Work and Pensions
Guy Opperman Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martyn Day
Does the Minister think it right that the UK has the lowest state pension in the developed world?
Guy Opperman
The reality of the state pension in this country is that it has risen by £1,600 in real terms through the triple lock. It also needs to be looked at in the context of the significant high private pensions that, thanks to automatic enrolment and other reforms, show that this is comparable to many other European countries.
[Official Report, 1 July 2019, Vol. 662, c. 913.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman).
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day).
The correct response should have been:
Martyn Day
Does the Minister think it right that the UK has the lowest state pension in the developed world?
Guy Opperman
The reality of the state pension in this country is that it has risen by £1,600 in cash terms through the triple lock. It also needs to be looked at in the context of the significant high private pensions that, thanks to automatic enrolment and other reforms, show that this is comparable to many other European countries.
Survivor Pension Benefits
Guy Opperman Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
I would like to make the following statement on behalf of myself and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss).
Supreme Court judgment in Walker v. Innospec and others
The case concerned a challenge in the Supreme Court to paragraph 18 of schedule 9 to the Equality Act 2010, which allows defined-benefit occupational pension schemes to restrict access to survivors’ benefits for survivors of a civil partnership or same-sex marriage to benefits based on accruals from December 2005 onwards. The Secretary of State was joined as an interested party. The challenge was made under EU directive 2000/78/EC (Directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation).
The judgment was issued on 12 July, with Mr Walker winning his appeal. The Supreme Court decided that the exception in schedule 9 should be dis-applied and that Mr Walker’s husband is entitled on Mr Walker’s death to a spouse’s pension for the whole of Mr Walker’s service, provided they remain married (Mr Walker had accrued a pension from 1980 until 2003).
The Government respect the decision of the Supreme Court. It is now clear that same-sex civil partners or spouses are entitled to survivor benefits in the same way as opposite-sex spouses.
Impact of the judgment on public service pension schemes
Following the Court ruling, the Government have decided that in public service schemes, surviving male same-sex and female same-sex spouses and civil partners of public service pension scheme members will, in the majority of cases, receive benefits equivalent to those received by widows of opposite-sex marriages. The exception to this may be in specific schemes where, in the past, improvements in female members’ survivor benefits have led to increased contributions. Departments will consult on and take forward changes as soon as possible. Schemes will notify their members of changes and any actions they need to take.
All same-sex survivors of a public service pension scheme member will benefit from this change. How much they benefit by will be determined by a combination of factors, including when the deceased was employed, their pensionable earnings, the length of any pensionable service and the specific benefits of the scheme to which the deceased belonged.
Impact of the judgment on private pension schemes
While the Government are responsible for public service pension schemes, private sector schemes are individually responsible for ensuring that they are compliant with the judgment.
It is therefore not for the Government to direct private sector schemes in this instance, and any action taken by the Government in respect of public service pension schemes should not be interpreted as the minimum requirement for private pension schemes in considering how they respond to this judgment. These schemes will need to take their own advice to ensure that they are legally compliant with the judgment going forward.
The Government’s response to the review of survivor benefits in occupational pension schemes
During passage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 the Government committed to undertake a review of differences in survivor benefits in occupational pension schemes. A duty to conduct this review was duly enacted in section 16 of the Act.
The review was conducted jointly by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and HM Treasury (HMT), which are the Departments with policy responsibility for private and public service pension schemes respectively, and was published on 26 June 2014.
The review considered the differences in survivor benefits in occupational pension schemes between different categories of member and the costs and other effects of eliminating those differences by the equalisation of survivor benefits. The review investigated the differences between:
same-sex survivor benefits and opposite-sex survivor benefits provided to widows;
same sex-survivor benefits and opposite-sex survivor benefits provided to widowers; and
opposite-sex survivor benefits provided to widows and opposite-sex survivor benefits provided to widowers.
The review considered the extent to which same-sex survivor benefits are provided in reliance on paragraph 18 of schedule 9 to the Equality Act 2010 and the extent to which same sex survivor benefits and opposite sex survivor benefits are calculated by reference to different periods of pensionable service.
The review further considered survivor benefits provided to same-sex civil partners and those provided to same-sex married couples. The law treats same-sex civil partners equally to same-sex married couples for the purposes of survivor benefits in pension schemes because these relationships provide comparable rights and responsibilities. There is no significant difference between them. As such, any differences in the benefits provided to survivors of same-sex civil partners when compared to same-sex spouses would be difficult to justify. The review therefore gave no further consideration to differences between these two groups.
The review demonstrated that there are a variety of differences in treatment in survivor benefits in occupational schemes in respect of rights built up in the past. These differences reflect the change in social attitudes over the last 60 years and the subsequent introduction of new forms of legal relationships. As new groups have been brought into survivor benefit provision, changes have generally been applied prospectively to benefits built up from the point of that change.
The Government support equal treatment of survivors of all legal relationships, and Parliament provided that survivor benefits must be built up equally for all these groups on accruals from 5 December 2005 (when the Civil Partnership Act 2005 came into force).
The Walker judgment has clearly changed the legal position relating to survivor benefits in respect of same-sex unions, and the Government have acted; public service pension schemes will now implement changes to provide that survivors of registered same-sex civil partnerships or same-sex marriage will be provided with benefits that replicate those provided to widows of opposite-sex marriages, with the exception of specific schemes where survivor benefits depend on making the correct contributions. As was made clear earlier in this statement, private pension schemes must take advice and act accordingly in complying with the judgment.
Following careful consideration of the review’s findings, the Government have concluded that, aside from those changes brought about by the Supreme Court judgment, they will not make any further retrospective changes to the existing provisions in respect of occupational pension schemes to equalise survivor benefits. While this means that the differences in survivor benefits for accruals in past periods will remain for some, these will work their way out of the system in time.
[HCWS1690]
Oral Answers to Questions
Guy Opperman Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
The overall trend in the percentage of pensioners living in poverty has fallen dramatically over recent decades. Relative pensioner poverty rates before housing costs have halved since 1990 and rates of material deprivation for pensioners are also at record lows. We want to maintain this achievement.
Joanna Cherry
On Friday, I met constituents and campaigners from Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign Scotland. Those women told me that they are suffering poverty, distress and significant inequality as a result of a pension decision taken in the name of equality. At a time when the Tory leadership candidates are promising billions of pounds of public spending, those women would like to know why the Government cannot find the cash to right the wrong done to the WASPI women.
Guy Opperman
It is not the Government’s intention to change the Pensions Act 1995, the Pensions Act 2007 or the Pensions Act 2011. There was a £1.1 billion concession in 2011. The policy was conceived in 1993, continued under the Labour Government for 13 years, continued under the coalition and will continue under this Government. I should also point out that a judicial review is pending. I cannot comment any further than that.
Martyn Day
Does the Minister think it right that the UK has the lowest state pension in the developed world?
Guy Opperman
The reality of the state pension in this country is that it has risen by £1,600 in real terms through the triple lock. It also needs to be looked at in the context of the significant high private pensions that, thanks to automatic enrolment and other reforms, show that this is comparable to many other European countries.[Official Report, 9 July 2019, Vol. 663, c. 2MC.]
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Free TV licences for older pensioners used to be a proud part of DWP policy. Ministers were warned that they would go under the Government’s TV licence plans, so please do not tell us that pension credits are the answer when thousands of pensioners in our area have small occupational or widows’ pensions, which mean that they are just above the threshold but are still on tight budgets. They will be hit by the free TV licence being taken away. What are the Government going to do to support those pensioners and to reverse this unfair plan?
Guy Opperman
The right hon. Lady will be aware that this is a matter for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. In the 2015 funding settlement the Government agreed with the BBC that responsibility for the concession would transfer to the BBC after June 2020. I reassure the House that the Government recognise the importance of this, but we are very disappointed with the BBC and we expect it to continue the concession.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who is a keen young pup in the House, is perched as though he is about to expatiate. However, I had him down as coming in on the next question. [Interruption.] He wishes to expatiate now. Well, our delight is unanimous.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
The pensioners who built Britain deserve nothing but the best in retirement, yet there are 1 million households in poverty because, according to research conducted by Independent Age, the Government have held on to a staggering £7 billion since the general election in unclaimed pension credit, increasing to over £17 billion by 2022— £10 million a day. What has been the Government’s response? An online toolkit used by 2,000 people last year. How do the Government begin to justify plunging 1 million pensioners into poverty? What will they do to ensure that all pensioners get the security and dignity they deserve?
Guy Opperman
The hon. Gentleman will know that, actually, pension credit applications are up significantly. It is also the case that successive Governments have attempted to promote pension credit. I share the frustration of colleagues that it is not higher than it presently is, but I want to emphasise that the DWP uses a variety of means to communicate and we urge all pensioners to apply for pension credit through the usual manner, whether through trusted third parties, jobcentres, local authorities or the like.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
Due to automatic enrolment, 10 million workers have been automatically enrolled into a workplace pension, including 17,000 in my hon. Friend’s Walsall North constituency. In addition, the Government’s commitment to the triple lock has meant that the full basic state pension is now worth about £1,600 a year more in cash terms than it was in 2010.
Eddie Hughes
I thank the Minister for that answer, but 3,440 households in my constituency will lose their free TV licence as a result of the BBC’s recent decision. Can he assure my constituents that pensioners with increased costs will be at the forefront of the Department’s decision making during the comprehensive spending review?
Guy Opperman
Clearly, I cannot comment on the specifics of the comprehensive spending review—I suspect that will be for the new Prime Minister—but the reality of the situation is that the triple lock and the various reforms we have introduced have meant that pensioners have done considerably better. We spend £120 billion on pensioners, of which £99 billion is on the state pension. That is a record sum.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Pensioners who apply for disability living allowance after the age of 65 are not eligible for the higher mobility component and are therefore not able to access the Motability scheme. The regulations are not new—they date to 1991—but our understanding of what it is to live a good life in retirement has changed in the intervening three decades. Will Ministers reconsider the regulations, so that pensioners continue to have the opportunity for full social participation?
