Plumbers’ Pension Scheme

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) on securing this debate on this very important subject. I assure her that I have been listening carefully to her contribution and to those of other hon. Members. I would like to try to provide some reassurance, explain some action that is being taken and answer the individual solutions that she has so sensibly set out.

Since my appointment last June, I have spoken and written to several colleagues in the House who have made representations—much as I have heard this afternoon—on behalf of their constituents. I utterly recognise that it is a worrying situation for the employers in the scheme and for the individual pensioners who are so affected. The previous Pensions Minister committed to look at this issue following previous debates, and we set out some matters in our Green Paper, which was published in 2017. As my hon. Friend outlined in her speech, we will shortly be setting out the response to that in a White Paper. Although I cannot say in advance what the White Paper will say in detail, I will address some of the issues that she has raised. I will also attempt to demonstrate the difficulties we face in what is clearly a very complex area.

Let me first address who this matter affects; there are effectively four or five parties. There are the employers, who continue to be involved with this scheme, and the trustees, who are responsible for ensuring that the pension scheme is run properly and that the members’ benefits are secure. More specifically, there are the members themselves, who have worked hard to build up a pension and deserve to have it paid in full. I should also mention the PPF, which provides vital protection to members of pension schemes whose sponsoring employer becomes insolvent. However, the PPF is funded by levy payers, which are of course other pension schemes, and their sponsoring employers. Therefore, any changes would have a wider impact on the financial levy of other pension schemes and consequences for the amounts that they would have to pay. By any interpretation, this is a complex situation, and building a consensus solution that is fair and equitable to all is extremely challenging. We have to be conscious that this scheme is one of many multi-employer schemes, and that any changes for this particular scheme—however worthy and important it may be—has consequences in some shape or form for other schemes.

It is important to remind hon. Members of the background to this issue. The original legislation was introduced to protect members’ pensions, and was then strengthened in 2005. A key principle is that employers cannot walk away from their obligations if they have promised a pension to their employees. Before they do, they must ensure that members’ pensions are paid in full. In a single employer scheme, this would be through buy-out with an insurance company. The similar arrangement in a multi-employer scheme, as we have here, is the payment of an employer debt. This helps to ensure that members receive the pensions they have worked for and been promised when their own or former employer ceases to participate in the scheme.

The current regime is also designed to protect those employers who remain in the scheme and are also a party to this problem; they would be left to pick up the shortfall left by departing employers. The Government estimate that there are about 25 other multi-employer schemes with a design similar to that of the plumbers’ pension scheme. It would be difficult to consider introducing specific legislation about one particular scheme’s problems, especially as, since 2005, many similar such schemes have paid their section 75 debts and complied with the current legislation. That includes employers who were personally liable for any debt they may have owed.

There are also nearly 1,000 “last man standing” multi-employer schemes in total. To comply with legislation, a debt should be calculated when individual employers ceased to participate in a multi-employer scheme. It is with regret that, since 2005, the trustees of the plumbers’ scheme have been unable to calculate or collect the debts, so the scheme has not been able to provide any estimates on the levels of potential debts. It is therefore absolutely important that all concerned do not create any unnecessary anxiety by speculating about the size of any potential debts before they are calculated. I am pleased that this week the scheme that we are concerned with has announced plans to consult on a methodology for calculating debts in February. That is long overdue. It is vital that that work is now done urgently so that all concerned about all aspects of the scheme, and on all sides, can work together to agree a way forward with employers affected.

I want to use this debate to try to suggest possible solutions and to answer the laudable recommendations made by my hon. Friend in her outstanding speech. Employer debt legislation applies to all schemes, not just the plumbers. The Government are fully aware of the issues that employers have faced in complying with this legislation. A significant number of changes have been made to legislation, in response to representations made by employers, whereby only part of the debt or no debt may be payable. Those arrangements are available under current legislation and are being used right now.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) and the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), whom I know well, mentioned plumbers who may be personally liable and are genuinely worried that they may lose their homes. It is worth pointing out that the majority of employers in this scheme are limited companies and are protected through limited liability, but I turn to the situation affecting unincorporated and incorporated employers.

For those who may be personally liable, there is already legislation that could assist. The personal assets of an incorporated employer are protected. Employer debt valuation is not required for an employer to become incorporated. My hon. Friend the Member for Angus mentioned the flexible apportionment arrangement. This is already available in legislation and can be used to help unincorporated employers incorporate without triggering an employer debt. The arrangement has been used by employers in this scheme and is one of the arrangements that can be used to help unincorporated employers, some of whom have been mentioned in correspondence to me and in this debate, provided that the scheme is no worse off from a funding perspective.

I turn to my hon. Friend’s point about the funding test. The Government believe that it would be wrong to remove the funding test as it provides an important protection for both members and the remaining employers. The plumbing pension trustee has a streamlined flexible apportionment arrangement process in place to help small employers wishing to incorporate. Individuals who want more details on this arrangement should contact the plumbing pension scheme to discuss their situation and whether an FAA can help. I urge individuals worried about their personal liability to contact the scheme to discuss their situation in more detail.

Once the debts have been calculated, the scheme trustees can also use their discretion not to pursue a debt when they expect that doing so would represent a disproportionate cost to the scheme.

I turn now to the key issue of a deferred payment scheme. We have recently consulted on regulations, including a new deferred debt arrangement, that will enable employers in multi-employer pension schemes to defer the requirement to pay an employer debt in some circumstances. This is a further tool for those affected by this problem. We aim to introduce these regulations in April, which will provide valuable breathing space for employers, so that they can consider their options on how to meet their obligations.

The issue of orphan liabilities was raised, as well as those relating to members whose employers no longer participate in the scheme. I am aware that the scheme would like to exclude orphan liabilities from the calculation of employer debt. That requirement to meet a share of orphan liabilities is common to all multi-employer schemes and is an integral part of member protection. I understand that the scheme has substantial orphan liabilities from employers that have departed it, but it is important to note that these liabilities are dated from the period both pre and post-2005. Changing legislation to enable schemes to accept less money when they are underfunded simply passes more risk on to members as it moves schemes further away from being able to secure members’ benefits in full.

I await the White Paper, but the Government’s provisional view is that it would not be right or fair to pass this burden on to the PPF and its levy payers, which are, of course, other pension schemes, and their sponsoring employers, who have no connection with, or responsibility to, the scheme. The legislation only requires departing employers to pay an employer debt when there are insufficient funds in the scheme to secure members’ benefits in full.

Several people talked about the funding of the scheme. In 2014, as an ongoing technical provision, the scheme was funded to the tune of 101%, but on a buy-out basis, it was deficient by 25%, hence the difference in the valuation and difference of comprehension on that point. That also answers the question from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown).

It is accepted entirely that this is a very complex area in which there is no quick fix; no solution is pain free. It is only right that any changes should be carefully thought through, proportionate and justified. The Green Paper explored many of the issues facing defined benefit schemes. In particular, consolidation could provide a long-term solution for schemes currently unable to afford a full buy-out. Further work is being done on this, and it would not be right to pre-empt the outcome, but the White Paper will be delivered in the fullness of time, relatively shortly.

[Alan Brown]

I appreciate the fact that the Minister says the White Paper will come shortly. Will he say how soon and what the timescale will be for legislation after that? That is the important thing. Also, I am bringing forward a 10-minute rule Bill on this issue, and I would be happy to work with the Government on aspects of it, if he is willing to do that.

[Guy Opperman]

The hon. Gentleman asked me three questions. I will write to him with a bit more detail, because the time available to me is limited. The White Paper will be delivered at some stage this spring. Spring is an elastic term in the House of Commons, as he will understand, but it will certainly be delivered before the summer period. I look forward to his ten-minute rule Bill.

