a lot of pressure from noises off to bring in some exemptions, so I am pleased that that is not to be. What guarantee can he give to businesses, however? They need an absolute guarantee that the scheme will go ahead on time and to a new timetable, and that there will be no stepping back by the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am glad that I asked for the question to be put again—and I am glad I heard the answer. Very satisfying.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

I was particularly disappointed to hear the reply that the Minister with responsibility for disabled people gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire). The Minister seemed to imply that the only way one could trust a disabled person to tell the truth was in a face-to-face interview. The Government seem hellbent on making every disabled person go through multiple face-to-face interviews to get any kind of benefit. She was disparaging about filling in a form and getting supporting medical evidence. Dame Carol Black has said in her most recent reports that there should be fewer face-to-face interviews for employment and support allowance. What is the Minister’s response to that?

[Maria Miller]

The problem with disability living allowance is that 70% of those currently in receipt of it have it as a lifetime award, and do not have the necessary updates and reassessments to keep track of whether that assessment is right. Having a face-to-face assessment in the first place means that disabled people get the opportunity to talk to a health care professional about their condition and ensure that they receive the right support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anne Begg Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know that he does a lot of work in this area, and I welcome his contribution. He will be aware that through the Sayce recommendations, we are specifically considering how we can increase the role of Access to Work. That could have a particularly positive impact on people with MS. We already have a budget of some £105 million supporting about 35,000 people through Access to Work, and the Sayce recommendations indicate that the number could be doubled if there is a reprioritisation of how Government money is used.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

4. If he will publish monthly information on the number of people successfully placed in jobs by Work programme contractors and the cost per job outcome.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

We are working to guidelines set by the UK Statistics Authority to ensure we publish statistics that meet high-quality standards at the earliest opportunity. Statistics on referrals and attachments to the Work programme will be published from spring 2012 and job outcome data from autumn 2012. We will also publish the average cost per job outcome for claimants who have been on the programme for 24 months as part of our transparency indicators.

[Dame Anne Begg]

I have to say that I am very, very disappointed with that reply. I cannot understand why it will be more than 12 months before the Government produce statistics on job outcomes and the cost per job. After eight months of the future jobs fund, we had the statistics on job outcomes for the first four months of the scheme. I cannot see why the Government should take any longer than that. What do they have to hide?

[Chris Grayling]

I have the utmost respect for the hon. Lady, but she needs to look again at how the Work programme works. We are not making an outcome payment to providers for six months. That is a really good deal for the taxpayer, because before providers can receive payment, they must ensure not simply that that have got somebody into work for a week to boost statistics, but that they keep them in work for a sustained period. The Government cannot produce robust statistics under the guidance produced by the UK Statistics Authority if we try to do so earlier.

Pensions Bill [Lords]

Anne Begg Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Gregg McClymont]

No, I will not give way.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Gregg McClymont]

I would be delighted to give way to my hon. Friend.

[Dame Anne Begg]

I, too, welcome my hon. Friend to his first outing at the Dispatch Box. Perhaps this exchange has just illustrated all too clearly why women are deserting the Tories in huge numbers—it is because they do not feel that they should be the ones who have to bear the burden of the debt that exists. It is that balance that the Government have failed to understand.

[Gregg McClymont]

My hon. Friend, with her usual sagacity, gets to the heart of the matter. Given that we are talking about a small amount of money in the scheme of things—[Interruption.] The two tests that we have set are: do the Government’s plans give fair and due notice to the women concerned, and do those plans bear proportionately on all women affected? The answer is no and no. The Bill continues to place the longevity burden disproportionately heavily on women in their later 50s.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Willott]

I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could clarify to us where the money that he proposes spending would come from. Unless we tackle the financial crisis in this country and the financial circumstances that we face, my child and all our children and grandchildren will be paying off the debt. We have to tackle the debt—it is real money that needs to be found, and a £10 billion black hole would be a significant one to fill.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Can the hon. Lady explain where the Government are finding the £1 billion that is needed to make the change that is being announced today?

[Jenny Willott]

I am really sorry, but I cannot tell the hon. Lady where the Minister has found the money. I am sure that if she asks him the same question later, he will respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. As an American economist once said, “A billion here, a billion there, and sooner or later you have a large sum of money”. It is disappointing to hear such an irresponsible approach to spending and to the interest being paid by everybody in this country on our vast mountain of national debt.

Let me conclude. Tonight, I shall vote in favour of amendments 13 and 14. I recognise the significant achievement, to which Age UK has paid tribute, represented by the welcome changes that will benefit large numbers of women across the country. I pay tribute again to those women in my constituency who lobbied me on the issue, for whom I fought a long and quiet campaign with Ministers. I shall not vote for amendments 1 to 7, and I greatly regret the fact that the Opposition continue to table motions that they would not implement were they in power.

