(6 days, 20 hours ago)
Commons Chamber
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
While businesses are still reeling from last year’s national insurance increase, with this Bill the Labour Government are set to increase tax again by making salary sacrifice pension contribution schemes worse for workers.
What has the Labour party said previously? In its 2024 manifesto, on page 79, it stated:
“Our system of state, private, and workplace pensions provide the basis for security in retirement…We will also adopt reforms to workplace pensions to deliver better outcomes for UK savers and pensioners.”
It gets even more ridiculous when we see that the same manifesto also stated on page 21:
“Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance”.
That is exactly what the Bill does.
Recent survey data from the Confederation of British Industry showed that three in four employers will have to decrease pension contributions as a result of the measures in the Bill. As the CBI has said, it is
“‘a tax on doing the right thing’”.
It goes on to state:
“Ultimately, this unwise move will only damage growth, investment and pension saving rates.”
It is not just the CBI that has voiced alarm at the Bill. The Association of British Insurers stated:
“Capping salary sacrifice for pension saving is a short-sighted tax grab which will lower pension saving and undermine people’s retirement security.”
The Minister said in his introduction that
“everyone who has thought about this”
will come to the same conclusion. He might not wish to refer to the CBI and ABI coming to different conclusions, but they have clearly thought about it.
It is not even clear that the measure will raise the money that the Chancellor expects. A former pensions Minister from the coalition era has said that he expects it to raise “a fraction” of the intended amount, as firms will restructure payments to evade it. In addition to the likelihood of payments being restructured, even the OBR has made it clear to the Chancellor that it expects employers simply to pass the cost on to employees through lower wages and less generous schemes. It will be working people who ultimately pay for this short-term thinking, with a lower standard of living and less spending power in their retirement.
As we have seen with the maladministration of pension changes for 1950s-born women, politicians cannot and must not change the goalposts on retirement planning without giving significant advance notice. Any approach otherwise, such as in the Bill, is deeply unfair to savers. This move will land businesses with yet more administrative costs, disproportionately hitting small to medium-sized employers who are still absorbing the increased NIC costs from last year’s Budget. Is this muddled policy really from a Government who stood on a pledge of growing the economy? This is yet again another Budget with another rise in national insurance by Labour.
There are numerous unanswered questions, but the following are top of the list. What assessment has the Minister made of likely behavioural changes to pension savings as a result of this policy? What is the estimated increased cost to businesses as a result of this policy? Does the Minister anticipate lower pensions for workers as a result of this policy, and if so, how much would the decrease be? Can the Labour Government seriously make a commitment in this Chamber not to increase national insurance in next year’s Budget, given the rises in both their Budgets since coming into power? This Bill is deeply flawed and the SNP will not support it today.
As there are no further Back-Bench contributions, I call the shadow Minister.
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberThe review will look specifically at the PIP assessment, but one proposal in our Green Paper published earlier this year was increasing the age of transition from DLA to PIP from 16 to 18. I think that that change could assist with the concern expressed by my hon. Friend. We are looking at the consultation responses that we have received.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
We are determined to drive down child poverty in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and right across Scotland and the rest of the UK. Our child poverty strategy will look at every lever at our disposal to drive up family incomes, to drive down family costs and to give every child the best start in life. I discuss such issues regularly with the Chancellor and Ministers across Government, because we will leave no stone unturned to ensure that every child can fulfil their potential—they deserve it and our country needs it.
Graham Leadbitter
Two million pensioners in the UK are in poverty, and the British state pension is among the worst in north-west Europe. During the independence referendum, Better Together claimed that our pensions are more affordable when Scotland is part of the UK. Eleven years on, will the Minister tell me exactly what the Union is doing for Scottish pensioners, other than impoverishing them?
Investing an additional £31 billion in the triple lock over this Parliament is delivering huge benefits to pensioners in Scotland, as are our measures to drive up the uptake of pension credit in order to help the very poorest pensioners; our measures to stabilise the economy; and our investment in the NHS, on which many pensioners rely. I am proud of the action that we are taking. Given that this Government have agreed and are giving Scotland its biggest ever funding settlement, the hon. Gentleman should ask some challenging questions of his Government, to ensure that they deliver for Scotland’s pensioners, too.
(9 months ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward.