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
The Department does not publish statistics on the number of people who receive a state pension below the full new state pension amount. As of November 2018, the average amount of the new state pension that people received, including any protected payments, was £154.91 per week.
Gareth Snell
I thank the Minister for that answer. While he may not have that figure, I can tell him that two of the people who do not receive that amount are Bob and Hilary Heyes from my Stoke-on-Trent constituency. Had they started to claim their state pension under the new state pension, they would have received the full amount because they had 35 qualifying years, but because they were born before 1951 and 1953 respectively, they receive considerably less. What would the Minister have me tell Mr and Mrs Heyes when they come to constituency surgery next?
Guy Opperman
It is hard for me to comment on the specifics of the particular case. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me in advance of the forthcoming constituency surgery, I will write back to him and he can hand over the letter.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
I met plumbing representatives from Lancashire recently, and those in Angus and Perth last year. We also debated this matter in the House last year. There are nearly 1,000 last man standing multi-employer schemes. Most respondents to the Green Paper on defined-benefit pensions felt that the current buy-out basis was a clear and fair way in which to calculate an employer debt.
Guy Opperman
I cannot speak on the specifics of the individual scheme, but the majority of the employers in these schemes are incorporated and are not personally liable for any debt. The flexible apportionment arrangement can be used to help unincorporated employers who wish to incorporate, and the plumbing pension trustee has a streamlined flexible apportionment arrangement process that employers can use. Alternatively, where the employer debt arises in multi-employer schemes as a result of an employer cessation event, there are a number of mechanisms in the occupational pension schemes employer debt regulations that can be of assistance.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
I saw the report, which was published last week, and noted the findings on page 15 and the four recommendations, many of which we are already doing. Whether through jobcentres, third parties, local authorities or our various other communications, we want more people to be claiming pension credit, and we are trying to do everything possible to make that happen.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
Last week I had a meeting with a Parkinson’s support group in my constituency and was told about the many struggles that sufferers face. Will the Minister review the 20-metre rule, so that more people with Parkinson’s who have mobility problems can qualify for essential support, such as the blue badge scheme?
Hoover Pension Fund Deficit
Guy Opperman Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster 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
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) on his speech, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on his intervention in this debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.
I accept entirely that this is a sensitive and important matter that the House should debate in the context of the long-term viability of defined-benefit schemes—a matter of concern to the House and to our individual constituents up and down the country. In this particular case, we are concerned with the constituents of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and the members of the Hoover pension scheme, who feel very strongly about this issue. I hope that I will be able to reassure hon. Members that the Pensions Regulator has done everything in its power to achieve the best possible outcome within the current legislative framework.
I will start with defined benefit generally, and make the simple point that the majority of defined-benefit pension schemes in this country are run effectively. We are fortunate to have a robust and flexible system of pension protection in the United Kingdom. The Pensions Regulator, which is based out of Brighton and is obviously independent of Government—although I meet with it on a regular basis—has a range of powers to protect pension schemes and works closely with all involved.
For schemes where the employer goes insolvent, the Pension Protection Fund is there to help to protect the members. Anybody already in receipt of their pension will continue to be paid and other members will receive at least Pension Protection Fund compensation levels. However, we are in the process of reviewing the defined-benefit system; the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the defined benefit White Paper issued a little while ago and the proposals put forward for a future private pensions Act, which we hope to bring forward in this House in due course.
In respect of the Pension Protection Fund itself, I want to ensure that hon. Members fully grasp that the Pensions Regulator has done everything in its power as an independent regulator to achieve the best possible outcome for scheme members. The employer, the Pensions Regulator and the Pension Protection Fund have considered different solutions to address the scheme’s funding deficit. On 31 March 2016, that deficit was approximately £500 million. Given that that funding deficit was putting the solvency of the company and its pension scheme members at risk, the Pensions Regulator intervened.
Turning to the Pensions Regulator’s intervention, on 30 May 2017 it approved a proposal by the 1987 Hoover pension scheme. The approved plan, known as a regulated apportionment arrangement, helped to secure the future for UK employees and gave protection to the pension scheme. The Pensions Regulator agreed to the regulated apportionment arrangement only after ensuring that Hoover had met its very strict criteria. The agreed arrangement between the company and the Pensions Regulator secured a £60 million payment from Hoover into the Pension Protection Fund in May 2019. That lump sum is significantly higher than what it would have received had Hoover fallen into insolvency. In addition, as part of that arrangement the pension scheme would also receive shares representing a 33% stake in Hoover.
That balanced approach addressed the need to protect scheme members’ pensions while preserving jobs in the sector and in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency—a matter that I know he is passionate about. The trustees of the scheme acknowledged that it secured a significantly better outcome for the pension scheme than it would have received through the normal insolvency process, and the best achievable solution for the pension scheme given the circumstances.
Matters proceeded, and I will address the protection for pension scheme members. The Hoover pension scheme left the Pension Protection Fund assessment period and transferred into the Pension Protection Fund itself in May 2019. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Pension Protection Fund is effectively an independent lifeboat. It is a fund established to provide a meaningful level of compensation to members of private sector occupational defined-benefit pension schemes who have lost their pension as a result of employer insolvency or impending insolvency.
Crucially, the Pension Protection Fund is funded by a levy on all other defined-benefit schemes. The framework under which the Pension Protection Fund operates means that favouring any one group will place a corresponding burden and risks on other levy payers and Pension Protection Fund members. I accept that the hon. Gentleman sought to persuade me that we should make radical change to the Pension Protection Fund as a whole, but he and I need to agree something: the previous Labour Government, who were in charge between 1997 and 2010, had opportunities to correct many things, and one of the corrections they made was the creation of the Pension Protection Fund.
We must have a very robust discussion that makes it clear that, were the Pension Protection Fund not in existence, the situation for any scheme member facing this situation would be considerably worse. The Pension Protection Fund, set up in 2005, has transformed the landscape for many people who would otherwise have been left desperately vulnerable and considerably impoverished. It pays a guaranteed level of compensation that was not previously available to pension scheme members in similar circumstances.
Pension Protection Fund compensation guarantees 100% protection to members who are over their scheme’s normal pension age at the date of the employer’s insolvency or to members under normal pension age who retired on ill-health grounds. All other scheme members are paid compensation based on 90% of their pension, subject to a cap.
The Pension Protection Fund is largely seen as a success across all Governments, with respect, and has received strong cross-party support. While the hon. Gentleman is clearly right to champion his constituents’ cause, it is right that the House should celebrate the fact that, without the Pension Protection Fund, things would be considerably worse. Setting it up was a success of the last Labour Government, and it has been endorsed and supported by all other Governments since.
Gerald Jones
I appreciate the Minister’s point about the Pension Protection Fund and how different the situation would have been had it not intervened. However, the central point I was trying to get across was whether there is any opportunity to review the position of surpluses taken under that Finance Act by a previous Conservative Government, maybe not to fully reinstate what the pensioners have lost but to go some way towards defraying some of the difficulties that pensioners now face, in my constituency and beyond.
Guy Opperman
I will answer that with three points. The first is slightly political but has to be made, given the way that the hon. Gentleman put his case. There was an opportunity between 1997 and 2010 to make such a reform if that Labour Government wished to.
However, perhaps it would be appropriate to explain why we got into this situation. Clearly, this is a tax issue. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I am answering on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions, but I will endeavour to do my best impersonation of Her Majesty’s Treasury and address this. The Treasury’s view is that the Finance Act 1986 addressed what were then considered to be excessive pension scheme surpluses, as there was an absence of clear rules on how surpluses should be dealt with. Pension schemes with funding in excess of a certain amount could reduce certain surpluses in a number of ways, including by suspending employer or employee contributions, making taxable payments back to the employer, improving member benefits or providing new benefits to members.
It was entirely a matter for the trustees and employers to decide which method of reducing the surplus to use. If, and only if, they chose to make a refund, the employer was liable to tax at 40% of the amount refunded, so as broadly to recover the tax relief previously given. Those laws on pension scheme surpluses were repealed in 2006, with the introduction of a new pensions tax regime. As to whether the Government can commit to reviewing the terms of the Act and possibly returning the money to the schemes, Her Majesty’s Treasury is clear that it is right and fair that everyone, whether individuals or businesses, must pay the tax that is due.
Before 1986, some employers could use surpluses as a way to avoid tax. They could pay contributions into the pension scheme and receive tax relief, then apply for a return of a surplus. There were no provisions for tax repayments on the return of a surplus. The 40% tax on a return of surplus was introduced in 1986 so as to broadly recover the tax relief previously given. It was not mandatory to return the surplus; a company could instead have a contribution holiday or improve member benefits.
To answer the hon. Gentleman’s point, it is not Her Majesty’s Treasury’s present intention to reform or reinstate anything relating to the situation under the Finance Act 1986, as he sought to persuade me to do. However, I will briefly explain the changes to improve scheme funding. The Pensions Regulator can track pension scheme funding and will react appropriately when there is a large funding deficit. The scheme funding measures proposed in our White Paper will ensure that trustees put in place a more robust plan to ensure that the statutory funding objective is achieved. We intend to use new and existing powers to be clearer in legislation about what is an appropriate length for the recovery plan when there is a funding deficit.
We will take steps to require trustees to explain to the Pensions Regulator their funding and investment strategy, how they intend to mitigate risks to the scheme funding position and how they are complying with funding standards in legislation. The changes are intended to support trustees in their decision making and to strengthen the Pension Regulator’s enforcement regime, to protect members, sponsors and the Pension Protection Fund from future shocks or events such as these. The system will retain some flexibility to ensure that sponsoring employers can balance their obligations to the pension schemes with business needs. The reality is that the Pension Protection Fund is a significant organisation with more than £30 billion of assets and responsibility for more than 236,000 pension scheme members, more than half of whom are current pensioners. It is able to cope with these schemes.