To be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, she has set out a number of positive solutions, some of which we have been able to take forward. I am aware that there is an all-party parliamentary group and I am happy to meet the group to discuss the matter in more detail. I will certainly write to individual colleagues with more detail on what we have discussed today.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing a very important matter to the House. I want to make it absolutely clear that we accept that this is a complex but very upsetting situation for many of our constituents. We have all had individuals attend upon us with a file of papers and say, “Please help me sort this out.” I appreciate that problem and welcome the fact that she has taken the time to bring her constituents’ concerns to the House. I hope that I have provided some comfort about what we are doing now, some aspiration about what is coming in April and the opportunity to address the problems raised by individual constituents, because we take this matter very seriously.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

13. What recent representations he has received on pension transition arrangements for women born in the 1950s.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

I receive a variety of representations, whether that is orally, in correspondence in writing, or in debates.

[Alan Brown]

I thank the Minister for that non-answer. Figures I received from the House of Commons Library show that tax giveaways on things such as inheritance tax and corporation tax will cost the Treasury over £60 billion by 2025. Should a caring Minister and Secretary of State not argue that, instead of giving money to the rich, they could use it for transitional arrangements and ending austerity?

[Guy Opperman]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to two particular points. The first is that we have differing views on taxation. The Government believe that cuts to corporation tax assist job creation—the jobs we need to pay for the public services we have. Secondly, I refer him to the fact that, under the letter of 22 June from Jeane Freeman, my opposite number, the Scottish Government have powers in terms of working-age people and to take action on the specific points that he keeps raising, but that the Scottish Government fail to do anything about.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

As the Minister will be aware, it was clear in last week’s debate that a number of colleagues behind him on the Government Benches supported the call from a lot of colleagues on the Opposition side of the House for the Government to look at transitional arrangements for WASPI women. I therefore ask the Minister, as I did last week, why not call a binding vote so that the House can advise him to do the right thing for WASPI women?

[Guy Opperman]

In days gone by, the Liberal Democrats were a party of fiscal discipline. In 2011, when this matter last came before the House for debate, the hon. Gentleman and I accepted the need to take the decisions that were made, and he joined me in the Lobby to vote for them. It is a shame that he has forgotten those views now.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

14. What assessment he has made of the level of preparedness in Torbay for the roll-out of universal credit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

T2. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s recent announcement of the extension of auto-enrolment to 18 to 21-year-olds. In the meantime, does he have any figures on how many people have started saving and benefited from auto-enrolment in individual constituencies, including mine?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

Since 2012, 7,000 employees in Ochil and South Perthshire have benefited from a workplace pension through automatic enrolment. Our thanks are also due to the 820 local employers. State pension has risen by £1,250 since 2010, but we want to do more. We are extending auto-enrolment to 18 to 21-year-olds in his area, where we also have targeted interventions for the self-employed that I believe will be of assistance.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware of the crisis engulfing members of the British Steel pension scheme, with advisers cashing in by persuading them to sink their pensions into all manner of dodgy, high-cost schemes, and he will be aware of the Financial Conduct Authority’s apparent failure to deal with the situation effectively. He will know that today the negotiations on the future of the universities superannuation scheme are coming to a head, with the threat of industrial action—something that should be interesting the Government. I am surprised that he is simply sitting back and leaving these matters to those who are directly involved. Surely, he can tell us today how he is going to get involved and take action to protect members of both schemes.

[Guy Opperman]

The position in relation to both matters is that they are worked through with the Pensions Regulator and the Pension Protection Fund, particularly in relation to British Steel, to ensure that members get information on the effect on their pension rights of staying with BSPS or moving to BSPS II. That includes newsletters, a website and bespoke option packs. The Financial Conduct Authority has also stepped in and banned a variety of organisations, and it is providing proper advice.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

T4. What steps has the Department to taken to help older people who are looking, perhaps after redundancy or caring responsibilities, to get back into work?

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that auto-enrolment has been a success to date and it is right to lower it to the age of 18, but that politicians—of all hues—and the pensions industry must work together to meet the savings and pension challenges facing this country?

[Guy Opperman]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I am delighted with the fact that we now have 9 million people signed up to auto-enrolment, utterly transforming workplace pension savings. In his constituency, 8,000 employees and 680 employers have signed up—and great credit to them.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

T6. A constituent of mine in Bradford West had three same-day assessments cancelled in a period of five weeks. Eventually, she got an appointment—a home visit—after seven months. What assessment has the Department made of same-day cancellations of work capability assessments by Maximus-employed health professionals—the number, the reasons given and the impact on the mental health of applicants?

Pension Equality for Women

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris]

I will give way to the Minister.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) will be aware that in 2007, after 10 years of a Labour Government, the then Government considered all matters of pensions legislation and passed the Pensions Act 2007. During their 13 years in power Labour Members had total capacity to do something about what they now say is not appropriate. With respect, there is a legitimate point to answer.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

I congratulate my good friend the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on securing today’s debate on the state pension age and the 30-odd colleagues who have spoken.

The decisions by successive Governments concerning the rise in the state pension age were reached by reason of equality legislation, increased life expectancy and sustainability of the state pension. Since world war two, we have seen huge changes in life expectancy. Thanks to a better NHS, changes in the job market and improvements in medicine, there have been improvements for men and women such that they are living longer, staying healthier for longer, and leading far more active lifestyles, regardless of age. People living and staying healthier for longer is to be welcomed, but the Government must not ignore the fact that it also brings enormous financial and demographic pressures. The key choice that a Government face when seeking to control state pension spend is to increase the state pension age or pay lower pensions, with an inevitable impact on pensioner poverty. The only alternative is to ask the working generation to pay an ever larger share of their income to support pensioners, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) made clear in her speech.

In July 2017, the Government published their first review of the state pension age, which set out a coherent strategy targeted at strengthening and sustaining the UK state pension system for many decades to come. It accepts the key recommendation of John Cridland’s independent review, which was to increase the state pension age from 67 to 68 between 2037 and 2039.

The review is clear about increasing life expectancy and the challenges it poses. People are living longer. Almost 6,000 people in the UK turned 100 in 2016, compared with 3,000 in 2002. By 2035, there will be more than twice as many people over 100 as there are now.

[Stephen Lloyd]

What does the Minister have to say about my two specific asks? First, the Government should give us a meaningful vote on this, because I know there is a lot of support on the Government Back Benches. Secondly, rather than giving one year of the corporation tax cut to business, I think business will be happy to give the money to WASPI women.

[Guy Opperman]

The hon. Gentleman and I both voted for the 2011 Act to increase the state pension age, with the circumstances that apply, after much consideration of the variety of options that had been proposed. He and I, and certainly the Scottish National party and the Scottish Government, have differing views on taxation, such as on whether it should support Trident, but, with respect, the tax reduction he proposes would reduce the job-creating power of the businesses upon which we rely for the jobs and public services we all wish to support.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will the Minister acknowledge that, two days before John Cridland’s report was released, data showed that life expectancy at 60 is actually going down and life expectancy at birth is flat-lining? This is the only developed country where that is happening.

[Guy Opperman]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that specific point, because I genuinely believe she is scaremongering—[Interruption.] Oh, yes. On the issue of life expectancy, there are two fundamental sources. The first is the ONS, which has repeatedly made it clear that life expectancy is rising across the board. We cannot get away from the fact that the ONS reported only this month that life expectancy continues to rise.

The Labour party manifesto sought an independent review of all aspects of the state pension age. Well, the Government did that with the Cridland report, which makes it critically clear that life expectancy has increased. Life expectancy at birth in 2016, for example, was 91 years for females and 89 years for males. In 50 years’ time, by 2066, life expectancy at birth in the UK is projected to rise to 98 years.