[Dame Anne Begg]

The Government’s amendments are an admission that they realise, at long last, that they got it very wrong about the acceleration of the new state pension age for women. On Second Reading and in Committee, there was always a promise that the Government would come up with some sort of transitional arrangements for the group of 500,000 women who will have to wait more than a year, and particularly for the group of 33,000 women who will have to wait for two years before qualifying for the state pension. However,all they have done is to shift the timetable six months later. Why cannot they go the whole hog and take the anomaly out of the system altogether? If they were to do as the Opposition ask and delay all the increases to the age of 66 until after 2020, once the initial transition is over for women between 60 and 65, there would be no anomaly that would require transitional or any special arrangements at all. There would then be no unfairness specifically to women—it is, of course, only women who have been affected by the changes—and that would also answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) about the lack of time available for the group of women affected to prepare for the new pension age.

If the Government have recognised that issue, it is a shame that they could not go further. I suspect it is probably because the Minister, to whom I pay tribute, has found that getting anything out of the Treasury is like getting blood out of a stone. I recognise that getting just over £1 billion is a huge achievement, but in the overall scheme of things, and given the effects of the change, it would have been better—it would have been better if acceleration had not been proposed in the first place—if the problems had been properly recognised.

Before Government Members applaud themselves and welcome the change too much, perhaps we should think about the enormous campaign that was waged against the proposals. Would that campaign have existed if the Government had proposed at the outset what they propose now? In other words, when all this started, if it had been proposed that there would be an acceleration of the women’s state pension age up to 66 before 2020 so that 300,000 women would have to wait 18 months longer—on top of the delay they were already facing because of the timetable already set—would there have been the same outcry and the same campaign? I think that the answer to that question is unequivocally yes.

Just because the Government have made something bad slightly less worse, it does not mean that what is being proposed is not particularly bad. Someone who, after an accident, is told by a surgeon that they will lose both their legs, and who finds out after they come out of the anaesthetic that they have lost only one might feel a degree of elation that this was better than they had expected. However, someone going into an operation expecting to lose a leg who does lose one would still feel disappointed. In other words, the amendments that we are being asked to vote on still do not amount to a good deal for the group of women concerned.

[Richard Graham]

I simply want to observe that if any of us went into an operation expecting to lose both legs and a doctor managed to save one of them, surely we would feel that the doctor had done rather a good job. The analogy with the Minister’s announcement this evening is not irrelevant.

[Dame Anne Begg]

The hon. Gentleman has just made my point for me. Yes, we would feel a lot better, but if we had gone into the operation not expecting to lose either leg, but discovered afterwards that we had lost one, we would be absolutely devastated. The result would appear to be the same, but the emotional trauma caused in the meantime is quite different. That is exactly the position faced by these women.

The women we are talking about are not rich; they are not people for whom a billion pounds here or there amounts to pennies or not much money. These are women who have made the financial calculation that they will be able to get their state pension at a particular age. Some of them are still making the calculation that they will get the state pension at 60. I received an e-mail today from someone who could not understand why her pension age had gone up by 30 months. It is because she had not taken into account the original equalisation. That is no fault of the Government, but it illustrates the fact that people need a lot of time to prepare for the change, and even if they have had the time, they are not always prepared for it.

For the group of women who had not realised that the state pension age was going up to 65, it is a double whammy to discover that it is now going up to 66 and that they must face waiting that extra time, perhaps with no income at all. Many of these women will be in that position, even if they have taken early retirement for one reason or another. We know that by the age of 65, only about 40% of women are still in work; they might have fallen out of work for various reasons. Those women will have been depending on getting not just the basic state pension, but probably pension credit and all the other passported benefits that were mentioned earlier. For these women, there is a big hole in their financial planning. We have heard much about the Government’s debt meaning that they cannot possibly afford to do right by the group of women concerned, but the effect will be on those women’s personal debt. They will have to borrow money or in many cases live in pretty dire circumstances if they do not get the pension when they were expecting to get it.

[Lyn Brown]

Does my hon. Friend agree that these women will have to use any small amounts of capital they have to tide them over until their pension kicks in, possibly making them more reliant on state aid once they reach retirement?

[Dame Anne Begg]

Indeed, and there will be many such examples.

Women who hoped that their campaign would move the Government feel very disappointed. It is true that those in one group may have to wait for 18 months rather than two years, but they are still extremely disappointed at the Government’s failure to recognise that what they propose will have a disproportionate effect on a number of women who no longer have time to plan adequately for the future.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is being very generous in giving way.