However, the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Strangford, who has now left the Chamber, made points in respect of other cases, including British Coal, British Steel, BHS and others. I will return to those before I finish, because while the constituents of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney would like to receive 100% of whatever they thought they were going to receive—no one disputes that—without the changes that successive Governments have brought in, their position would be considerably worse.
The reality of the situations that the hon. Gentleman outlined is that the difficulties that those companies have got into have been addressed, by and large—there have been some tweaks or changes to the way they have been treated, particularly in respect of British Steel—by the Pension Protection Fund stepping in, by way of introducing a levy on the defined-benefit schemes out there and ensuring that a substantial payment is made from a pension that otherwise would have been lost under the old law. That has been addressed by successive Governments. Clearly this is a matter of great import to his constituents, and I thank him for bringing it to the House. I hope I have addressed some of the points raised.
Question put and agreed to.
Pension Funds: Financial and Ethical Investments
Guy Opperman Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster 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
Sir Edward Davey
I totally agree. Indeed, analysis by the Grantham Institute shows that if someone had not held fossil fuels in their portfolio for the last 50 years, their overall returns would not have been any different. The idea that we have to invest in fossil fuels to have a return was not true in the past, and it is not going to be true in the future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I thought I would intervene at this stage to try to frame the debate, because I think some colleagues will not be aware of the Pension Protection Fund (Pensionable Service) and Occupational Pension Schemes (Investment and Disclosure) (Amendment and Modification) Regulations 2018, which the House passed in September last year. Those regulations require environmental, social and governance matters to be taken into consideration as part of the statement of investment principles, and require individual pension fund trustees to take into account ESG factors when considering their strategic process to invest. I suggest that is one of the reasons why BP, the parliamentary scheme and others are beginning to change their approach. Those regulations will come into force in October.
Sir Edward Davey
I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention. Those new ESG guidelines are helpful, but I am afraid I do not think they are quite up to the scale of the task we face. I will come to that in a second.
We have this carbon bubble; the question is how we are going to deflate it. How will we move from where we are now, with this big risk to our economy, to the low-carbon economy we need? One option is to say, “Well, it will sort itself out. We don’t need to worry now. We can delay it all and it will be all right. We can allow the fossil fuel companies to keep investing in exploring and getting even more fossil fuels, and inflate that bubble even more.” How risky would that be? That is one scenario that some people seem to think is possible. I reject it entirely.
Another approach is to say, “Let’s reduce, and ultimately stop, exploration for further fossil fuels. Let’s not inflate that bubble any more. Let’s gradually deflate it, so we can have an orderly transition for our economy, our energy sector and all the communities, towns, cities and people who depend on it.” That is the solution, and that is why I have concluded that we must disinvest and reinvest in a thoughtful, careful way. If we do that, we can tackle the climate emergency and avoid a financial and economic catastrophe.
That brings me to the Minister’s point. There are three possible approaches to disinvestment and investment. One is what I would call the gentle, market-led approach, which says, “If you have a bit more transparency and disclosure and a few ESG guidelines, it will all take care of itself.” I am in favour of all that stuff, but it is nowhere near up to the task. It is not urgent enough. We have people talking about voluntary disclosure. No, we need mandatory disclosure now, regulated by this House. I applaud the ESG guidelines, but they are a little woolly and poorly defined. They are little nudges when we need more than a nudge, because this is an emergency.
There is a second, state-led approach advocated by at least one Front-Bench team, involving wholesale nationalisation and dismantling capitalism. That would be the wrong approach, because it would delay action and not enable us to take the power of capitalism, with market forces, innovation and competition, to help us solve the problem.
We need to make capitalism our servant, not our master, and that comes from laws and regulations in this House. I propose a five-point plan systematically to decarbonise capitalism and tackle the disinvestment and investment challenge of the pension funds. First, there should be mandatory disclosure from all fossil fuel companies on how much carbon their business plans would see emitted and how much carbon is in their reserves. That should be coupled with a legal requirement to show how they will become compliant with the Paris treaty, with timed targets, so that fossil fuels can unwind the pollution they cause.
Secondly, there should be new climate accountancy rules for accountants and auditors on fossil fuels and pension funds, which would require accountants and auditors to produce Paris-compliant accounts, where assets and activities not aligned with the Paris treaty are written down to zero by 2050 at the latest. I think that would change the valuation of a number of companies. We would see a lot more transparency, really know what was going on, and be able to take better decisions.
Thirdly, there should be new, mandatory requirements on all pension fund managers and trustees to report on whether their portfolios of investments are aligned with Paris or not—really strong transparency and disclosure. Fourthly, there should be new powers for pension regulators, and the Bank of England if required, to challenge funds and other investment operations on their climate risk management. Where that is found wanting, the regulators should be able to take action to ensure proper alignment.
Fifthly, we need to develop a register—probably Government-led—of all the low carbon, green and zero carbon investment opportunities for the capital to go to. We cannot just say disinvest; we must show where investments and that capital should go. The good news is that there are a huge number of very attractive low carbon and zero carbon investment opportunities in this country and around the world, so we can ensure that our pensioners of the future get the pensions that they need and that those pensions are far less risky because they will be based on climate-friendly assets.
Dr Whitehead
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that some pension funds are beginning to take a different view. Indeed, that different view is becoming more possible, but the general consideration of the fiduciary duty remains a short-term gain for pensioners in the funds. Of course, the people setting out on their working lives will not get the benefit of those pension funds for 30 or 40 years. During that time inevitably we have to move to the net zero carbon economy. It is therefore essential that pension funds have a duty to look at the long term.
Guy Opperman
I want to help the hon. Gentleman on one point. He needs to understand that the ESG regulations are not voluntary, as the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) suggested. They are mandatory. If the trustees fail to follow them, specific sanctions follow.
Dr Whitehead
My understanding of the 2018 regulations is that it is mandatory for people to look at such things, but not mandatory for people to do things. That is the difference. In fact, I welcomed the regulations.
Pension funds should in future have a duty to protect the long-term value of the funds as well as consider the short-term issues of making money for their pensioners. We therefore need to clarify in law the fact that pension funds have a duty to protect the long-term value of the funds. Indeed, a recommendation that the Environmental Audit Committee made in its 2018 report has not been acted on, even though those regulations were introduced. That is something we need to move to urgently.
Having said that pension funds tend to invest in bonds and various other things that are primarily about energy bonds, on the assumption that there will be value, which we know will not be there in future, there is then the question of moving towards investment in things that do make a difference to climate change. Pension funds have a genuine problem in terms of the Solvency II regs, which tend to guide pension funds away from investing in the schemes that are capital-intensive up front and revenue less intensive behind, that are at the heart of the green investment revolution.
We need to do two things: first, make it much easier for pension funds to invest in long-term schemes, and secondly, ensure that they have a duty to ensure that they do not invest in short-term schemes. I have addressed the practical aspects of what pension schemes have done. I have not touched on the moral aspect. We simply have to leave dirty energy in the ground. We have got to invest in clean energy for the future, and pension funds ought to be at the front of that. If pension managers take that view in addition to the legal responsibilities that they have, I am sure they will go a long way to helping the green revolution succeed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
This Parliament accepts that there is a climate emergency, and this debate, which I am delighted so many colleagues have embraced this afternoon, has focused on the following key issues: the change that clearly is taking place in our climate; the role of the consumer; the choices that are available to the individual parties that we are dealing with; and, ultimately, the role of capitalism and its ability to assist in addressing these particular problems.
We should trumpet the success of successive Governments of different persuasions, leading up to the coalition and this Government, in leading the way in the G20 and reducing our CO2, and we should celebrate the quadrupling of our renewable capacity, but we clearly must do more. We should celebrate the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) said, on the May bank holiday Britain had burned no coal for electricity for a week—the longest period without coal since the industrial revolution.
Although we celebrate these good things, they are patently not enough. Although we will plant more forests, recycle more and, crucially, try to engage our consumers, our citizens, our constituents to change their behaviour, we do, I suggest, need capitalism to save the day. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) that we need to urge local authorities to focus on the clean growth strategy that has been set out by the Government to address the way we do housing and the way we do energy on a localised basis. I believe very strongly—any Conservative will make the case—that capitalism is a force for good, because we need technological innovation to solve the climate change issues, and innovative start-ups will be needed to address the access to capital and the changes that are required.
David Duguid
Many hon. Members have spoken about the need for transparency regarding the kinds of companies that are being invested in. Does the Minister agree that that transparency should include the work already done by large oil and gas companies to invest in the innovation he is talking about? It is not only small start-ups that do this innovation; the large companies with large resources behind them are already investing in it heavily. As the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) mentioned, the 1.3% invested by the 13 or so companies that are part of the oil and gas climate initiative works out at approximately $100 million a year. That is a very large number, even though the percentage sounds small.
Guy Opperman
I accept my hon. Friend’s point. The crucial point is that natural gas had been one of the biggest parts of reducing carbon dioxide in the electricity sector. Hydrogen derived from natural gas will decarbonise heating for homes and transport. The large companies are leading the way on carbon capture and storage. We must work with them to ensure that the successes, which we all want to see, continue.
We can see the changes that are taking place. Individual companies must answer for themselves. Last year, Shell, one of the largest companies that we are debating, agreed to link its executive pay to its carbon emission targets, in direct response to particular shareholders. The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth, my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), would be here if she could, to make the case for the Government’s clean growth strategy and the green agenda. Like her, I urge individual consumers—anybody who has a particular pension—to make the case to their trustees as to how that is being invested.
Several hon. Members rose—
Guy Opperman
I am going to make some progress and then I will try to take the greatest hits—bear with me one second.
I accept that the technological changes require capital, long-term thinking and a lack of political agenda. I strongly believe that the pension industry has those attributes. I urge the House to accept that the Government’s regulations—namely the ESG regulations, which come in this year, but were passed in September 2018—which require a pension fund to update its statement of investment principles and take into account environmental, social and governance regulations, are key to the change to the strategic progress of investment.