Healthy life expectancy has also been increasing in recent decades. Healthy life expectancy at 65, as a proportion of total life expectancy, has been relatively stable since 2000. Healthy life expectancy at 65, according to the latest ONS statistics, has been increasing in Scotland in recent years, as has disability-free life expectancy.

[Patricia Gibson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Guy Opperman]

If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I will answer her point.

In relation to specific areas of Scotland, the long and short of it is that I do not have the life expectancies for specific constituencies, as has been asked for, but in the Glasgow city area, for example, life expectancy at birth, according to the December 2017 ONS figures, has increased by more than four years for men. Life expectancy at 65 in Glasgow city is 15 years for men and 18 years for women, an increase on 2001 to 2003. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) asserts from a sedentary position that I am using the wrong data. The data I am using is what the Office for National Statistics has said and from the Cridland report.

[Patricia Gibson]

rose—

[Guy Opperman]

I am conscious of your restrictions on the length of time available to me, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will come back to the hon. Lady in a moment, if she will allow me.

The state pension was initially addressed in the 1995 Act. The need to do so arose because of life expectancy changes and the anticipated increase in the number of pensioners in the years to come. As I have said, the Labour Government introduced the Pensions Act 2007, which again increased the state pension age. I should point out that the Labour party has now resiled from that position and seeks to argue that both the Blair and Brown reforms were wrong.

The Government listened to concerned voices during the passage of the 2011 Act, as I indicated to the hon. Member for Easington. The proposed two-year acceleration was reduced to 18 months, benefiting more than a quarter of a million women, with the concession being worth more than £1 billion. Going as far as some campaigners have argued—he mentioned early-day motion 63 and what he described as “full compensation”—would represent a cost of more than £70 billion to the public purse. With respect, the requirements those changes would make in relation to taking into account the difference between men and women would require new legislation, meaning that an ongoing inequality would potentially be created between men and women.

[Patricia Gibson]

Perhaps the Minister could offer me some assistance. He talks about life expectancy increasing, and I do not want to argue the toss about whether it is or is not. I am curious about something, and I hope he will be able to explain this to me. Just because people are living longer, I do not understand why this particular generation of women should pay the price, given that they expected to receive their pensions at 60. The argument about life expectancy might be one about reforming pensions in the future, but we are talking about this particular group of women, who feel very let down and cheated because at 60 they have not got their pension.

[Guy Opperman]

I am conscious of Madam Deputy’s Speaker’s desire that I should end my speech speedily, so I will write to the hon. Lady with a detailed reply to the point she just raised.

I have barely had a chance to address the arguments made by my hon. Friends from Scotland, which include the point raised eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) that Jeane Freeman, my opposite number as Pensions Minister in Scotland, has indicated that her Government have the powers to act under sections 24, 26 and 28 of the Scotland Act 2016. I stress the point strongly that there is no question but that they have this power, because this is not about dealing with pensioners as such; the provisions we are dealing with concern people who are of working age, according to the law. I rely strongly upon the words not of this Government but of the Scottish Government, as set out in her letter of 22 June.

The issue of notification was raised, and I can answer the points on that briefly. Clearly, there was massive parliamentary debate, on repeated occasions, in 1995. Thereafter, we saw multiple articles in the press and media; the distribution of a huge number of leaflets; a campaign in 2004 to educate people about their state pensions; adverts in a variety of ways; correspondence in two different ways, both prior to 2010 and after 2011; and state pension forecasts sent to 19 million people over the past 17 years.

I wish to make a couple of final points. We recognise that some men and women are forced to reduce their working hours or cannot work for reasons of sickness, disability or caring responsibilities. The Government are committed to supporting the vulnerable, and we spend about £50 billion a year on benefits to support disabled people, those with health conditions and carers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) particularly mentioned. That equates to 6% of all Government spending. With increased financial pressures, we cannot change a policy that was implemented over 22 years ago and supported by all three political parties.

I finish with a point about life expectancy, as the hon. Member for Easington and I are good examples of that—we have both suffered from cancer. I am delighted to see that he has made a recovery from lymphatic cancer. I have made a recovery from a brain tumour. Those illnesses would have killed us both 30 to 40 years ago. There is no question but that the life expectancy changes are what has driven this approach on the part of successive Governments. With increased financial pressures, it would be unaffordable and not right, in the light of the changes we have had, to place an unfair financial burden on future generations.

Financial Inclusion

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the crucial subject of financial inclusion and the single financial guidance body. It has been more than two years since financial inclusion was considered by the House, in a Westminster Hall debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd).  He applied for the debate to draw Members’ attention to the invaluable work conducted by the Financial Inclusion Commission, the cross-party body on which he served. I have since had the honour of succeeding him in that role. The last two years have seen the publication of an excellent House of Lords Select Committee report into this issue.

We are approaching the halfway point to 2020 by when the commission still hopes to see a step change in financial inclusion. The commission’s report covered a wide range of recommendations and demanded that, by 2020, every adult should have access to objective and understandable advice on credit, debt, savings and pensions. Among other objectives, it also called for a specific Minister to take the lead on financial inclusion and financial capability. I am delighted that a Minister with just those responsibilities will respond to this debate, and I know that his task is to break down silos across the Government on this important issue. I congratulate the original authors of the commission’s report on achieving that objective, and I also congratulate the Minister. I know that he is deeply committed to this area and, as a former director of a credit union myself and the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on credit unions, I recognise a kindred spirit given his extensive work supporting credit unions in his constituency.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

It is a fair to say that the work of the Financial Inclusion Commission—I have met many of its members—needs to be recognised. In relation to credit unions, it is right that we pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done. Does he agree that we should laud the fact that credit unions now have 1.29 million members, that their members and loans have doubled since 2006, and that their deposits and assets have trebled? With respect, he is following on from the great work of my hon. Friends the Members for Worcester (Mr Walker) and for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy), who were outstanding chairs of the all-party group before him.

[Jeremy Quin]

I am most grateful to the Minister. He raises a valuable point about credit unions, although they are not the focus of this debate. I do not wish to push my luck, but I hope we will have another opportunity to discuss them in the future.

The Minister is right about the progress that has been made since 2006. The increase from 2% to 3% in the interest rate allowed for credit unions has helped to make them more sustainable. It has permitted higher dividends, while ensuring that credit unions’ borrowing rates are very competitive. Without wishing to go all Gilbert and Sullivan, there is something apt in making the punishment address the root of the crime, so I am delighted that funds recovered from convicted loan sharks will, from next year, help to pay for incentives for credit union membership in the communities on which loan sharks prey.

A financially inclusive system is one that is fit for purpose for all in society, regardless of their economic status. It is one in which individuals can participate fully and not face punitive restrictions in the financial products that they can access. It is also a system in which measures are taken to help to prevent people from falling into a downward spiral of financial hardship.

 Every constituency MP knows the scale of the issues. There are approximately 1.5 million unbanked adults in the UK.  According to Citizens Advice research, 13.5 million adults have difficulty managing money and making financial decisions. The ONS found that in the first quarter of this year only 2% of income was put aside as savings. The savings of those who do have them are often woefully insufficient to deal with life’s inevitable financial pressures—because of the breakdown of a washing machine or a car needed for work—through to more fundamental losses of income. The requirement for credit is therefore a given.

Financial exclusion can be further exacerbated by factors such as the high cost of credit and pay-as-you-go services. The commission estimated this poverty premium to be a cost of £1,300 a year to our poorest families. In the meantime, many from across the income spectrum lack good financial guidance at a time when the range and complexity of financial products has never been greater, and the need to make the right long-term decisions, in the light of increasing longevity, has never been more acute. 