Age UK led the campaign that generated so much awareness of the issue among women and prompted them to raise their concerns, rightly, with their Members of Parliament. Age UK has welcomed what the Government have done, and has acknowledged that 90% of women will now work for only one extra year. I know that the fact that 10% may have to work for an extra 18 months is a challenge for them, but this is a solution for that 90%, and campaigners have welcomed it.

[Dame Anne Begg]

It is not a solution for the 90%, because they will still have to work for an extra year, on top of the extra years for which they were already having to wait for their state pensions. I believe that Age UK made that comment at the time of the Government’s announcement. Of course all Members agree that the position is better than it was before, but it is still not good enough. If my inbox is anything to go by, women who thought that their problems would be solved when they first heard the announcement have now made their calculations and discovered that for a large number the goalposts have not been moved at all, and that they have been moved by only a small amount for others.

In my view, it is a pity that the Government ever went down this route. They could have begun the accelerated rise in the pension age to 66 after the completion of the equalisation, between 2020 and 2022, rather than in the period before 2020. Obviously some wonk at the Treasury thought “What a good idea this is—it will save billions of pounds”, without recognising the anomaly that it would create and the difficulty that it would cause for this group of women. If Conservative Members want to know why their stock among women is falling rapidly, I will tell them. The fact that the Tories do not understand that decisions such as this suggest that they imagine women can somehow cope with reductions in their income has made women realise that many of them simply do not understand their lives or appreciate their problems.

The Government’s proposal may be better than what was in the original Bill, but if we vote for it tonight our decision will be final, because that will then be the timetable for the acceleration of women’s pension age to 66. Labour Members believe that certainty is necessary when it comes to pensions and that we must allow people to plan in advance, but whoever wins the next election, the last thing that any Government will be in a position to do is start fiddling with the system. What is fundamental to our argument is that a group of women have had no chance to plan, and I see no way in which any Government will be able to deal with that.

[Harriett Baldwin]

Is the Chair of the Select Committee confirming that a pledge to reverse the position, in line with the amendment, will not feature in the next Labour manifesto?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Anne Begg]

I may be Chair of the Select Committee, but I am afraid that I have no direct say in what should be in a Labour or any other manifesto. However, common sense tells us that whoever is in power after the next election—the Liberal Democrats might have a majority then, and might want to reverse the arrangement—voting against the amendment tonight will remove any chance of our ever finding a solution for this group of women. Events will have moved on, the timetable will have been set, and the pension age will have already changed by the time of the next election. That is what I mean about the lack of time in which to plan.

I hope that Members will accept that it is wrong that this anomaly has been created. I hope that those who have listened to the women in their constituencies will do the right thing tonight, and will vote for the Opposition amendment. That is what I shall be doing.

[Fiona O’Donnell]

I am genuinely grateful for the opportunity to support the amendment to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) spoke so eloquently. I welcome him to the Dispatch Box.

Many women in my constituency have contacted me about this issue, and none of those who have contacted me over the weekend, yesterday or today have expressed the view that the Government have gone far enough; they all support the amendment. I found it almost stomach-turning to hear the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) congratulate herself on winning this concession from the Government. I do not think that even Labour Members should take credit for the achievement—lacking though it is in ambition—and I certainly do not think that the Liberal Democrats should do so. I wish that some of the honourable and good Liberal Democrat members of the Bill Committee mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) had had the guts and the principle to propose similar amendments when they had the opportunity. This feels a bit like Groundhog Day: it is the Health and Social Care Bill all over again.

Credit for the victory, such as it is, lies with all the women who have written to us, e-mailed us, telephoned us, and come to the House to make their case. They have said, “We will not sit back and let the Government do this to us.” Every evening as I leave this place, I see a touching reminder in the poster in the tube station showing those women, although I must confess that at first I considered it rather strange that there was also a man in the photograph, and wondered what that could be about. The fact is that this change will have an impact not just on the women concerned, but on the families for whom they have made plans. In the light of the rising cost of child care, they have asked themselves, “When can I help my sons and daughters to make better lives for themselves and their families?” I have to say that I think my sons and my daughter have similar plans for me, which I intend to resist for as long as possible.

The Government, particularly the Liberal Democrats, have not just broken their promise to women; they have broken their promise to their families as well. What an appalling lack of ambition from a Government! They have repeatedly called on Labour Members to say how we would pay for our proposals, so let me give them a couple of examples. Through the future jobs fund, they could take a million young people off the dole queue so that they were back at work and contributing to the system. They could scrap their top-down reorganisation of the NHS. They could ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether he has any money left in the pocket where he found the bin money. This is not about arithmetic; it is about political will. It is about the Government saying, “We believe that this is something worth doing, and it is something to which we will commit ourselves.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not; I have given way to her twice already.