To address the point made by the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), those occupational pension schemes regulations require that trustees must—the emphasis is on “must”—set out their policies on environmental, social and governance matters, including climate change, and how they engage with the companies in which they invest. Those regulations also introduced a requirement for trustees of DC schemes, where the member bears the financial risk of poor investment decisions, to report on how their investment policies are being put into action and make all of that information publicly available online.
For too long there has been a perception by too many trustees—I am happy to clarify this as a Government Minister—that the environmental practices of the firms they invest in are purely ethical concerns, which they do not need to worry about: that is utterly wrong. Aside from the ethical considerations, there are real financial risks resulting from climate change. With the long-term horizons of pension investing, trustees must now consider that when they set out their investment strategies. Trustees who do not consider those matters will be breaching their statutory and potentially their fiduciary duties not only to current but future members.
Guy Opperman
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has not had a chance to speak.
Ben Lake
There is consensus that divestment from fossil fuels makes both financial and environmental sense. Further to the point that the Minister has just made, does he think that those changes will be sufficient to ensure that the industry actually makes that transition, or does he envisage further measures in the future?
Guy Opperman
I will come on to some of those particular points. In terms of regulatory guidance, which has been raised by several hon. Members, there is no doubt that the Pensions Regulator is planning to publish further guidance on managing the climate change risk in advance of those regulations, which come in to place in October. A key point is that non-compliance with those regulations can potentially lead to sanctions from the Pensions Regulator, which is acutely mindful of its obligations and what it needs to do to address this particular point.
As a Government, we will respond shortly to the advice from the Energy and Climate Change Committee on the target for net zero emissions by 2050. That advice was only published two weeks ago. Colleagues will be aware of the 25-year environmental plan, which has been set out in detail. It commits to using resources from nature more sustainably and effectively, and achieving a clean air, water and wildlife approach.
Alex Sobel
The Minister began by saying that Parliament has declared a climate emergency. Do the Government also recognise and declare a climate emergency? His remarks on the recent report from the Energy and Climate Change Committee indicate that the Government must declare a climate emergency.
Guy Opperman
The hon. Gentleman and I went into the same Lobby when we voted on that matter. He has heard that the House gave universal support to the debate that was taking place. I am not here to make policy on behalf of the whole of the Government, but the Government will respond formally to the 2 May report shortly. He will have to bear with us until that stage.
Guy Opperman
I will not give way again, because I have very little time left.
I want to address a couple of points made by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey). He asked whether we are creating a coalition of the willing. I strongly suggest that we are. We are working with the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, ClientEarth, ShareAction—which I have met on several occasions—and the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association. There is a serious amount being done to ensure we are aligned with the Paris agreement. The widespread global commitment to the Paris agreement suggests that trustees have a responsibility to align their investment strategies with its aims.
However, it is fair to say that there is no definitively agreed consensus on what being aligned to those aims of being below 2° mean for a specific pension fund and its asset allocation. That is why I am delighted to see the initiative of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, which is developing a common understanding of what such alignment means for pension schemes, and the Government will work with it on that point.
Green finance is a key priority for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth, who set up the green finance taskforce which, with the clean growth strategy, will drive economic growth as part of industrial strategy, to ensure that the UK remains a driving force in enabling the global transition to a low-carbon economy. A green finance strategy paper will be launched later this year, which will set out the Government’s green finance objectives on an ongoing basis.
I want to talk about consumers. It is absolutely the case that members can make individual choices. They can choose to move their individual pension into a self-selected fund that aligns with their own objectives, such as an ethical fund. We massively support such an approach and feel that it is the right thing to do.
On transparency, which my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) mentioned, the Government intend to announce further transparency measures on the topic of responsible investment in the coming weeks, in respect of the shareholder rights directive. This Government absolutely accept that there is a climate emergency and we are addressing this. I thank the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton for bringing forward this vitally important debate, which all of us have engaged with and embraced as the right way forward. I look forward to updating the House on further developments, particularly in October after the regulations kick in.
Work and Pensions
Guy Opperman Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ruth George
When the changes were debated back in 2012 as part of the Welfare Reform Act, universal credit was still a similar level of benefit to tax credits. Since then, following the 2015 budgetary changes, universal credit has been worth significantly less, and increased numbers of people on universal credit are in poverty. Does the Minister not agree that that should be a reason for Parliament to debate again the changes that will affect hundreds of thousands more, often vulnerable, households, in the light of the changed circumstances?
Guy Opperman
With respect, Parliament has debated the matter and made a decision. The hon. Lady will be aware of the 2011 equality impact assessment, the 2012 risk assessment, the universal credit impact assessment, and the ad hoc statistical analysis that was published on 28 February, which outlined the number of people affected, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned—approximately 115,000 mixed-age couples in the United Kingdom.
[Official Report, 24 April 2019, Vol. 658, c. 315WH.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman):
An error has been identified in my response to an intervention from the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George).
The correct response should have been:
Guy Opperman
With respect, Parliament has debated the matter and made a decision. The hon. Lady will be aware of the 2011 equality impact assessment, the 2012 universal credit impact assessment, and the ad hoc statistical analysis that was published on 28 February, which outlined the number of people affected, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned—approximately 115,000 mixed-age couples in Great Britain.
Oral Answers to Questions
Guy Opperman Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
We spend more than £120 billion on benefits for pensioners, including the state pension, which is now worth £1,600 more than in 2010. Means-tested benefits are adjusted according to changes in circumstances, and it is not possible to say how many pensioners have had an increase or reduction, but it is the case that this Government spend more on pensioners than any Government have ever done before.
Stephen McPartland
More than 750,000 pensioners are in receipt of disability living allowance, and those who turned 65 after April 2013 are being kicked off DLA and are forced to apply for personal independence payments. Many of them are not applying, and of those who do, some are not receiving PIP. Why are we not transferring these pensioners across automatically?
Guy Opperman
It is right to say that 75% of all reassessed claimants receive a PIP award, and nearly 67,000 more people aged 65 or over are on either DLA or PIP than when PIP was first introduced in 2013. I take my hon. Friend’s point, though, and the Minister for Disabled People will be happy to meet my hon. Friend. I am sure he would make the point that the Government spend more than £20 billion on DLA and PIP, which is up from £15 billion in 2012.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The inquest for my constituent Joy Worrall took place last Thursday. Joy was 82 years old. It was confirmed that she had committed suicide after the DWP wrongly stopped her benefits and her winter fuel allowance for a period of 15 months before her death. At the time of her death, Joy had £5 in her account. Will the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State undertake, for the family, who have asked me to do this for them, an urgent inquiry into why Joy was not paid her pension or her winter fuel allowance for that period? Will he ensure that nobody will ever again commit suicide because of poverty?
Guy Opperman
The right hon. Gentleman rightly raises his constituent’s case; I have already spoken to him on two occasions. Our thoughts are with Mrs Worrall’s family and friends. The Government apologise unreservedly for the clerical error—it was a clerical error—that led to Mrs Worrall’s pensions payment being stopped. We have urgently reviewed our processes and acted so that benefits are no longer linked on our systems, to try to ensure that this does not happen again. There is an internal process review; I undertake to write to the right hon. Gentleman in the short term with what we know and with more detail when the urgent process review has taken place. I am including Mr Worrall in that process.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
It would be helpful if every member of DWP staff were able to get to a Minister if something absurd was happening, rather than getting stuck in bureaucracy.
May I take the Minister back to his £1,600 extra? Will he review House of Commons briefing paper 01457, on the history of frozen overseas pensions for half our overseas pensioners? It is absurd that an agreement with New Zealand in 1948 and a written parliamentary answer in July 1955 should determine that people who leave this country to retire abroad do not get pension increases in half the countries around the world but do so in the other half. It is time that we had a proper debate and a proper decision, and got past the legalistic approach taken by this Government and previous ones.
Guy Opperman
My hon. Friend raises several points, but unquestionably the situation in relation to overseas pensions has been consistently enforced by every Government of every persuasion since the second world war, and there is no anticipation of changing that.
Of course, we will ensure that individual members of DWP staff up and down the country are able to go to their line managers and then to Members of Parliament or individual members of the Government on an ongoing basis.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Pensioner poverty halved under the most recent Labour Government; it has increased by 400,000 under this Government, with one in six pensioners living in poverty. Having broken one manifesto pledge on TV licences, Ministers are now breaking a second one, as mixed-aged couples are no longer being paid pension credit if one of them is under retirement age. How can the Government begin to justify the breaking of a solemn promise, particularly in circumstances where it will cost the couple concerned a staggering £7,320 a year?
Guy Opperman
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the overall trend in the percentage of pensioners in poverty is a dramatic fall over several decades. The rates of material deprivation for pensioners are at a record low at this stage.
On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, couples who currently receive pension credit or housing benefit will not be affected by the change, as long as they remain entitled to either benefit. Claimants who would be eligible for pension credit or housing benefit for pensioners under the current rules but have not claimed before 15 May have until 13 August to make a backdated claim.
Jack Dromey
From Carillion to BHS, workers’ pensions are being put at risk by bad bosses, sloppy practices and poor enforcement. We have campaigned against that injustice. The defined benefit White Paper has proposed stronger powers and penalties. Ministers have promised to introduce such legislation, which we would support. Will the Government keep at least this promise so that we can send out a joint message that says, “Never again a Philip Green”?
Guy Opperman
We are agreed across the House that there must be action on defined benefits so that we stop what took place with Philip Green, and to address that the Secretary of State has brought forward proposals in the defined benefit White Paper. We propose to bring forward a Bill, when parliamentary time allows, to address the DB White Paper, collective defined contributions, Dashboard and a number of other matters, and I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman on a cross-party basis to make that happen.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
The hon. Lady knows that the policy pursued by this Government is the same policy that was pursued during the 13 years of the Labour Government and all other Governments since the second world war. It is a consistent approach that is absolutely endorsed by the present Government, and I am afraid there are no plans to change the policy at present.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
What progress is being made to support more people in East Renfrewshire into an occupational pension scheme through auto-enrolment?