The latest figures suggest there are over 6,000 WASPI women in the Moray and Highland region, and they are an active and vociferous group. Of the 650 constituencies, my Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey constituency is in the top 25 for signatures on the petition. Women from my constituency regularly travel the many hundreds of miles to London to demonstrate and demand fair recompense from this Government and from previous Governments. Sadly, they are being thwarted at every turn.
All the while, every day over 100 WASPI women die having seen no justice. WASPI women have proven that the communication with them was dire—the ombudsman’s report made that very clear, after very thorough investigation —yet not even a hint of recompense has been given. It is an utterly appalling situation.
Let us be clear: the millions of women affected are of a generation of women who have been discriminated against throughout their working lives. They have been victims of getting lower pay than their male counterparts doing the same job, as has been well evidenced by equal pay settlements with numerous bodies. They have been victims of the glass ceiling, victims of both casual and overt sexism in the workplace, and victims of a patriarchal society that, although much diminished, still creates a major imbalance today. Women are far more likely to be worse off as pensioners than men and have, on average, much smaller pension pots when they come to retirement age.
Ministers continually refer to the £22 billion black hole left by the previous Government. I accept that the financial legacy they have been left is pretty grim, but let us be clear: that refers to recurring spend and absolutely not to what would be a one-off compensatory spend. Financial experts, professionals and auditors take a very different view on one-off spend compared with recurring spend. We need to keep that in context, and I hope the Minister will reflect on that. Justice is justice, and it must not depend on budgets for it to be served.
It is in that context that the vast majority of Labour MPs refused to vote in the recent Division on this issue that was forced by my party. I commend the small number who stuck to their principles and voted with us, and I urge the large majority who did not to consider their position on this matter seriously, and get back behind the campaigners they were happy to pose with for campaign photos in the run-up to last year’s election.
I am humbled by the determination and drive of those campaigners, as well as the dignified way in which they continue to make their point. Campaigners from throughout the UK are once again here in numbers, and I commend and fully support their efforts to get the fair and just compensation they deserve.
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberThe hon. Lady raises a really important point. As we get older, many of us are working while caring for our elderly loved ones or for children—sometimes both—and those family carers need support. I have already set out the action we have taken, including the biggest ever boost to the earnings threshold for carer’s allowance and a serious, independent review of carers’ overpayments, but we can and should be doing more to support family carers. I am very happy to meet the hon. Lady to talk through her ideas that she thinks would benefit her constituents, if she would like.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I do not think I have ever seen quite so many glum faces on the Labour Benches, not for the two-child benefit cap or the winter fuel payment—this is beyond the pale. A handful of Labour Members have stood up and spoken their mind on this issue, and I commend them on that, but the Secretary of State has not answered the question of whether this House will be given a debate and a vote, which should happen in Government time. It is not just Scottish MPs who are asking for this; other MPs from other parties have done so. I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider.
Back Benchers can put forward proposals for debates, as can Opposition parties. If the main Opposition party wants to do so, it would be perfectly at liberty to do so.
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Seamus Logan
Yes, I completely agree—I suspect that the hon. Member might have seen a copy of my speech beforehand.
The Aberdeenshire North food bank also operates on the Peterhead community market garden—in partnership with Stella’s Voice—which is a community food-growing space open for all to enjoy. It aims to provide healthy produce, to build confidence and to provide valuable training opportunities. It is incredible to see the grassroots enthusiasm for the project, which I am sure will go from strength to strength over the coming years. As many of my colleagues know, it is not just food that is provided at food banks, but a powerful sense of community and much-needed support. I also pay tribute to other support services locally, notably the Food Larder in Fraserburgh, which is run under the auspices of the local community council.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In my constituency, food banks operate in every major town, including Moray Food Plus and the Badenoch & Strathspey Food Hub. Over and above that, we have community halls offering food hubs and a clothing bank for school clothing, and they provide cross-referral to the other organisations. There are many churches and other organisations all providing a basic food service to literally thousands of people in a single constituency, and this is replicated throughout the UK. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is basically about choices? In Scotland, the Scottish Government have chosen to provide the child payment for every child, and that is a substantial amount of money every single week, but the choices that have been made here in Westminster include removing the winter fuel payment from so many people.
Seamus Logan
I agree with my hon. Friend. Poverty can be an incredibly isolating experience, with people becoming more and more withdrawn as money weighs heavily on their mind in all waking hours.