New clauses 9 and 10 relate to the role of NEST, which I mentioned a moment ago. New clause 9 suggests that in a couple of years’ time we should review transfers into NEST, and new clause 10 suggests that we review contribution limits at the same time. It is worth reminding the House why NEST was constrained when it was established. There was a recognition that there is a market for big firms and higher earners—pension providers are willing to provide at a reasonable cost and to go to such firms. However, for small firms and lower-paid workers, there was a market failure. NEST was designed to fill that gap in the market.

First, the Government created a legal duty for firms to enrol people, so we ensured that there was something to enrol people in. That is what NEST is for. Secondly, we could have created NEST and imposed no constraints, and it could have been just another provider, but because we constrained NEST to consider lower-paid workers and smaller firms, it has innovated in an impressive manner. The previous Government envisaged such constraints. The Work and Pensions Committee has visited NEST and was positive about what it found. Forcing NEST to focus on lower-paid workers, smaller firms, and people who do not speak “pensions” or who are uninterested in them, has created impressive product, investment strategy and technological innovation, which is entirely welcome. Creating NEST with constraints was the right thing to do, and it has been beneficial.

[Dame Anne Begg]

If NEST is to work, people must have confidence in the products that are going to be delivered. However, there is a danger that other providers muddy the waters of what is on offer. For instance, a Federation of Small Businesses booklet says that it will offer a comparable pension provider with which firms can auto-enrol their workers. The charge is 0.75% to FSB members and 1% to non-members, but they are not comparable prices. What can the Minister do to ensure that such misinformation does not divert people away from NEST?

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee for drawing my attention to that document, and I am keen to see a copy. Pensions selling is, broadly speaking, regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Claims about pensions need to be accurate. NEST charges are the equivalent—on an average pension—of around 0.5%, as the hon. Lady knows. The suggestion is that a charge of 0.75% or 1% is “comparable”. We can compare anything with anything, but the comparison is not always favourable. She raises an important point, and the pensions regulator and the FSA will seek to ensure that people are given accurate information about pensions.

The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who speaks for the Opposition, will be well aware that the Government already have a duty to review NEST after the five-year roll-out of auto-enrolment. New clauses 9 and 10 would not repeal the other duty, so they would mean a review in two years and another one three years after that. The earlier review would be premature and unhelpful in the middle of the roll-out. One might want to tweak 1,001 things, but a review in the middle of roll-out would create uncertainty when the next tranche of firms is choosing which provider to go for. Will NEST have its limit lifted? Will the transfer ban go? Those questions would mean yet more turmoil. An element of certainty in the auto-enrolment process, which has been iterated quite a lot, would be welcome.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government had our own review—“Making automatic enrolment work”—last summer. It said that in the end, in 2017, the restrictions should go. I am entirely sympathetic to that proposition, but deciding that today, or reviewing the situation in the middle of the roll-out, is not the best way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

As we have made clear, people still have the right to opt in to auto-enrolment, but obviously the bulk duty will be at the tax threshold. There is a trade-off: we can have a low threshold, but that results in people being brought in for what are technically known as piddling amounts of money, for which the costs are disproportionate. The tax threshold appears to us to be broadly the right level, but as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have discretion in the Bill to look each year at the labour market and at what has happened to earnings and prices, and to make a judgment. That is the broad direction of travel, as recommended to us—

[Dame Anne Begg]

The concern that some of us have is not that the tax threshold will go up to £10,000—although that is the avowed intention of the Government—but that the gap between £7,400 and £10,000 is about £2,500. That group of workers earning under £10,000 might be ruled out of auto-enrolment, when they are the very people who should be auto-enrolled. The situation would be different if the threshold were going up by the rate of inflation, but can the Minister give some assurance that if there is such a leap, he will reconsider the threshold?

[Steve Webb]

It will clearly vary from individual to individual, but for many people, earning £8,000 or £9,000 is a transitory phase in their labour market experience, and they will move on to earn more than the tax threshold and so come within the scope of the provision. So even if the threshold is not raised, it will not make a lot of difference if someone is not in the scheme for that year. For some people, they or their household will already have pension rights accrued and it might even be right for them to opt out. People will have the chance to opt in to pension provision if it is particularly important for them, and it is right that they should. I accept that there are issues for that group, but for any line drawn one can ask, “What about the people just below?” If we enrol people for trivial amounts of money, we will undermine the whole credibility of the scheme.

We have now had a whistle-stop tour through half a dozen private pensions issues, and I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ comments. I commend new clause 2 to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

No, it does not bother me. The people in that kind of employment might well fall into the category that the Minister mentioned earlier—people who progress later in their working lives, and the earlier that they start their pension saving the better. If they are in a job for more than one month, I would welcome giving them the ability to start saving for their retirement.