Guy Opperman
It was a great pleasure to visit Barrhead with my hon. Friend and meet his outstanding credit union, which is one of 1,290 employers providing 5,000 employees across his East Renfrewshire constituency with automatically enrolled pensions. It is a cross-party success story, with 10.4 million people now automatically enrolled.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
If it is true that work is the best route out of poverty, why did food banks in Barnsley give out more than 1.5 million food parcels last year, many to people in work? Why is it that in the Secretary of State’s own constituency low income has overtaken benefit delays as the biggest reason people are referred to Hastings food bank?
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
For clarity, can the Minister confirm that the Scottish Government have power under section 24 of the Scotland Act to top up reserve benefits, including for anyone affected by future changes to mixed-age couples’ benefits?
Guy Opperman
I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the chance to clarify that sections 24 and 26 of the Scotland Act enable the Scottish Government to make top-up or discretionary payments to any person in Scotland who is in receipt of any reserved UK Government benefit. Put simply, the ball is in the Scottish Government’s court.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
A constituent of mine is being passed from pillar to post by the DWP and the Scottish student loans group, both of which say she is entitled to support. She wants to start studying full time in September but, as a single parent, cannot do so without appropriate financial support. Will the Secretary of State or one of her Ministers meet me to see whether we can find a way out of this Catch-22 situation and ensure that my constituent and other single mothers like her, who want to improve their families’ opportunities, have the support to do so?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 1.9 million pensioners now live in poverty, which is a complete disgrace. Given that 46,000 pensioners died prematurely last year, why has the winter fuel allowance not been increased for more than a decade?
Guy Opperman
It is not specifically the case that pensioners are in poverty compared with previous records, which show that pensioner poverty is coming down. I will write to the hon. Lady in respect of her specific point about the winter fuel allowance.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I listened carefully to the Minister’s earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). It was simply not good enough because in just two days’ time changes by this Government to mixed-age couples’ benefits will make them ineligible for pension credit and force them both to apply for universal credit, which will result in many losing thousands of pounds. With one in six older people already living in poverty, is it not time that the Minister rethought the changes, or is he determined to increase those shameful levels of poverty?
Guy Opperman
Pension credit is intended to provide long-term support to economically inactive pensioner households. It is not intended to support working-age claimants. This change ensures that people cannot access pensioner benefits before they have reached state pension age, so taxpayer support is directed to where it is needed most.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Earlier this year I met representatives of those who carry out work capability assessments and representatives from the previous disability Minister’s office. I was assured that those carrying out capability assessments were well aware of unseen conditions such as ME, but since then I have been overwhelmed with correspondence saying that people with ME are being declared fit for work. What work is the Minister doing to ensure that the assessors are aware of conditions such as ME?
Working at Height: Safety
Guy Opperman Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster 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
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I support the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) in commending the APPG report to the Minister and to the House as a whole. I have played a small part in the group, but was able to attend a number of sessions and helped to sign off the report’s recommendations. I have done so because it is self-evident and important that we must try to reduce still further the number of deaths and injuries caused by falls from height.
My first memory of my dad was visiting him in hospital after he had suffered an industrial injury and was off work for six months. It is important to remember that it is not just the individual who is affected by an injury at work, but their family, as the hon. Lady said. Although my dad was not injured by a fall from height, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Work at Height Regulations 2005, which were both passed by a Labour Government, are critical pieces of legislation. They ensure that those who work at height, either for big businesses or when self-employed, come home safe, contribute at work safely and are free from injury or—in some cases, sadly—death, as a result of their efforts at work.
We have a responsibility not only through business, central Government regulation and legislation passed by this House, but through the exploitation and promotion of good practice, to ensure that we do all we can to make that happen. The report shows that in the last year for which we have figures, 18% of people who died at work died as the result of a fall from height, so inroads the Government make in tackling that challenge will help to reduce the overall number of deaths at work. Our figures are very good compared with other European countries, partly because of the legislation passed to date, but as the hon. Lady said, the report mentions some important ways we can not only build on the regulations that place duties on employers, self-employed people and any individuals who contract people to work at height, including building owners, facility managers and householders, but rise to the challenges set out in the report. I look forward to hearing what the Minister thinks the challenges will be.
The hon. Lady mentioned the importance of reporting. There is now a reporting mechanism, but the APPG’s report asks for enhanced reporting to examine still further, and at a minimum, the scale of the fall, the methods used and the circumstances—to get as much information as possible about the fall, so that we can learn and help to prevent future injuries. Is the Minister happy with the current level of reporting and with the demands put on it? Is there scope to improve reporting, as the hon. Lady and the report have requested? If so, as Minister, he has a duty to improve reporting and prevent future injuries and deaths.
The hon. Lady mentioned that our report asks for an independent body to ensure that we allow confidential, enhanced digital reporting of near misses. Reporting a number of near misses that could have resulted in death or serious injury is crucial to oblige good practice and to ensure that we reduce the potential danger and the threat of poor behaviour. What is the Minister’s view on an independent body? Does he think it worthwhile or would it be an additional burden on business? I do not think it would be, but I would like some clarity on that, because it is important that we have that level of support.
The hon. Lady mentioned the Working Well Together campaign and the Working Well at Height safety campaign for industries outside the construction sector. Many businesses regard that as a critical part of their work for training, assessments and so on. For some businesses, however, working at height might be occasional and not central to their daily work. What is the Minister’s view on the Working Well Together Campaign? Can it be improved? He has the ability to make changes if his good team of officials assess them and support him in doing so.
The hon. Lady mentioned Scotland’s fatal accident inquiry process, and I think that there is merit in that. If I get nothing else from the Minister today, I would welcome confirmation of whether he has even looked at Scotland’s fatal accident inquiry process. If he has, what is his assessment of it? I am not asking him today to expand it; I am just asking whether he has looked at it. Have his officials looked at it? Will he be reviewing it? Will he bring to the table an assessment of whether lessons from Scotland could improve safety at work?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
I want to help the right hon. Gentleman. Perfectly legitimately, he is making, as did the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), a number of particular points. It may also help colleagues who have yet to speak if I make this brief point in an intervention. Clearly, this matter requires the Health and Safety Executive to report back to the Government on it. The Government would rightly be criticised if they were too definitive without first receiving a specific response from the HSE. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will attempt, within the bounds of what I am able to say, to answer the points raised by the hon. Lady and by him, but obviously we are subject to the formal response by the HSE.
David Hanson
I am grateful to the Minister for putting that on the record. He knows that I acknowledge that relationship, but the key point is that, as the Minister, he can commission work, ask for reviews and, if he has not already, ask the Health and Safety Executive to look at the Scotland fatal accident inquiry process to assess whether any improvements have been made.
Finally, the report also suggests a review of working-at-height culture. Potentially, with the great modern technology we have, that includes mechanisms that the hon. Member for Glasgow Central mentioned, such as drones and other activities. We do not wish to put people out of work, but the threats and dangers of certain aspects of work can be minimised by advancing technology. Again, the Minister has the overview to work with the Health and Safety Executive, that great Labour Government invention, to reduce the number of deaths and injuries at work.
I support what the hon. Lady said, and I want to put on record my support from the Labour Back Benches for the recommendations. I hope that our discussions over 18 months to two years will result in some changes that prevent injury and loss of life, and give some people the opportunity to go back to work the following day, contributing to our economy without threat to their life or their family’s future.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. When I saw your good self and the Minister sat there, I thought that I was in a Select Committee. I was ready to ask him impertinent questions—
Chris Stephens
I will perhaps have to quote the Minister’s comment back at him during a future inquiry.
I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), on all her work on working at height, which is particularly prevalent in sectors such as construction. I come from a trade union background and was a Unison activist in Glasgow, and we were very aware of such issues, in particular those around whether workers should get additional payments for the context in which they work—at height, for example—and so on. We should remember that in some sectors of the economy, blacklisting by employers was prevalent, often of individuals who expressed the health and safety concerns of workers. That is a real problem and it is still happening. Blacklisting is illegal, but some evidence presented to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs last year suggested that the practice continues. I refer Members to the early-day motion in my name that calls for a public inquiry into blacklisting.
Every fall from height can have life-altering consequences for workers and their families. The working-at-height culture needs to improve, as the APPG report demonstrates clearly, but sadly the issue does not yet appear to be at the top of decision-making agendas. Lack of data prevents us from understanding the causes of falls from height, which is compounded by a cultural obstacle to supporting people to report unsafe practices.
This excellent report looks at the issues that the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) talked about, in particular the four primary recommendations: the enhanced reporting system; the appointment of an independent body to allow confidential, enhanced and digital reporting of all near-misses, to be shared with Government and industry to inform health and safety policy; the extension of the Working Well Together programme; and the extension of the Scotland fatal accident inquiry process to other parts of the United Kingdom.
Another concern to share is that, under the coalition Government, the HSE suffered cuts and job losses. Many of us from a trade union background and those Members in Parliament at the time had real concerns about the deregulation of health and safety and the reporting of it. I hope that the Minister will tell us what the existing staffing levels are at the HSE, because I would be concerned had the numbers reduced over the past 10 years. Clearly, we should not be cutting jobs at the Health and Safety Executive.
In Scotland, under section 29 of the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc. (Scotland) Act 2016, Ministers are required to report on fatalities. Fatal accident inquiries are the legal mechanism through which deaths in the workplace are investigated. Inquiries are mandatory for deaths occurring in the workplace, as well as in custody, or when the circumstances are deemed to be in the public interest, and they are usually held in the sheriff courts. The outcomes of all fatal accident inquiries since 1999 are publicly available and can be accessed online via the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. The all-party group calls for an equivalent system to be introduced in the rest of the UK, to ensure that employers are held to account for fatal injuries occurring as a result of workers falling from height, and that incidents are reported with sufficient information.
The Scottish Government are looking at the law on culpable homicide and considering proposals made by Members of the Scottish Parliament. For example, Claire Baker MSP launched a consultation, which ran from 7 November to 23 April this year, on how the law on culpable homicide can be tightened, and the related Bill appears to have cross-party support.