Financial inclusion is a huge topic, but the House will be pleased to hear that I intend to focus this debate on education, information and guidance. I was the a director of a credit union before entering this place, so I knew our sense of frustration—indeed, I am afraid, our sense of failure—at not being anywhere near as effective as we felt we should have been at persuading those in need of credit to use our cheaper community rates rather than accessing high-cost and high-risk lending.

The battle to ensure financial awareness has to start very early. I welcome the fact that the new national curriculum has made financial literacy statutory for the first time as part of citizenship education for 11 to 16-year-olds.  I also recognise that improvements in basic maths, alongside the excellent results we have seen recently in literacy, are fundamental. However, I am afraid that focusing on secondary level may be too late. A report by the Money Advice Service found that financial habits are largely formed by the age of seven. Worryingly, a separate study by the Gambling Commission found that nearly half a million children as young as 11 are gambling weekly. 

All we can do to increase financial literacy among children at primary school should be encouraged, and much can be done incrementally. I am aware that educational cartoons have been produced in Singapore and elsewhere to teach the basics of financial literacy at the very earliest ages. Simply having a single teacher in a school with the knowledge and understanding of how to teach financial literacy, who can act as a focus for provision inside that school, can be critical.

 Any Member of this place knows how bewildering financial information can be to consumers. We all, in common with every citizens advice bureau in the country, are aware of the dreaded presentation at advice surgeries of a carrier bag full of financial information, much of which will be highly complex. We need to harness modern technology to help to provide our citizens with clear information about their financial position so that we help them to make educated judgments. Nowhere is this more apparent or more pressing than on pensions. All too many people suffer the scandal of lost pensions, while countless others are unaware of their post-retirement financial position until it is too late. I certainly know of examples of lost pensions from my own constituency.

It was a real pleasure to serve on the Work and Pensions Committee in the last Parliament. Our first report after I became a member of that Committee was “Pension freedom guidance and advice”, which highlighted the critical importance of the pensions dashboard for explaining clearly to consumers what they can expect and to ensure that they do not lose out.

I am delighted by the fresh impetus that the Minister has given the pensions dashboard. Bringing together data from 64 million pension pots is ambitious but necessary. Providing a single accurate and comprehensive source of pensions knowledge will be immensely useful to help to facilitate financial capability and retirement planning. I appreciate how complex a process this is and I have no wish to break the back of any camel. However, when the system is up and running, I want the concept to be extended to clarify for consumers with savings products, a mortgage or debts the full extent of their financial position, thereby helping them to plan accordingly.

On guidance, I welcome what is outlined in the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill and the Government’s plans, which have broad cross-party support, to create a single financial guidance body. This, too, is in keeping with the recommendations of the Financial Inclusion Commission’s report, and it has been welcomed by Which?, Citizens Advice and Age UK.

A lot of great work is conducted at a community level—I particularly draw hon. Members’ attention to the valuable work conducted by the Horsham debt advice service—but the scale of this issue requires support on a national level. I have witnessed at first hand the excellent work carried out by the Money Advice Service, the Pensions Advisory Service and Pension Wise. They are all superb in their different ways, but I am certain that a single body will provide a more effective means by which to impart co-ordinated and consistent guidance.

I am at one with Citizens Advice in seeing three aspects of the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill as particularly positive: the new body will support only advice that is free at the point of use and is independent; it has an objective of targeting help at those most in need; and it has a remit to support joined-up services and to fill gaps, not to duplicate current provision. I am only too aware of the other pressures on time in this Chamber, but I look forward to the Bill’s Second Reading in this place as soon as possible.

One of the Bill’s provisions begins the process of implementing the Conservative manifesto commitment to provide a debt respite scheme. Under the terms of the Bill, the Secretary of State must, within three months of the establishment of the body, seek its advice on the establishment of such a scheme. That will be an early test, and one to which a great number of us look forward to the SFGB and the Government rising.

This will be but one early example of the body’s strategic function to support and co-ordinate the development of a national strategy to improve financial capability. The SFGB will have to rise to the challenge outlined in research by Which?, which shows that only 36% of consumers use Government advisory bodies as an information source about their financial options.

Advertising and effective resourcing are key to ensuring high uptake, particularly among the groups who would benefit most from accessibility. Financial exclusion disproportionately affects lone parents, single pensioners and the long-term sick and disabled, and the active recruitment of those people requires the effective use of Government funding.

I would also like pensions guidance made much more widely available. Without wishing to be indelicate, Madam Deputy Speaker, I can say that the services of Pension Wise, determined by age as they were, are available to our excellent Minister, but not, alas, to his excellent Parliamentary Private Secretary and nor, surprisingly, to myself. The younger the age range, the more effective this service will be.

I finish where I began. The SFGB will have a role in advancing financial inclusion, as will the new financial inclusion policy forum, which will be co-chaired by the Minister and the Economic Secretary. Especially at a point when the interest rate cycle is turning, financial inclusion is of critical importance. I welcome the moves by the Government that are under way, but I welcome still more the further reforms that I look forward to the Minister progressing.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

It is a great pleasure to speak on behalf of the Government on the key issue of financial inclusion and the single financial guidance body, which we hope to bring before the House in the new year.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) for calling the debate and for the contribution he made as a step-in member of the Financial Inclusion Commission, following in the footsteps of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd). It is fair to say at the outset that I am deeply grateful to the commission’s authors, and I have met many of them, including Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, who has been of great assistance to me in the five months I have been doing this job. He is part of the reason why we have a financial inclusion Minister at this stage.

It is an exciting time to be doing this job, in circumstances where we have over 8.5 million people automatically enrolled in a workplace pension and where we have the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill coming forward—it completed its passage through the House of Lords on 23 November, and it will come to this House in the new year. We are driving forward the points raised by my hon. Friend, whether on the pensions dashboard or the mid-life MOT.

I am particularly passionate about the need to address people’s financial inclusion and capability. If I may briefly digress and talk about my personal circumstances, I co-founded a local community bank in my constituency, in the north-east. Our community bank was launched in November 2015 by the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu. It was specifically tasked with trying to compete payday lenders out of business, as asked for by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby. It has a small staff and an incredible team of local volunteers. It is fully accredited, with significant amounts of money deposited, and it makes low-cost loans to those who need them most.

I am no longer personally involved, because my ministerial role prevents me from doing so, but I do, as a Minister, want it to be my mission to champion such locally led positive solutions and to evangelise for savings and pensions. I pay tribute to all the staff who have helped so much in that institution.

The second institution I think it fair to thank is the Lords Committee that prepared a very detailed report in the 2016-17 Parliament on tackling financial exclusion. That was responded to by the Government recently. I pay tribute to the work the Committee has done addressing this issue. I also pay tribute to the Money Advice Service, the Pensions Advisory Service, Pension Wise and all their staff, because we would not be where we are today without their efforts. However, more particularly, those three organisations are particularly enthused by the opportunities that lie ahead with the single financial guidance body to address the issue we are all so keen to tackle: financial inclusion.

We are working very closely across the Government on this. It is sometimes argued—not, I accept, under this Government in any way whatsoever—that we exist in silos and that Departments do not necessarily speak to each other. I am particularly encouraged that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and Ministers in other Departments are equally committed to addressing financial inclusion, and that we have a forum coming together to be co-chaired by the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions. That shows that we are jointly addressing this key issue.

We need to provide people with access to the tools and services that they need to plan their lives and to avoid the unnecessary costs that come with financial exclusion. It is also important, however, that people are confident that the financial system itself will work for them—that there is responsible capitalism, that they will be protected from practices that are a threat to their finances and that they can make financial decisions themselves that are appropriate throughout their lives. The single financial guidance body will be the key addresser of financial capability in the United Kingdom. We realise that not enough people know how to manage their money effectively. This body will ensure that those people, especially those who are struggling, are easily able to access free and impartial guidance to help them to make more effective decisions about their pensions and their money and to seek advice on their debt.