[Dame Anne Begg]

As someone who, in their young days, was a fruit picker in Angus, picking strawberries and raspberries, I think that the only way a fruit picker might end up in auto-enrolment would be if they had other jobs throughout the year that put them above the threshold. However, I can assure the Minister that the three months of the summer for which one would be fruit picking would be unlikely to generate the income that one would need to get over the threshold.

[Stephen Timms]

I could not have wished for a more effective endorsement of the case that I have put to the House. I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

The Government’s waiting period would incur significant costs through lost contributions for 500,000 employees at any one time and amounting to 7% of an average worker’s fund over a lifetime. Those losses undermine the principle of auto-enrolment and substantially outweigh the benefit from the small reduction in the annual costs to employers.

Amendments 19 and 20 would link the earnings trigger for auto-enrolment to the increase in either earnings or the lower earnings limit for national insurance. As the Minister set out earlier in his exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South, the Bill will link the level of earnings at which people are auto-enrolled to the higher income tax threshold, with the level reviewed in future according to a number of factors. However, like the three-month waiting period, this measure will exclude a significant number of people from auto-enrolment. Those people will by definition be lower-paid workers, who we know already save proportionately less than others. We also know that they are disproportionately likely to be women.

Earlier the Minister touched on the aspiration that the income tax threshold will in due course rise to £10,000. As my hon. Friend said, there would be a worry if all those earning less than £10,000 were in due course excluded from auto-enrolment as a result. The National Association of Pension Funds has pointed out that that would exclude 17% of all employees and 27%—more than a quarter—of women employees. Adrian Beecroft might be pleased about that, but the Minister should not be. Pension contributions would remain payable on earnings above the national insurance threshold under the plans in the Bill. The TUC has pointed out that moving to that scenario would create a big cliff-edge, so that people would get to, say, £10,000 and suddenly find a large chunk of their earnings deducted, having previously not had anything deducted automatically. That would create a significant disincentive, which the Bill ought to avoid, to enrolment.

We have heard about the basis on which the Government intend to raise the earnings trigger. Their worry is that saving will not deliver sufficient benefits in retirement to be worth while for many people earning below the income tax threshold. However, the Government’s own report shows that most people earning around £8,000 to £9,000 a year will not be earning consistently or permanently in that range, as the Minister underlined, but will move up the income scale.

--- Later in debate ---

New clause 1 was tabled because many of us are concerned about the point at which individuals retire and convert their pot of money into their retirement income. According to the Minister earlier, about 60% of people with such a retirement pot do not move to another provider at the time they take their retirement income. Just as auto-enrolment is designed to nudge a person out of inertia about their pensions savings, so new clause 1 would give a person a great big nudge to prevent them from failing to shop around for a better retirement income.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Does the hon. Lady accept that there might also be a nudge to the pension providers? If they know that they will not automatically get the business from those who have saved with them throughout the lifetime of their pension savings scheme and that that group of people is likely to shop around, those pension providers might improve the annuity on offer to individuals.

[Harriett Baldwin]

That is an excellent point, and I hope we all fervently agree that competition in this area would be an excellent improvement. Locking in your retirement income is the second most important financial decision that you will ever make. I apologise; I do not mean you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but an individual. Unlike buying a house, however, it is a completely irreversible decision—one that will last for the rest of the individual’s life.

The different rates offered by different providers could mean one’s retirement income being as much as 20% lower if one does not shop around. If we are unlucky enough to suffer from high blood pressure, diabetes, a heart condition, kidney failure, certain types of cancer, multiple sclerosis or chronic asthma or if we smoke, the one bright side is that a 40% higher retirement income could be achieved by shopping around. People who have enjoyed good health in their career but been in a hazardous occupation such as mining might find someone who will offer them a better retirement income. The right hon. Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks), who is no longer in his place, knows that this does not apply to the state pension, but for the pensions we are talking about that involve the insurance market, those factors do apply. My fellow Select Committee members and I thus feel strongly about the value of this particular approach.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anne Begg Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The voluntary sector has a crucial role to play in two ways. First, we have a wide range of voluntary sector organisations contractually involved in the Work programme, delivering support to the long-term unemployed. I also believe that a local community activity such as the excellent jobs fair that my hon. Friend organised in his constituency, together with Stafford Works, is an ideal example of how Work programme providers and the local community can work together to deliver real back-to-work support for the unemployed.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