Companies can be prosecuted under the UK Government’s Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. We support the Act, but have concerns about the lack of prosecutions under it. Will the Minister talk a bit about that when he responds to the debate? Individual directors can also be charged with the common law offence of culpable homicide or with offences under health and safety legislation, but the SNP position is that if existing legislation can be improved by devolved legislation, we will consider what further steps should be taken.
In the 2018-19 programme for government, the Scottish Government committed to establish in spring this year a new support service—developed and delivered with Victim Support Scotland—to give families bereaved by murder and culpable homicide dedicated and continuous support. That is an important part of the Government’s programme. Wider work to look at the law of homicide is also under way. The Scottish Government asked the Scottish Law Commission to consider that law, and examination commenced in February 2018. Our view is that every fatality at a place of employment in Scotland should be investigated, and that the nature of the deaths requires a detailed and often lengthy investigation involving complex, technical and medical issues and expert opinion. The law already allows individual directors to be charged, which of course is necessary.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central. Clearly, Scottish National party Members are leading the way in this Parliament in promoting the rights of workers. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) is campaigning against discrimination against young people in the living wage; my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), is producing legislation on unpaid work trials; and I am promoting—this debate is another opportunity to do so—the Workers (Definition and Rights) Bill, which touches on issues such as a worker’s status. People in industries such as construction believe that they are workers or employees, but later find out that they are somehow self-employed. We need to get on top of the issue of precarious work.
Thank you, Mr McCabe, for chairing this debate. I commend to the House the report of the all-party parliamentary group on working at height.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
Thank you for being in the chair in today’s debate, Mr McCabe. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) is right that it feels a little like a reunion of the Work and Pensions Committee, but it is certainly a privilege to respond on behalf of the Government to a worthy and important report, and I will attempt to address as many of the points as I can.
I should explain from the outset that I am not the specific Minister with departmental responsibility for this matter. I convey the apologies of the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), who will ultimately respond to the report on behalf of the Government. Departmental officials have briefed me on the report to allow me to respond to many points, which I will do to the best of my abilities. I reiterate the point that I made to the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson)—that the HSE needs to feed the Government its views on the report as a whole and on the specific recommendations.
It is right and proper to thank all colleagues for attending; I think the hon. Member for Glasgow South West made the fair point that today, many constituents will enjoy the pleasure of their Member’s company at the local elections and the like. Otherwise, I am certain more would have been here. I put on the record the Government’s acceptance and acknowledgment of the cross-party working that went into the production of the report. That is to the credit of all colleagues who have worked together. I also thank the Access Industry Forum and all the witnesses. Sadly, we will have to discuss Brexit briefly in a moment, but it is often said that this Parliament is solely focused on thing, unaware that there are many other things that Members are doing. The issue we are talking about is of great worth and merit and is part of an ongoing process.
I will push back slightly on the right hon. Member for Delyn, who seemed to suggest that it was solely the Labour Government who were interested in these matters on an ongoing basis. He will be aware of the Factories Act 1961 and the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. Successive Governments, of whatever shape or form, have attempted to address health and safety at work in a multitude of ways, to try to reduce the number of accidents and increase the degree of ongoing safety.
I spent 15 years representing claimants who had suffered similar injuries to those described by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) in her opening speech. I worked on approximately 200 or 300 personal injury cases concerning falls from height, sometimes union-backed. I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow South West that there have been many examples where unions have been very supportive of members and have ensured that they got the best possible representation and compensation. I was lucky enough to represent many unions on an ongoing basis in cases in the past.
This issue affects a whole host of different industries. It is easy to say that it affects only scaffolders and roofers, but it can also affect farmers and, self-evidently, people who work in the oil and gas industry. Bluntly, it also affects the mum or dad who chooses to fix their own windows or roof, or to mess with their television aerial. There are many examples of individuals working from height without necessarily understanding the consequences of what they are getting involved with.
I welcome the debate. Let me say, for the avoidance of doubt, that this is an extremely important issue. I shall make a few preliminary points. First, the Health and Safety Executive has informed the Government that it will respond formally to the APPG’s report in due course. I have pressed for a specific timetable. I do not want to inscribe this in stone, but I am told that a response will be made within 60 working days at the very latest, and cover all the points raised in the report and any other issues raised in this debate that are outstanding. I assure the House that the HSE’s response will be deposited in the Library.
It is right to note—I do so not to make a party political point, but because we cannot discuss health and safety at work without putting this on the record—that Great Britain has lower levels of accidents and injuries at work than most nations. The report states fairly at page 6 that, since the introduction of the 2005 regulations,
“the UK has consistently had some of the lowest workplace fatality and serious injury rates in the European Union.”
The report cites the 2014 statistics for the UK and similar countries: the UK had 0.55 fatalities per 100,000 employees, compared with 3.14 in France and 0.81 in Germany. We all agree that one fatality is too many, but that should not detract from the fact that successive Governments have done good work in this field. I also recognise, if it needs to be recognised, that falls from height are a major cause of serious and fatal injuries. The right hon. Member for Delyn fairly made the point, with the poignant tale of his father, that this issue affects each and every person in our communities.
As a practising barrister, I was involved in cases concerning scaffolders and the like both before and after the Work at Height Regulations 2005 were introduced. The report rightly makes it clear that it is agreed that the regulations are fit for purpose and fundamentally appropriate. The HSE has indicated that it welcomes the report and the desire for action. A key strand of the “Helping Great Britain Work Well” strategy for health and safety is acting together, and it is pleasing to see the work at height industry coming together in this way. The HSE undertakes to continue working with stakeholders to promote better working practices in the industry to try to protect workers in the workplace.
The report recommends that the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995—RIDDOR, as we all know them—should include enhanced reporting, so that additional intelligence is available. When those regulations were amended in 2013, the key change for work at height was the removal of the high fall—2 metres and above—and low fall categories. However, the free text box on the current reporting form where the reporter includes information about the incident remains the same, and can still be used to record additional information about any work at height incident. That text box can be used to record information about the height of a fall.
The report suggests that enhanced reporting would help to identify the causes of falls from height. It is not for me to come to that conclusion at this stage, but we will listen to the HSE before the relevant Minister comes to a view on that issue. The HSE and industry have already undertaken plenty of excellent work in investigating work at height accidents, and they have established the main reasons behind such falls. Much good guidance is already available from the HSE and industry that addresses this important topic. The Government feel that it is fundamentally more important to place emphasis on the need to follow existing guidance and good practice to prevent falls wherever practicable, or to mitigate their effects should a fall occur.
Another recommendation in the report is that an independent body should be appointed to allow confidential reporting, and that that reporting should include near misses and other non-RIDDOR accidents. The HSE is fundamentally supportive of efforts in this area, but wishes to respond in more detail. However, it is right to put it on the record—this addresses points that several Members made—that the HSE operates a complaints advisory team, to which employees and the public may report concerns about work at height and dangerous practices in the workplace. Crucially, people may make such reports anonymously, and that can lead to the HSE inspecting areas of concern. The Government believe it is important that near misses are reported first and foremost to the employer as soon as possible. It is the employer who needs to investigate and introduce controls.
The report further suggests extending Working Well Together beyond the construction sector. The Access Industry Forum already helpfully provides financial and resource support to Working Well Together, so its groups around Great Britain can run “Working Well at Height” safety and health awareness days. The HSE already works with the Access Industry Forum and Working Well Together. It will continue to promote them and will explore whether there is an appetite for extending the campaign outside the construction sector. The agriculture sector is well known for similar incidents, so the HSE will discuss with the Access Industry Forum how it might also support that sector. As a representative of a very strong farming community, I will be looking to the National Farmers Union in my area to see how it wishes to address this point locally.
A couple of colleagues mentioned Brexit. I wish to make it very clear that we agree with the statement on page 10 of the report that the Government must ensure that no change is made as a result of Brexit that makes individuals who work at height less safe. On that point, the Prime Minister has committed to protecting workers’ rights as the UK leaves the European Union. That includes specific health and safety protections. The Prime Minister has said that there will be no lowering of standards after Brexit.
Hon. Members mentioned the approach in Scotland, where fatal accident inquiries are reported on and then entered on a publicly accessible database. I accept that the report recommends that a similar process should be introduced for England and Wales. I do not want to give a politician’s answer, but I will do so, to a degree. This is an issue for the Ministry of Justice. To be fair to the Ministry of Justice, it is aware of the issue and is looking to respond as part of the HSE response and the Government’s response.
The Ministry of Justice will certainly come back to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central and the APPG on this matter, but I have been asked to make a couple of points in the interim. In England and Wales, the coroners’ courts make findings and reach conclusions. Although those are not routinely made available, they are read out in public at the hearing, and there is a system where the coroner will write to ask relevant bodies and organisations to take action if they believe there is a continued risk to life. Those reports and responses are published in “prevention of future deaths” reports by the Chief Coroner and are publicly available. On that particular issue, the Government at present have no plans to change the proven process, but we will wait to see what the HSE says.
Several colleagues spoke about the causes of falls. I think it is fair to say that there is a fundamental view that the causes of falls are already well known from the many HSE and industry investigations. It is questionable whether gathering additional information would reveal new causes, given the extensive work over decades to identify what causes falls. I endorse entirely the benefits of enhanced data and of drones providing better preliminary assessments of the proposed height at which one would be working. There is absolutely an ongoing desire to ensure that there are fewer injuries in the long term.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central for her efforts, both in terms of the report and in bringing this important matter before the House. I hope Members are assured that there is a plan to take this matter forward. The Government will continue to support the work of the HSE and industry in reducing the number of serious injuries and fatalities, and we will provide a response shortly. The Minister with responsibility for this area looks forward to meeting the APPG and having an opportunity to set out the Government’s position following the HSE’s response.