There has been widespread support for the measures contained in the Bill, which passed on a cross-party basis in the House of Lords after significant amendment and improvement. It is a credit to the Houses of Parliament that a Bill that started out as 19 clauses emerged from the House of Lords with 31 clauses, considerably amended but with great support from individual peers on all sides, as was borne out by Lord Stevenson noting that the Bill was strengthened

“not because of any particular line or argument in a political or wider sense but because…as a result, the lives of people right around this country would be improved.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2017; Vol. 787, c. 83.]

[Jeremy Quin]

I am grateful to the Minister for quoting Lord Stevenson, another member of the Financial Inclusion Commission, but I would like to bring my hon. Friend back to the importance of ensuring that this financial advice reaches those who need it most. I referred, for example, to the disabled, lone parents and single pensioners. It will be absolutely critical, as we measure the success of this body going forward, that it does reach the hardest-to-reach people who need its support the most.

[Guy Opperman]

It is interesting that my hon. Friend raises that point, because it was specifically addressed by their lordships in some detail. He will be aware that the new financial guidance body will simplify the existing public financial guidance landscape, making it easier for all people to access information and guidance.

Let me briefly address the statutory objectives and functions, because I think that that will reassure my hon. Friend on the point about those in society who are vulnerable. The single financial guidance body will have a number of statutory objectives: to improve the ability of people to make informed financial decisions; to support the provision of information, money and pensions guidance and debt advice in areas where it is specifically lacking; to ensure that information, guidance and debt advice is clear, cost-effective and not duplicated elsewhere; to ensure that information, guidance and debt advice is available to those most in need, particularly people in vulnerable circumstances; and to work with devolved authorities.

I stress that the chief executives of the three organisations—Michelle Cracknell, Jamey Johnson and Charles Counsell—all agree that bringing these organisations together and harnessing the product of the whole will enable specific opportunities to address this point. That is particularly appropriate given that one of the functions of the body is not only the protection of individuals as consumers but a strategic approach to ensure that this guidance is there. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured that that is something that we massively support.

My hon. Friend raised financial education. The strategy behind the creation of the guidance body is to develop evidence that clearly shows which projects are successful and which are not. The Government want the body to prove what helps people to make better financial decisions throughout their lives, and then to deploy that understanding actively in its efforts in the area and share the knowledge as part of best practice.

The Government want the body to maximise the positive impact of financial education for children and young people, so that they are better prepared. We definitely see the guidance body taking forward the issue that my hon. Friend raises, to ensure that children are better prepared for financial challenges at any age. That strategic function is underpinned by the premise that, although Government bodies, industries, charitable functions and the voluntary sector are already doing excellent work, if they work together the impact will be that much greater.

I want to take the opportunity to celebrate the LifeSavers project, which I am pleased to say exists in my constituency. The organisation provides at primary level exactly the sort of thing that my hon. Friend described. The community bank of which I was a part is the provider of six LifeSavers programmes, which are supported by the Church of England and Virgin Money. There is literally a bank in the school, educating children about the importance of finance, loans, deposits and long-term saving, which is the way ahead.

A large number of schools are part of that project, and we are evaluating its impact. It is Treasury-supported to a limited degree. I have visited participating schools, such as Hexham East First School in my constituency, and the difference that the programme makes is off the charts. My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has provided a great deal more money for maths education, more maths teachers and support across the curriculum to ensure that that key point is addressed on an ongoing basis.

Briefly, I will mention other areas of the Bill that address some of the points that my hon. Friend raised. I believe that we all accept that problem debt is an issue for too many people. The Conservative party manifesto set out the commitment that the Government would adopt a breathing space scheme, to allow someone in serious problem debt to apply for legal protection from further interest charges and enforcement action for a period of up to six weeks. The Financial Guidance and Claims Bill will enable the Government to introduce such a scheme.

The breathing space scheme builds on the local work of organisations such as those that my hon. Friend mentioned in Horsham. It sounds as though they are approaching the matter in an interesting way. The Bill will build on the existing work of the Financial Conduct Authority, which has instituted rules. Also relevant is the fact that in October, the Treasury published a call for evidence on breathing space, and evidence is still being taken on the best and most appropriate way forward. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, officials and I have met the people behind the operation of the scheme in Scotland, which has already introduced a debt respite scheme and breathing space scheme.

The key to inclusion is access to engagement with savings and pensions. Surely, the game-changer on that over the past five years is the development of auto-enrolment, as part of a cross-party approach down many years. It is one of the unseen success stories of successive Governments, and it has engaged individual consumers and members of the public to an astonishing degree and reversed generations of decline in savings and pensions. The statistics bear some contemplation. We are about to approach the point at which 9 million people are auto-enrolled in a workplace pension. Hundreds of thousands of individual employers have signed up to the scheme, and it has not only totally stopped the rot in relation to pensions but reversed a long-term decline.

We are conducting an auto-enrolment review to assess where we are with the programme, and we will be considering a number of key areas. Those include the existing coverage, how to achieve the right balance between enabling as many people as possible to save and ensuring that it makes economic sense for them to be included, how we can improve engagement and how to strengthen the evidence base around contributions to support future decisions on contribution rates. I will report the findings to Parliament before the end of the year. We hope that the review will provide a clear sense of direction as part of the ongoing conversation.

I want briefly to talk about the pensions dashboard, which is an important part of the conversation about how we can better use technology. Just as the private sector has reformed the travel industry, insurance and so many other business, such that we now go online to access information, so we believe that the same will bring pensions into the digital age. The dashboard is an opportunity to give people access to their pensions data in a clear and simple form by bringing together savings information in one place online. It is an opportunity to give more people a sense of ownership and control over their pensions. This is a complex process, but I look forward to a massive meeting of stakeholders on Monday, to which hon. Members are most definitely invited. The good news is that the Department for Work and Pensions is taking this forward. We are utterly committed to the ongoing feasibility study and believe that by placing consumers at the heart of our approach, the Government, working closely of course with industry, regulators and other interested parties—notably, consumer organisations —can achieve the goal of such accessibility.

I want to make a brief final point about the mid-life MOT. It has struck me in this job that although we address individual issues, in relation to our health and our ongoing status quo as human beings—my GP regularly, and rightly, contacts me with ways to improve my health—we do not address our finances in a similar way. The concept of the mid-life MOT, as pioneered by John Cridland in his outstanding state pension review, published earlier this year, could enable us to better encourage and support people in preparing for later life and retirement in a holistic way. I encourage all private sector companies, through their human resources departments, to conduct mid-life MOTs— organisations such as Aviva are leading the way—and I certainly hope that the public sector will address those points as well. We believe that it is unquestionably a promising idea worth detailed scrutiny. Individual workers or employers could be provided with holistic advice and guidance to prepare for the gradual transition to retirement—whether at 45, 47 or 50—and it is something that the Government should be progressing.

It is often asked what brings us into politics. Social justice and financial inclusion are among the things that brought me into politics. When talk about the achievements of this Government and the coalition since my hon. Friend and my colleagues at my side—my hon. Friends the Members for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) and for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones)—first entered the House of Commons, and when we talk about extending free childcare, improving schools results, introducing the national living wage, creating 3 million jobs, reducing income inequality and record high household incomes, we should remember that they are not just statistics, but steps towards tackling injustice and spreading opportunity. I believe passionately that the Bill will enable us to tackle financial inclusion. I welcome the work of those who have taken us this far on the journey, but I also welcome the opportunity to report to the House on the progress we have made and the opportunities that lie ahead to tackle this fundamental issue of social justice.

Question put and agreed to.