Early indications would suggest that the numbers being referred to the Work programme are much higher than many of the providers expected under the contracts they signed. What guarantee does the Minister have that people will not sit on the Work programme without any intervention for some time until the providers gear up to have the staff to deal with the numbers they face?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is a marked contrast to the start of the flexible new deal under the previous Government when providers went for weeks and weeks without people being referred. I am very encouraged by the start of the Work programme and by the response of providers, which are contractually obliged to provide minimum levels of support to people who are referred. As far as I can see, that is precisely what is happening: support is starting and is working well. There are courses, support and learning taking place up and down the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to suggest that the CSA should be doing much more to ensure that both parents are responsible for their children’s financial future, post-separation. That is at the heart of our reasons for reforming the CSA and the approaches that it takes. We want to put that responsibility at the heart of the service that we are delivering.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

It was the Government who created the anomaly of half a million women being affected by the acceleration in the increase in the pension age, and it was the Government who said that they would make transitional arrangements. I was therefore astonished to hear the Pensions Minister say earlier that he was looking to the Opposition to come up with ideas for those arrangements. The Government have dug this hole, and it should be the Government who get themselves out of it.

[Steve Webb]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading of the Pensions Bill that while we stand by its principles, we will indeed consider those who are most affected. We had hoped that the way to listen to the views of the House would be to listen to some fresh views in Committee, but unfortunately none was forthcoming.

Pensions Bill [Lords]

Anne Begg Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend tempts me enormously, but she will forgive me if I do not give in to that temptation. Let me simply repeat what I said earlier—it is a bit like a recording, but I shall do it none the less: we have no plans to change equalisation in 2018, or the age of 66 for both men and women in 2020, but we will consider transitional arrangements.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State accept that some women in the group that we are discussing have already retired or signed early retirement arrangements in the belief that they would receive their state pension when they were 63 or 64? The original equalisation was announced 25 years in advance. For some women, the equalisation that we are considering is only five years ahead. Surely that cannot be right when we are asking people to plan long term for their retirement.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I think that the hon. Lady refers to people who have retired early, at around 57, as far as I can tell from her calculations. Other than that, I do not think that there is a huge difference. I recognise what their due would have been, but the change is no different thereafter for all the others. I acknowledge her point—I am sure that we will deal with it when we get into Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans), but I will disagree with quite a bit of what he said.

I am disappointed about the change in the financial assistance scheme from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index, particularly in relation to Richards Textile factory in Aberdeen, which went bust with the collapse of its pension scheme. Although the very hard work of many Labour Back Benchers ensured that those pensioners did not lose all their money, they still feel aggrieved that they do not have the same cover as those who subsequently entered the pension protection fund and that they do not get quite as much as those covered by it.

Let me start by saying which parts of the Bill I agree with to show that not everything in it is bad, although quite a lot is. I agree wholeheartedly with the lifting of the default retirement age and I only wish that my Government had done that. I have a friend who has been told by his employer that he has to retire at 65 and he does not want to, but unfortunately his birthday falls on the wrong side of the divide.

I am also very glad that the Government are going ahead with the national employment savings trust. There was a bit of worry at the time of the election that some people in business who were not too keen on it, particularly on auto-enrolment, might put pressure on the coalition Government, who I am glad resisted. NEST is certainly the way forward for occupational pensions, to ensure that there is pension cover for everyone and that most people will not have to depend on the basic state pension as their sole income in retirement. That is very important.

I also agree with the proposal to bring auto-enrolment forward to July 2012 for large companies. If they are ready to go, the sooner the scheme gets up and running the better and the sooner it is tested the better, because part of the reason for rolling out auto-enrolment is to test how it works in practice.

So those things are all good, but that is as far as that goes and there are issues of concern. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), I am concerned about the lifting of the auto-enrolment earnings threshold by £2,500. I tried to intervene about this early in the Secretary of State’s speech, but lots of other people were jumping up and down at the time. The problem is that low earners might not always be low earners. Auto-enrolment is important in getting people into the scheme as soon as possible and in ensuring that even low earners are enrolled in a pension scheme. If those people continue to earn similar amounts for the rest of their working life, the scheme might not have the returns that they would expect, but no one knows, at the start of their working life, what their eventual earnings will be and we should always err on the side of caution in ensuring that people enrol. The raising of the threshold could result in about 600,000 people not being enrolled who otherwise would have been. It has been said that those people could opt in, but it is highly unlikely that many people on such low incomes would do so. If the Government introduced a foundation pension or a pension for the state, which the Secretary of State put into context, the scheme would make a difference for people making such low contributions. Even someone earning just over £5,000 a year could make a valuable contribution to their eventual occupational pension.

I worry about that issue and I worry when I hear that the threshold might go up to £10,000 or more in future, because the whole point of auto-enrolment and of NEST was to make things easy, to make belonging to an occupational pension fund a no-brainer and to ensure that everyone who was in work would automatically pay into an occupational fund. People who are not auto-enrolled and who are not in the pension fund will lose out on the employers’ contributions as well, so they will lose out not only on their potential pension earnings towards the end of their life but on what we often think of as deferred wages in the employers’ contribution.