Alison Thewliss
I thank everyone for coming and contributing to the debate. I appreciate what the Minister said about not perhaps being the correct Minister to cover this debate, but I appreciate the way in which he responded and the expertise he brought to the debate, which is important. I am glad that the HSE will provide a comprehensive response to the report, and that that will be made available in the Commons Library for others to see. That is useful.
I also look forward to receiving the reports on how fatal accident inquiries might be widened or used. I appreciate that that is a Ministry of Justice issue, but the implications of such inquiries, where we have seen them in Scotland, have been quite useful in their process and in making public recommendations. There is currently a much delayed and much publicised one going on about the Clutha helicopter crash in Glasgow. That has involved a huge evidence-gathering process. People will be able to go and watch, and in time the findings will come out. It is a good process for finding out where something has gone wrong and putting it right for the future.
The Minister is correct about the farming sector. The NFU was a keen contributor to the report. I had a conversation with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—unusually, he is not in his place—who said he was away to fix something on the roof of his farm with a ladder and then he realised, “What am I doing? I am on my own here. Why would I go up on the roof with a ladder? Something could happen.” The House would be much poorer for the loss of him, so I am glad that he saw that. That story shows how easily decisions can be made that cause people to take risks without thinking them through and end up injured or worse. More can be done on educating the public about that.
There is still a need for enhanced reporting, so I urge the Minister to look at that. While there is the free text area within the reporting, it does not go far enough to gather the right information. We therefore do not know whether someone using equipment was trained, had particular qualifications or was part of any organisations that might have given advice. It would be useful to have as much background detail as possible to get to the bottom of what went awry to cause the accident.
Guy Opperman
I am interrupting the hon. Lady’s final peroration to add two points. First, I accept that that is a live issue; to pretend otherwise as to how we do that would be wrong. She has also reminded me that I failed to respond to a point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) about blacklisting, which is a loathsome practice. It is quite right for a Government Minister to make it absolutely clear that we wholeheartedly oppose such a process. Employers have a legal duty to consult employees and their representatives on HSE complaints. Blacklisting is absolutely not acceptable in any way, and full support will be given to those, of whatever shape or form, who bring forward cases of such heinous behaviour.
Alison Thewliss
I thank the Minister for adding that—I was about to come on to blacklisting and the risk that some workers feel on reporting when things are not right. Employees in precarious employment in particular feel that if they become a whistleblower, they could quickly and easily lose their job, with the issue going unresolved for the next worker to come up against as well. I urge him to consider whether the anonymous reporting scheme that he mentioned covers that eventuality. There may be a time lag between someone’s reporting and an investigation; investigating needs to be done more efficiently and quickly, so that there can be a resolution without that worker being put at individual risk of losing their employment.
I was glad to hear what the Minister said about workers’ rights. We will hold the Government to that—he had better believe that we will. Working at height is increasingly complex, because buildings and the employment spectrum are more complex. It is right that the regulations are looked at again to ensure that they are entirely fit for purpose, because things have changed dramatically since they were written and we need to ensure that they are always effective in protecting workers.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered preventing serious injury and fatalities while working at height.
Pension Credit Changes
Guy Opperman Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster 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
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on securing a debate on this important issue.
The Government believe that work is the best route out of poverty. Our reforms of the welfare system are designed to help people into work, make work pay and provide support for those in need. Those are the principles that underpin universal credit—the most significant change to the welfare system for decades—and are the context for the changes we are talking about today.
Single people can claim pension-age benefits only when they have reached state pension age. However, a person under state pension age who has a partner over that age can currently receive benefits intended to support economically inactive pensioner households, without having to meet any work-related conditions. That runs counter to our aim of encouraging people of working age to remain in the labour market and continue saving for their retirement.
As part of the reforms introduced by the coalition Government in 2012, the Welfare Reform Act 2012 set out that a couple will be able to access pensioner levels of means-tested support only when both partners have reached state pension age. In response to one of the hon. Gentleman’s first points, we have been clear that the change will not be introduced until the roll-out of new claims to universal credit is complete. That roll-out was completed earlier this year; consequently, on 14 January we announced that we will implement the mixed-age-couples change with effect from 15 May.
I will try to address all the hon. Gentleman’s points. Regarding the change being made by a written statement at a particular time, the changes to pension credit that commenced following the order made on 14 January were fully debated on three occasions during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act, and were voted on in Committee. The powers under which the order was made do not require the order to be subject to any further parliamentary scrutiny, since it brings into force primary legislation that Parliament already agreed should be implemented by a commencement order.
Ruth George
When the changes were debated back in 2012 as part of the Welfare Reform Act, universal credit was still a similar level of benefit to tax credits. Since then, following the 2015 budgetary changes, universal credit has been worth significantly less, and increased numbers of people on universal credit are in poverty. Does the Minister not agree that that should be a reason for Parliament to debate again the changes that will affect hundreds of thousands more, often vulnerable, households, in the light of the changed circumstances?
Guy Opperman
With respect, Parliament has debated the matter and made a decision. The hon. Lady will be aware of the 2011 equality impact assessment, the 2012 risk assessment, the universal credit impact assessment, and the ad hoc statistical analysis published on 28 February, which outlined the number of people affected, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned—approximately 115,000 mixed- age couples in the United Kingdom.[Official Report, 16 May 2019, Vol. 660, c. 4MC.]
Chris Stephens
I want to come back to the ministerial statement. There have been various changes to the political make-up of Parliament since 2012. There must be at least 200 new MPs since then, and I think they would want to consider the change, particularly in the light of other benefit changes, as the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) said. Did the Department consider a fresh debate? The Minister mentioned the quality impact assessment. Could he tell us whether a fresh equality impact assessment was made this year prior to the announcement on 14 January?
Guy Opperman
I cannot go back to the specific debates in 2012 and say chapter and verse what was discussed at that stage, but it is a relatively normal procedure for this House to legislate on matters that will be contingent on a written ministerial statement or a commencement order. That standard practice was followed in this case. I am not aware of a fresh equality impact assessment being done. The equality impact assessment was done in respect of the Welfare Reform Act.
Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)
It is interesting to listen to hon. Members. I often find that the SNP tend to weaponise welfare issues to make the charge for independence. My understanding is that powers have been devolved to Scotland under the Scotland Act 2016. Could the Minister confirm what powers are available to the Scottish Government to address this issue? Has he had any constructive discussions with the Scottish Government on the issue that the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) raises? I understand that they are pushing back the use of those powers until 2024. Does the Minister agree that rather than giving her sixth statement on indyref2 today, perhaps the First Minister should make a statement about how she will use her powers to address the issue?
Guy Opperman
I will deal with that point and then perhaps return to it in more detail later. I accept that there are other points relevant to this debate, but it is inevitable that devolution will come up when one discusses welfare with a colleague from the Scottish National party and other Scottish colleagues. Certainly, it has come up in relation to the campaigns on the state pension age.
My hon. Friend will be aware of two facts in particular. First, Jeane Freeman, who was my opposite number as the Scottish pensions Minister, wrote to my predecessor on 22 June 2017 concerning the powers under sections 26, 28 and 24 of the Scotland Act. Of particular interest is section 26, about which she wrote:
“This power is limited to providing help with ‘short term needs’, and those needs must require to be met to avoid a risk to a person’s wellbeing. That would not readily allow assistance to the majority of the women affected by the acceleration of the increase in their State Pension Age. Their needs and the risks to their well-being would have to be assessed individually.”
She also dealt with the creation of a new benefit under section 28, which is a possibility, and the top-up of reserved benefits under section 24, which is a wide-ranging power to make discretionary payments.
That deals with the original point in 2017. The point can then fairly be made that if the Scottish Government disagree with any of the UK Government’s welfare reforms, they have powers to do something about that in Scotland. I want to make it absolutely clear that, in addition to the substantial support that the UK Government are providing, the Scottish Government have significant new powers available to them to tailor welfare provision for people in Scotland. Although pensions themselves are very definitely a reserved matter, the Scotland Act gives the Scottish Government the ability to use a wide range of new welfare provisions.
I was asked specifically whether I have been engaged with by Scottish Ministers who seek to provide specific top-up support for mixed-age couples. I have not been made aware of any such information being provided to me. Frankly, it is not for the UK Government to do that. If the Scottish Government wish to do that, the ball is in their court, given their powers under the Scotland Act. Clearly, that is a matter for the hon. Member for Glasgow South West to take up with the Scottish Government at Holyrood.
Let me return to the change itself, which ensures that the younger partner has the same work incentives as others of the same age. Those claiming universal credit have access to tailored support from work coaches to help them find work, and universal credit is designed to ensure that work always pays, which is not the case for pension credit.
Let me try to address the specific point raised by the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George). First, I endeavoured to address her emails of 10 and 11 April, which arrived shortly before Easter and were looked at by the Department over Easter. I have written her a letter. We exchanged comments before the debate, and I accept that she has not received that letter. I signed it off late yesterday afternoon, on my first day back in the Department; to be fair to the Department, there is no criticism of it whatever. I also wrote a letter to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, but we managed to get that to him in time.
I am conscious that the hon. Lady raised a specific fault. I am happy to put it on the record that there was an acceptance that that was a fault, and that, as of 18 April, it has been fixed. The reality of the situation is that the calculator provided the wrong outcome in one particular instance—for couples where one member is in receipt of carer’s allowance and the other retains an underlying entitlement to carer’s allowance. I will leave her to look at the specifics of the letter when she receives it later today. I am grateful to her and the Derbyshire team for bringing the issue to our attention. It has been rectified, and I hope the position on that matter has been addressed.
The hon. Lady raised a separate issue about pension credit generally. It is entirely the case that we are attempting to encourage people to be in a position to take up pension credit in a particular way, and there most definitely is a desire for that to happen. All 115,000 existing mixed-age couples involved were written to subsequent to the decision being made in January. Although I do not have a regional breakdown of that figure, 8,000 people will potentially be affected in Scotland. I do not have localised figures for the hon. Lady’s area.