State Pension Age: Women

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

Since world war two, we have seen a dramatic change in life expectancy. We are living longer, staying healthier, fighting diseases that previously would have killed us and leading a more active lifestyle, regardless of age. Faced with demographic pressures and increased life expectancy and costs, successive Governments have acted. We must be realistic about the demographic and fiscal challenge that these changes create for us as a society.

Taking forward-looking action is critical to protecting the long-term sustainability of the state pension not only for today’s taxpayers, but for future generations. In July, the Government published their first review of the state pension age, which sets out a coherent strategy targeted at strengthening and sustaining the UK state pension system for many decades to come. It accepts the key recommendations of John Cridland’s independent review, which consulted a variety of people and organisations, including the Scottish National party—the bringing forward to 2037 to 2039 of the increase in state pension age from 67 to 68.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

Will the Minister explain to the House the potential debt impact on future generations of spending up to £39 billion reverting to the 1995 timetable, as well as of Labour’s plan to freeze any increases in the state pension age, which would cost hundreds of billions?

[Guy Opperman]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I recognise that he has more than 25 years’ experience of working in the pensions industry through his previous journalistic work. The reality is that if the Pensions Acts 1995 and 2011 were to be revoked, it would cost well in excess of £70 billion. If we were to follow the path set out in the Labour party manifesto, which would keep the state pension age at 66, it would cost approximately £250 billion compared with the itinerary set out by the independent review commissioned by the Government and produced by John Cridland.

The Cridland review is very clear on that point. It says:

“In 1917 King George V sent the first telegrams to those celebrating their 100th birthday. 24 were sent that year. In 2016 around 6,000 people will have received a card from Her Majesty the Queen. In 2050, we expect over 56,000 people to reach this milestone.

Three factors are at play here: a growing population; an ageing population as the Baby Boomers retire; and an unprecedented increase in life expectancy. A baby girl born in 2017 can expect to live to be 94 years and a boy to be 91. By 2047 it could well be 98 and 95 respectively…The world of the Third Age is now a very different one, in which those lucky enough to get the State Pension will on average spend almost a third of their adult life in retirement, a proportion never before reached.”

It was clear that the Government had to act.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Can the Minister tell us what specific help Jobcentre Plus is able to give older women to help them to retrain or to reskill to find age-appropriate work? That is a question that a number of older women often ask. What specific help is out there for them?

[Guy Opperman]

Having visited his local jobcentre, my hon. Friend will be aware that a great deal of assistance is provided by the job coaches. However, help comes not just from job coaches and jobcentres but from local job clubs, which I am sure exist in his constituency, as they do in mine; from individual flexible working arrangements; and from jobs fairs, which a number of colleagues have mentioned. I have done three myself, culminating in the last one in September, which was highly successful. There is also all manner of private sector support on an ongoing basis.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Guy Opperman]

I will give way in a moment, but first let me address the issue in relation to Scotland. I was surprised that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) refused 10 times to give way. If I were him, I would say that he was frit, but I will not go down that route.

In addition to the substantial support that the UK Government are providing, which is worth £50 billion across the country and 6% of GDP, the Scottish Government now have significant new powers available to them to tailor welfare provision to people in Scotland. Although pensions remain a reserved matter, the Scotland Act 2016 has given the Scottish Government the ability to use a wide range of new welfare provisions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) correctly set out the provisions of section 28 of the Scotland Act. There are of course section 24 powers as well. I refer all colleagues, on both sides of the House, to a letter written to my predecessor by Jeane Freeman, my opposite number in the Scottish Government. She says that the power under section 26

“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 women most affected by the acceleration of increase in their State Pension Age. Their needs and the risks to their well-being would have to be assessed individually.”

There is an acceptance in that letter that, as Scottish Conservative colleagues have said, the powers are there. Those powers commenced on 5 September 2016. It is up to the Scottish Government to determine how they will use those powers, but—

[Ian Blackford]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am asking for your guidance about what we can do, because the Minister, perhaps inadvertently, is seeking to mislead the House. It is absolutely crystal clear in the Scotland Act 2016 that the Scottish Parliament is not in a position to introduce benefits by reason of old age. That is quite clear, and the Minister should be truthful with the people of this country. He should stop blaming the Scottish National party and the Scottish Government for a responsibility that solely lies here with Westminster.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that helpful advice. I suggest that we move on, because time is very limited and we do not want to delay the debate further with continuous points of order.

[Guy Opperman]

I fully understand, and I will move on, but I will make one single point in reply to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber. I specifically read the letter of 22 June from Jeane Freeman, quoting what she said. When the right hon. Gentleman criticises me, he should be aware and conscious that he is criticising someone from his own party.

[Ross Thomson]

Regarding the point of order, does the Minister agree that the argument can be made that people under the retirement age of 66 are not in old age? The Scottish Government have already been in correspondence with the Department for Work and Pensions, and the DWP has accepted that very argument. The Scottish Government have the powers, they just do not use them.

[Guy Opperman]

The reality of the situation, given the motion facing us today, is that one has to ask what the Scottish Government are doing. My hon. Friend is entirely right.

The issue dates back to 1995, when the Government legislated after two years of debate and consultation to equalise the state pension age in order to eliminate gender inequalities in state pensions. There had been welcome increases in life expectancy, and there was an anticipated increase in the number of pensioners in the years to come.

[David Linden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Guy Opperman]

I will give way for the last time. I am conscious that 20 Members wish to speak.

[David Linden]

I have come through an apprenticeship on how this works. The Minister made a point about jobcentres, but he is actually closing half of Glasgow’s jobcentres. I have a question for him about life expectancy—I asked him this 10 days ago in Westminster Hall, so he has had 10 days to find out the answer. Can he tell me the life expectancy in Glasgow East?

[Guy Opperman]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, without a shadow of a doubt, life expectancy has increased in all parts of the country and in all socioeconomic groups over the past 30 years. I refer him to the Cridland report, which accepts the situation that has existed for the past 30 years, and the change that has been made.

Developments in policy have included the Pensions Act 1995, as well as the Pensions Act 2007, passed when the Labour party was in power. It is a shame that the Labour party is now scrapping the fiscal prudence that it seemed to demonstrate with the 2007 Act by now revoking its desire to increase the pension age beyond 66. Under the coalition, action was taken in the Pensions Act 2011 to increase the pension age as a result of enhanced life expectancy.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Guy Opperman]

I will not give way any more, because I am conscious that 20 Members wish to speak.

Automatic enrolment was introduced in 2012 on a cross-party basis after a considerable amount of time. The important point is that the overall participation in workplace pensions of eligible female employees in 2012 was 58% but, following the introduction of automatic enrolment, the figure increased to 80% in 2016. For males, the figure increased from 52% to 76% in the same period. The private sector has seen the largest increase in participation in workplace pensions, and there was no gender gap in participation rates in 2016.

In the circumstances, I would respectfully point out that the key choice a Government face when seeking to control state pension spend is whether to increase the state pension age or to pay lower pensions, with an inevitable impact on pensioner poverty. The only alternative is to ask the working generation to pay an even larger share of their income to support pensions.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Guy Opperman]

I am not going to give way again—I am so sorry.

While increasing longevity is something to be celebrated, we must also be realistic about the demographic and fiscal challenges it creates for us as a society. Since the early 2000s, it has been widely recognised that we face big questions as a society about how we ensure economic security for people in retirement, while maintaining fairness between generations.

The Pensions Commission found in 2005 that a state pension age fixed at 65 was no longer sustainable or affordable. Between 2007 and 2014, three separate Acts of Parliament were introduced, each responding to changes in life expectancy by changing the state pension age. At the same time, the state pension has been increased, between 2010 and 2017, by £1,250 a year for an individual who is on a full state pension.