I am also concerned about the introduction of the three-month wait, for many of the same reasons I have just given. The shadow Secretary of State has already made the arguments, which are important to remember.

All those issues could probably have been swallowed if they had been the only things we were concerned about, but the big sticking point in the Bill, which I suspect most Members will be talking about this afternoon, is the acceleration of the state pension age, particularly the anomaly that hits the 500,000 women who at very short notice will have to wait more than a year for their pension. I wonder whether the Government have analysed exactly who will lose out as a result of the measures and which women will not be in work at the age of 66, when they get their state pension. The figure of £10 billion has been bandied around for how much it would cost not to go ahead with the proposal, but I suspect that is a gross figure. I do not know whether the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), has any idea how much the welfare bill will go up as a result of people’s falling out of work before they reach the age of 66.

I agree that it is right that the state pension age should rise and indeed inevitable that it will rise, and I accept that there are issues to do with longevity, but I am concerned that we are potentially creating not the pensioner poor but a group of people who become the new poor because they have fallen out of work in the last years of their working life and are struggling to get by on benefits. It is not good enough for the pensions Minister to say that for anyone who falls out of work before reaching the state pension age and who does not have a pension they can draw early, there is always jobseeker’s allowance or employment and support allowance. The contributory element of JSA lasts only six months and the Government propose that the contributory element of ESA will last only a year. Nowadays, women expect to have their own wages, but their qualifying for income-related JSA or ESA will depend on the household income and whether they have a working partner. For many women, that misses the point. Quite a few women in my constituency say, “I’ve only got a pension of £1 a week.” What they mean is that they have 60% of their husband’s pension and £1 a week on top of that, but they still see that £1 a week as their pension and they feel very aggrieved about that.

[Dr Whiteford]

Does the hon. Lady share my concern that the healthy life expectancy for men in Scotland is currently 60 years and for women is 62 years? In that context, a dramatic increase in the pension age for those people is simply displacing on to the benefit system the burden that will have to be met.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Indeed. The hon. Lady says more eloquently what I was trying to say about displacing people out of pension age into the working age poor. There is nothing to be gained for those people if all we are doing is delaying when they get their state pension. There will be the odd situation that when people retire, their income will go up, rather than people being able to work until they reach retirement age.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we are coming out of carers week, the Government should remember the 37% of women affected by the state pension age increase who will not be in the work force in the last years of their working lives, as the Government call it, and who have responsibilities caring for an elderly or ill relative or for their own grandchildren? They will be among those who suffer most as a result of the increase.

[Dame Anne Begg]

There are much wider issues with raising the state pension age such as the fact that, towards the end of their working life, many people may start to take on less paid employment because they have taken on caring roles. My generation of women is often called the sandwich generation in as much as they are looking after elderly parents or other elderly relatives as well as looking after their own grandchildren, to allow their sons and daughters to go to work. That is the generation that is caught by the anomaly—a generation of women who, perhaps, were not able to work throughout their married life and have not necessarily built up the national insurance contributions that will give them a full state pension.

I am curious about the Government’s argument that the flat rate pension will miraculously mean that all women will get a state pension, when my understanding is that that pension will still be based on the number of years of national insurance contributions. That was brought down to 30 years in the Pensions Act 2007, so women can already qualify. That Act also made it easier for carers to qualify for credits. I see the pensions Minister is about to jump up. Perhaps he can clarify whether the qualification for the flat rate pension will not be 30 years of national insurance credits.

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Lady raises serious points. She is absolutely right—for the basic pension, those credits are already in place. The problem is that many of the women we are discussing will have done their child rearing before credits for the state second pension came in, so they will still retire with inadequate state pensions, which would be corrected under our proposals.

[Dame Anne Begg]

So those women will still have to have the 30 years of credits, but in respect of the SERPS element they will be the winners. But for every winner in all these changes, there will inevitably be losers, and there will be those who have paid their SERPS all their working life, including women who have paid the big stamp but not the small stamp. They are the ones who often feel aggrieved. As the Minister knows, pensions policy is a minefield covered in all those booby traps. As soon as one presses down on one thing, another pops up, making it all very difficult.

It is the group of women who were born in 1953 and 1954 who are being expected, at very, very short notice—five years’ notice—somehow to change their whole financial planning for their retirement. As I pointed out to the Secretary of State in an intervention, when the equalisation came in the warning that people were given ranged from 15 to 25 years. The evidence that I received from Age UK showed that 20% of women still have not realised that they are not going to get the state pension at 60 but will have to wait until they are 64 or 65.