I want to stress that the change does not in any way affect entitlement to state pension or the level of state pension. Mixed-age couples who are already receiving pension credit or pension-age housing benefit on 14 May will not be affected for as long as they remain entitled to either of those benefits. As I said, we have written directly to those couples to inform them of the change. The change therefore will apply mainly to working-age couples currently claiming means-tested benefit, or to mixed-age couples who apply for benefit only after the date of the change.
Chris Stephens
I thank the Minister for giving way again; he is being very generous. On the calculations, has he had any meetings with Age UK or Age Scotland, which indicate that people could be £7,000 a year worse off as a result of the change?
Guy Opperman
Age UK has met repeatedly—as recently as last month, as I understand it—with civil servants and special advisers in the Department for Work and Pensions. It is almost impossible to state what a future calculation will be without taking into account whether the individual will apply for a job and what their allowances for caring responsibilities and their other entitlements will be. There is a requirement and a desire for universal credit to incentivise and reward paid work, while pension credit is intended to provide long-term support to pensioner households who have left the labour market permanently through retirement.
Ruth George
Will the Minister address the point about carers in households that have had a letter about their pension credit? What will be done for them?
Guy Opperman
I will write to the hon. Lady on that point. I will ensure that she has an answer within seven days. I accept that we did not get a letter to—
Ruth George
It is the people affected I am worried about, rather than the response to me.
Guy Opperman
Well, I will write to the hon. Lady on that point, because I want to address the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, whose debate this is, about pensioner poverty. He criticised the Government in that respect, but I would push back on that.
We are forecast to spend £120 billion on benefits for pensioners in 2019-20, including £99 billion on the state pension. He will be aware that, by reason of the triple lock, from April 2019 the yearly amount of the basic state pension will be around £675 higher than if it had just been uprated by earnings since April 2010, and that the value of the full state pension as a proportion of average earnings is at one of its highest points since the late 1980s.
I could go on about the number of people in employment, which has risen dramatically, the increases in state pension and the successes of automatic enrolment in the employed sphere, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to address this matter. If I have missed anything, I will of course write to him.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Guy Opperman Excerpts(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
More people who are severely disabled will receive higher payments under universal credit. This means that around 1 million disabled households will gain on average around £100 more per month on universal credit than on legacy benefits. The universal credit rate for the most disabled people is up to £328.32, which is up from the employment and support allowance level of £163.15.
Vicky Foxcroft
I have a constituent with a severe brain injury who applied for universal credit in August 2018 and immediately lost his severe disability premium. Since then, he has lost over £1,500 in benefits. What are the Government doing to ensure that extremely vulnerable claimants who have lost their severe disability premium are given the back payments to which they are entitled?
Guy Opperman
If the hon. Lady writes to me personally, I will ensure that officials sit down with her and go through what seems to be a very difficult case. I have suffered from a brain injury, so I know the difficulties involved. The hon. Lady will be aware that the transitional payment and the gateway are available for those receiving the severe disability premium, and that these elements provide protection long-term. Over 1,200 staff are working to ensure that repayments are made.
Paul Blomfield
Our experience in Sheffield is that many people with learning disabilities cannot manage digital applications and are not easily granted access to non-digital routes, and that others who start on digital applications with support, but struggle once they are on their own, are not allowed to return to non-digital routes. Will the Minister therefore agree to assess demand for non-digital applications, and to publish clear guidance for jobcentres to make it easier for people with learning disabilities to be granted access to non-digital claims?
Guy Opperman
It is a pleasure to answer this question, because both the hon. Gentleman, who is a friend of mine, and I have suffered from the disabling effects of brain tumour. The House will be aware that this is Brain Tumour Awareness Month and that it is Wear A Hat Day on Friday. I will ensure that the points he raises are addressed. He will be aware of the help to claim service, which is already in existence, and of the work that we are doing with Citizens Advice, which will come up to speed in April. A great deal of effort is also going into home visits for vulnerable claimants. However, he raises a legitimate point that we will most definitely look into.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Employment Minister will recall the case of my constituent Ben Seaman, who received a payment following underpayment of ESA; his parent was concerned that as a result, he would be unable to receive ESA in future. I am very grateful for the letter that the Secretary of State has written to me, which arrived today. Will the Minister confirm that those transferring from ESA to universal credit, who have to log this collection of underpayment within a month, will be told in advance of transferring?
Guy Opperman
I am delighted to hear about the very welcome development that has been communicated by the Secretary of State today. I can confirm what the Employment Minister has set out today, and I am delighted that this progress has been made.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I am glad that 145,000 more people with disabilities have found work in the last 12 months, leading to a total of 930,000 moving into work in the last five years. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s declared target of helping 1 million people with disabilities into work could be rather more ambitious than it is?
Guy Opperman
One million is a great start, but I believe that there is capability for more. I encourage all employers up and down the country to consider the many talented disabled people who want to join the workforce. The numbers are up all over the country already, as my hon. Friend outlines, but there is a lot more that can be done.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Those with disabilities have been contacting me from across the United Kingdom in my position as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability, telling me that they still find it extremely difficult to access home assessment for benefits, and that they are then being penalised by having to provide GP letters, for which they are charged. Will the Minister respond to this situation and ensure that these people are not being penalised twice for their disability when accessing the benefits system?
Guy Opperman
I am happy to assure the hon. Lady that her concerns will be taken up by the Department; a Minister will meet her to go through her complaint.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I was recently visited by a constituent who was very distressed during his personal independence payment assessment because he felt that the assessor had not understood his case or his records and did not have the full facts. When will we introduce video recordings, so that our assessors can be held to account?
Guy Opperman
My hon. Friend raises a legitimate point. Video recording is an important step forward introduced by this Government. The pilot from last November appears successful, and we are looking to do a full roll-out later this year.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
This country spends £121 billion on pensioners every year, with an increasing budget. My hon. Friend will be aware that the state pension is up well over £1,000 per annum in cash terms since 2010. In addition, there are 12 million winter fuel payments, at a cost of about £2 billion, specifically for the over-80s, with a payment of £300 a year to the individual.
Mr Robertson
I thank the Minister for delivering that good news to the House. While automatic pension enrolment will certainly help people as they move into retirement, can we make sure that we do not take our eye off the ball with older pensioners, with particular reference to fuel poverty, because there is still a problem?
Guy Opperman
My hon. Friend makes two points. The first is that auto-enrolment is a massive success in Tewkesbury, with 23,000 men and women now saving up to 5%—going up to 8% in April—for their long-term retirement. In addition, on fuel poverty, he will be pleased with the warm home discount scheme, which supports over 2 million low-income and vulnerable customers each year with direct assistance with their costs. However, I accept that there is always more that we can do.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, one in six pensioners now live in poverty. Last year, 46,000 pensioners died prematurely, and the winter fuel allowance has not been increased for 15 years, so what is the Minister doing about that? The Government are cutting pension credit for couples at the same time.
Guy Opperman
The reality is that pensioner poverty is at an historically low level. The hon. Lady will be aware of the 12 million winter fuel payments, at a cost of £2 billion, with £200 for households with someone who has reached state pension age and £300 for households with someone who is over 80. In addition, there is the warm home discount support I just outlined.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s response this morning to the collective defined-contribution scheme consultation. What does it mean for posties in East Renfrewshire, a number of whom are looking forward to meeting the Minister when he comes up to Barrhead on Friday?
Guy Opperman
We believe that collective defined-contribution schemes are a positive step and a welcome innovation to help postmen and women up and down the country to have a sustainable long-term retirement. I welcome the support of the Communication Workers Union and Royal Mail, and the role my hon. Friend has played in the House of Commons. I look forward to meeting some of his posties early—very early, I believe—on Friday morning.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
My constituent Christine Paris is a vulnerable 60-year-old women, who has a rare birth defect causing severe learning disability. She has never been able to work and she cannot even travel alone, yet she is being placed in the work-related activity group and forced to face yet another humiliating fit for work assessment. Will the Minister look into her case personally? Does he agree with the Centre for Health and Disability Assessments, which says that the assessment process is unfit for people with learning difficulties, and will he conduct an urgent review?
Guy Opperman
If the hon. Lady sends that case to the Department, I and the Minister concerned will look into it specifically.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
In legislating to allow 140,000 Royal Mail workers to benefit from the CDC scheme, will the Government also legislate as soon as possible to compel employer contribution with the pensions dashboard and to strengthen powers and criminal penalties available to the regulator, to provide a better pension for tens of thousands of workers, to help all workers to plan for their retirement, to protect workers and to send an unmistakeable message to the Philip Greens of this world that those who rob workers of their pension security will end up in the dock?
Guy Opperman
The hon. Gentleman and I are united in our desire for a Bill that addresses collective defined-contribution, compulsion on dashboards and the defined-benefit reforms that we all agree are both required and necessary. I am confident that with a constructive, cross-party approach, over the next few months, with the hon. Gentleman and other political parties, we can introduce those measures very soon.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
The Government will not be revisiting the state pension age arrangements for women born in the 1950s who are affected by the Pensions Act 1995, the 2007 Act, introduced by the Labour Government, or the 2011 Act, introduced by the coalition. A High Court ruling on this matter will proceed to a full hearing on 5 and 6 June, so further comment would be inappropriate.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend’s Department holding up the transfer of welfare powers to the Scottish Government?
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
George Osborne said in his 2015 summer Budget that the welfare system should always support the elderly and the vulnerable. Does the Secretary of State agree? If so, why are we seeing stealth cuts to pension credit for mixed-age couples—a loss of £7,320 to some of our poorest and most vulnerable pensioners?
Guy Opperman
These changes were introduced in the Welfare Reform Act 2012. We have always made it clear that mixed-age couples already claiming pension credit or housing benefit for pensioners immediately before 15 May will not be affected for as long as they remain in receipt of either benefit after that date. Just to be clear, there is no impact or effect on their state pension.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Were the Secretary of State to get a tax rebate she would be very surprised if she was taxed on it, but my constituent saw an abatement by 63%. Will the Department sort out the reductions to universal credit when people get tax rebates?