So with increasing financial pressures, as I have described, we cannot change a policy that has been implemented for over 22 years and supported by all three major political parties. The Government have to ensure that the costs of an ageing population are shared out fairly, without placing an unfair financial burden on future generations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

I am nearly finished. Before I conclude, I would like to ask the Minister what the Department is doing in relation to the legal challenge from the WASPI campaigners, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris). Has the Minister made contingencies for the day when the courts rule against the Government, as they may well do, and order that ’50s-born women be compensated? What is happening in relation to that?

Although we support the motion, I think that the House needs to be able to vote on a motion that will be binding on the Government.

[Guy Opperman]

I will answer two of the hon. Gentleman’s points. First, the Government do not believe that there has been maladministration by the Department for Work and Pensions in relation to the legal claim by Bindmans, and that includes in the 13 years when the Labour party was in power. Secondly, with regard to his assertions about the Scottish Government, the situation is as I said when I cited the letter of 22 June from Jeane Freeman, my opposite number in the Scottish Government.

[Alex Cunningham]

I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, but he knows as well as I do that the decisions of successive Governments are overturned in the courts time and time again, and the then Government end up having to pay for it.

I want to see before the House a motion that actually means something, and that is binding on the Government to deliver some of the relief that these women desperately need. We will continue to look for that opportunity, and then we will call on the supporters of ’50s-born women, from both sides of the House, to vote for that relief and make something happen.

Draft Pension Schemes Act 2015 (Transitional Provisions and Appropriate Independent Advice) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2017

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Pension Schemes Act 2015 (Transitional Provisions and Appropriate Independent Advice) (Amendment No.2) Regulations 2017.

It is a pleasure, Mr Stringer, to serve under your chairmanship. The regulations, which were laid before the House on 10 July 2017, will reduce confusion for pension scheme members and burdens for industry. They enact the conclusions of a call for evidence in 2015, on the issue of how a scheme determines whether a member is required to take financial advice before transferring their pension savings.

Plainly put, the regulations simplify how trustees and scheme managers value members’ pensions, in order to determine whether the requirement to take advice under section 48 of the Pension Schemes Act 2015 applies. The provisions form part of a wider package of changes that, as a whole, expand and simplify the protections for members with potentially valuable guarantees attached to their pensions.

The pension freedoms, introduced in April 2015, have given individuals aged 55 and over greater choice in how and when they access their defined contribution pension savings. Members who save into pension arrangements that provide potentially valuable guarantees can generally exercise these new freedoms, where necessary, by first transferring to a defined contribution scheme or converting to defined contribution savings.

These pension arrangements—safeguarded benefits—include typical defined benefit schemes as well as defined contribution arrangements, which offer safeguarded flexible benefits. Safeguarded flexible benefits are flexible, in that there is a pot, which is cash-based, meaning that the pension freedoms apply; but also safeguarded because they include a promise in relation to the secure income they may provide in retirement.

Normally, but not exclusively, safeguarded flexible benefits are personal pension contracts that include the option to take an annuity at a guaranteed rate. These are commonly referred to as a guaranteed annuity rate, or GAR. Because of the valuable guarantees offered by safeguarded benefits, section 48 of the Pension Schemes Act 2015 introduced an advice requirement alongside the pension freedoms. That requires trustees and scheme managers to check that members with safeguarded benefits have taken financial advice before transferring or otherwise flexibly accessing those benefits.

Section 48(3) provides a power to create exceptions to the requirement, and this was exercised in regulation 5 of the Pension Schemes Act 2015 (Transitional Provisions and Appropriate Independent Advice) Regulations 2015, to provide an exception for members whose safeguarded benefits under their scheme are valued at £30,000 or less. It is that legislative requirement—how pensions are valued for the purpose of determining whether it applies—that I am proposing to amend.

The Government have become aware that the methodology prescribed in regulation 5 of the 2015 regulations for valuing members’ benefits against the £30,000 threshold has resulted in firms that offered GARs having to provide two values for the member’s pension: first, the transfer value, which an individual will actually receive, and, secondly, the actuarially calculated, but ultimately notional, value against which the £30,000 advice threshold is tested.

Providers and consumer groups reported members with safeguarded flexible benefits experiencing confusion as to why they were receiving two valuations. This means that there is always a risk that members may choose to pay for advice, wrongly believing that they would be entitled to the higher actuarially calculated value, when they would receive only the lower transfer value.

Regulation 4 of the regulations that we are debating will, if approved, amend regulation 5 of the 2015 regulations so that, under paragraph (1) of that provision, trustees and scheme managers will be required to treat the value of safeguarded benefits as equal to the transfer value of those benefits when determining whether the £30,000 threshold is met. Meanwhile, those offering safeguarded flexible benefits, such as GAR, will produce only one valuation: the transfer value of the member’s benefits, determined in accordance with the legislative provisions referred to in paragraph (2) of amended regulation 5.

For most schemes, that will be the cash value of the member’s pot. That single figure is easily explained and avoids confusion for members. It is also widely used within other communications and already produced by firms. The instrument also contains transitional provisions in regulation 6 to accommodate the change from one valuation methodology to another so that members are not disadvantaged. Finally, regulation 4 makes a further amendment to the valuation methodology in regulation 5 of the 2015 regulations, removing an inconsistency in the treatment of defined benefit pension scheme savers.

In conclusion, we remain committed to the principle that pension savers choose when to access their pension savings. It is equally important that they are supported in doing so. The Government have listened carefully both to stakeholders and to those representing consumers, and these regulations show that we are meeting our commitment, made as part of a consultation exercise, not only to monitor the pension freedoms themselves, but to reform existing measures where needed. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

In relation to the points made by the hon. Member for Stockton North, he is right that the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill will not be debated this year. It will be coming to the House of Commons, following extensive consideration, in 2018. Secondly, after the Pension Schemes Act 2015 was passed there was a deliberate call for evidence to assess its impact. The methodology prescribed in regulation 5 of the 2015 regulations for valuing members’ benefits against the £30,000 threshold by which firms offered GARs was assessed and then addressed, so we introduced these specific regulations to address those points.

Thirdly, the cost of financial advice and the importance of people having access to affordable financial advice in these circumstances is something that both the Select Committee on Work and Pensions and the FCA have considered. The financial advice market review that launched in August 2015 explored how the financial advice market could be improved for consumers, including the market for pensions advice. I can assist the hon. Gentleman by making the point that the FCA has published guidance on streamlined advice to help firms provide advice to customers with specific needs in a proportionate way. To tackle issues of the affordability of that advice, the Government have increased the income tax exemption for employer-arranged financial advice on pensions from £150 to £500, and introduced the pensions advice allowance, which allows consumers to access £500 of their defined contribution or hybrid pension pots tax-free up to three times at any age to redeem against the cost of pensions and retirement advice. I would, with respect, make the point that the regulator and the Government have acted on that matter.

In relation to the points on the British Steel pension scheme and Tata pension scheme members, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have a further meeting today to discuss that with members who are affected, and I welcome the expansion that we will give on that particular point. What I can briefly tell the Committee today is that the FCA is aware of this issue and is making sure that its expectations are set out to advisers. That includes arranging to meet adviser firms in Swansea. The Government are also working with industry to prevent scams and investment fraud. He will be aware of Project Bloom and the various other things brought forward to address scams. The British Steel pension scheme has worked with the regulator to ensure that any communications to members both highlight the importance of taking professional advice and signpost where that advice can be obtained. The communications tell members how to check that advisers are approved to give the advice, and give warnings on how to look out for scams. The FCA is monitoring any scam behaviour and will, I assure the hon. Gentleman, take stringent action when something suspicious is reported.