That proves not that we have been lax in trying to inform or educate women about what state pension they can expect, but that it takes a long time for such things to sink in and for people to make arrangements. In the case of the current proposal, the women who will be most affected have just over five years’ notice. That is unfair and I hope the Government will look again.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

In her intervention, the Chair of the Select Committee made the excellent point that some of the women we are talking about have already left the labour market, having taken early retirement. Does she agree that the Government have a special responsibility to those former Government employees who they persuaded to take early retirement instead of a redundancy option and who now find that they will not have access to a state pension as part of the plans that they would have made when deciding to leave their employment as civil servants?

[Dame Anne Begg]

I could not agree more. It is imperative that we get that sorted out now. I am sure that other local authorities will not be any different from my local authority, which knows that cuts are coming. My local authority managed to have a funding black hole of £25 million. Before there was any economic disaster in any other part of the world, it happened in Aberdeen. I will not talk about that being a Liberal Democrat council, but it was. That has resulted in large numbers of local authority employees—not only women, but predominantly women—being offered early retirement, which councils have been encouraging their employees to take because they do not want to go down the route of compulsory redundancies.

People have been signing up and are still signing up for early retirement without the full knowledge that what they are signing up for is a lower pension that will not be supplemented with the basic state pension when they reach the age of 63 or 64, as they thought it would be. In some cases, they may have to wait another two years. Their entire financial planning was based on the expectation that they would get whatever the basic state pension would be at that time. It is £105 now, so it will be more than that, and the flat rate pension may have come in. They were expecting at least another £100 a week in the income that they have worked out they will need to survive.

The short notice is the injustice. The Government must look at this again. They cannot leave out this group of women, who did not have the chance to build up their pension protection but who took on the burden of care in the community, saving the Government billions of pounds. The same group of women have had to fight many of the equality battles, yet it is being hardest hit, and it cannot be right that, because of the acceleration, the Government are making them pay the price not of deficit reduction—according to the coalition, the proposals will not apply until after the deficit is meant to have gone—but of the longevity of other groups.

I accept the Secretary of State’s point that the coalition Government discovered that their proposed acceleration was illegal. It would probably be illegal under European law because the Government had already said that they would equalise the pension age of men and women. That makes me wonder what else in the coalition document might be illegal. Has someone been through it with a fine-toothed comb? If that was such a glaring error, have others sneaked into the coalition agreement, or was it just this issue where someone failed to notice that signing up for the equalisation of the state pension age might not be fulfilled by the words of the coalition document?

I will vote against the Bill because it fails on the basic principle of fairness, and in pensions policy fairness is all. When those now sitting on the Government Benches were in opposition, fairness was all they talked about. The previous Labour Government went a long way in introducing fairness into the pensions system. Pension credit was certainly a revolutionary policy that lifted many pensioners out of poverty and transformed the incomes of many pensioners, who saw their incomes double when Labour was in power. Fairness must be at the heart of pensions policy, but the Bill does not pass the fairness criterion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Willott]

I absolutely agree. As the hon. Lady says, the point of Second Reading is that we have the opportunity to air a whole load of different options and concerns about the Bill, and as she says also, there have already been a couple of proposals for tackling the issue. I am sure that we will hear more as the debate goes on.

I completely agree that the Bill contains a huge amount that is valuable and important, so I am concerned about the Opposition saying that they will vote against it as a whole. Our constituents, living in our local communities, will be disappointed that the Opposition have taken that approach to the legislation and are not prepared to give a Second Reading to its positive elements.

[Dame Anne Begg]

I am sure that the hon. Lady received a large number of e-mails and letters from her constituents who are affected by this particular anomaly. Did any one of them say that she should vote for the Bill, or did they all encourage her to vote against it?

[Jenny Willott]

To be honest, I cannot remember whether anybody asked me to vote against the Bill. Most writers of the letters and e-mails that I have received raised concerns about the particular proposal in the Bill, and I agree with them. As I have already said, I share their concerns and have issues with what is proposed, but the whole point of Second Reading is that we have the opportunity to raise our concerns and to send the Bill into Committee, where people will be able to go through it clause by clause, to debate what the alternative may be and to have a chance really to scrutinise it. Today’s debate is not the time just to chuck it away.

[Dame Anne Begg]

If there are no changes in Committee and the Bill returns to the Floor of the House in the same position as it is in today, will the hon. Lady vote against it?

[Jenny Willott]

I cannot possibly say what I will do at that stage, because we do not know what shape the Bill will be in. I put the Bill in the safe hands—I am sure—of the Pensions Minister and of colleagues from all parts of the House, who will be able to look at it, try to refine it and send it back to us in the best possible shape. At that point, like all hon. Members, I will be able to decide whether to support it in its entirety.