The regulations simplify how trustees and scheme managers value members’ pensions when they are determining whether the requirement to take advice applies. They form part of a package of measures and, if approved, will come into force alongside a new requirement to send members tailored communications, ensuring that all members are told about their valuable benefits in a more timely and accessible manner. There will no longer be a cohort of individuals who are required to seek financial advice, but are often unable to locate an adviser willing to advise on their pension savings.

I hope that I have set out for the Committee the need for the regulations and have responded to the matters that have been raised. If not, I will write to the hon. Gentleman with more details. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

State Pension Age

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) on securing today’s debate on the state pension age and welcome him to what I think is his first debate here.

Since world war 2, we have seen dramatic changes in life expectancy. We are living longer and staying healthier for longer, and we are leading far more active lifestyles, regardless of our age. Although increasing longevity is to be celebrated, we must also be realistic about the demographic and fiscal challenges that that creates for us as a society. Faced with significant increases in life expectancy and compelling evidence of demographic pressures, it is right that successive Governments took action to secure the affordability and sustainability of the state pension system for current and future generations.

To answer the point raised by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who wanted us to think long term, in July the Government published their first review of the state pension age, setting out a coherent strategy targeted at strengthening and sustaining the UK’s state pension system for many decades to come. It accepts the key recommendations of John Cridland’s independent review, which consulted a wide range of people and organisations, proposing that the state pension age be increased from 67 to 68 in the years 2037 to 2039.

The Cridland review was independent and is very clear. It stated:

“In 1917 the first telegrams to those celebrating their 100th birthday”

were sent. There were 24 that year. The review continued:

“In 2016 around 6,000 people will have received a card from Her Majesty the Queen. In 2050, we expect over 56,000 people to reach this milestone. Three factors are at play here: a growing population; an ageing population as the Baby Boomers retire; and an unprecedented increase in life expectancy. A baby girl born in 2017 can expect to live to be 94 years and a boy to be 91. By 2047 it could well be 98 and 95 respectively.”

The reality, therefore, is that the

“world of the Third Age is now a very different one”

and that those who receive the state pension

“will on average spend…a third of their adult life in retirement, a proportion never before reached.”

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Given that the Minister has spent so long talking about life expectancy, will he do me the honour of telling the House what the life expectancy in Glasgow East is?

[Guy Opperman]

The reality is that life expectancy has increased repeatedly across the country—[Interruption.] It most definitely has increased across the country in all socioeconomic groups over the past 30 years, and for all constituent countries of the UK. Mr Cridland, who was independent, did extensive work on that point, concluding that a universal state pension age remained the best system, and the Government agree with that point.

[James Cartlidge]

The Opposition spokesman said that Labour supports a variable state pension age. Does my hon. Friend think that that would survive legal challenge?

[Guy Opperman]

I will make two points about that. The first is that anybody who proposes a situation involving framing new legislation that lacks equality between men and women will have to deal with the Equality Act 2010, because any new transitional provision runs the risk of creating a new inequality between men and women and being subject to challenge.

Further to the proposal made by the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, the Labour party’s position in its manifesto, as agreed with by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) and presumably the Scottish National party, is to reject any increase in the state pension age above 66. That would involve scrapping the Pensions Act 2007, the work of the Labour Government in the Blair-Brown years. Costs have been mentioned; let me be clear that the costs of capping the rise in state pension age at 66 in 2020 would be £250 billion higher than proceeding according to the timetable set out by John Cridland.

[Alex Cunningham]

The Minister referred to Labour policy, but he edited it to a few words. We actually said that we wanted to freeze the pension age at 66 and set up our own commission to consider longevity and pensions issues and how we could help the more vulnerable in our society.

[Guy Opperman]

I will quote the hon. Gentleman’s party manifesto to him, just so we are utterly clear.

[Mhairi Black]

Will the Minister give way?

[Guy Opperman]

No, I will not. The manifesto says:

“The pension age is due to rise to 66 by the end of 2020. Labour rejects the Conservatives’ proposal to increase the state pension age even further.”

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the shadow Secretary of State made it clear in July, as the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill said, that 66 was the proposed utter limit for an increase.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Guy Opperman]

I want to make a little bit of progress.

I turn to the legislation passed over the last 22 years, during which time Labour, the coalition and the Conservatives have all been in government. Back in 1995, after two years of debate and consultation, the Government legislated to equalise the state pension age to eliminate gender inequalities in state pensions. That was a result of welcome increases in life expectancy, combined with the anticipated increase in the number of pensioners in the years to come.

[Patricia Gibson]

The Minister has talked about the number of people who are living longer, getting telegrams from the Queen on their 100th birthday and so on. That is fantastic, and I am sure that we are all happy about it, but can he not see that it does not help the women who have been told, with very little notice, that they will not get the pension they thought they would get at age 60? Telling them that they will live longer does not ease their hardship now.

[Guy Opperman]

Over the past 22 years, the Government have gone to significant lengths to both communicate and mitigate the nature of the state pension age changes, and that included a campaign in 2004 to educate people about their state pensions and extensive debates in the House of Commons on a multitude of occasions under a number of different Governments.

[Mhairi Black]

Will the Minister give way?

[Guy Opperman]

No; I am answering the question. Beyond that, over the last 17 years, the Department has provided more than 19 million personalised state pension estimates. In addition, the Department wrote to women born between 6 April 1950 and 5 April 1953, informing them of changes to their state pension age.

[Mhairi Black]

Will the Minister give way?

[Guy Opperman]

I am still finishing this point. Following the Pensions Act 2011, the Department wrote 5.77 million letters to the people directly affected, to inform them of changes to their state pension age. The reality of the situation is that during the passage of the 2011 Act, the two-year acceleration originally proposed was revised to 18 months. It was a concession worth more than £1 billion, which reduced the delay that anyone would experience in claiming their state pension to no more than 18 months, compared with the previous timetable from 1995.

[Mhairi Black]

The Minister seems to have a distorted view of history. The reality is that most women did not receive a letter, most letters that were received had incorrect information and many were sent to completely the wrong address. It is important to put that on record in the first instance.

Secondly, I have been listening to the Minister intently. He talked about birthdays and people living longer, and that is fine. He brought up Labour Governments, and I understand why he did so: it is important to remember that both Conservative and Labour Governments let this group of women down. That is why we must rise above the politics of the issue and come up with a reason. Please do not give platitudes about letters.

[Guy Opperman]

I feel that I have already answered the point about notice.

The proposal made by many is to revoke the Pensions Act 1995 and all subsequent Acts, which would cost the public purse more than £70 billion, to be paid for by younger people, as today’s pensions are paid for by today’s worker. It would represent a cost of more than £38 billion to the public purse in the next year alone.

[Angela Crawley]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Guy Opperman]

No; I have a minute and a half in which to finish. If we consider that in combination with the ever-increasing demographic pressure—the number of people over state pension age is set to rise by almost one third in the next 25 years—it quickly becomes clear that we cannot afford to back away from the responsible choices that successive Governments have made. Although the state pension has risen significantly since 2010 under the coalition and this Conservative Government, and although auto-enrolment has succeeded in increasing eligible female employees’ participation in a workplace pension to 80% in 2016, the reality is that the Government face a key choice when seeking to control state pension spend: increase state pension age or pay lower pensions, with an inevitable impact on pensioner poverty.

The only alternative is to ask the working generation to pay an ever-larger share of their income to support pensioners. Although increasing longevity is to be celebrated, we must also be realistic about the demographic and fiscal challenges that it creates for us as a society. Given the increasing fiscal pressures described, we cannot and do not intend to change a policy implemented over the last 22 years and supported by all three major political parties.

Child Maintenance Service

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) on securing the debate. There was a debate on the subject in April, but this is the first debate that the hon. Lady has been able to secure. I thank the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) for her contribution. Let me deal with that at the outset. The Minister with responsibility for the policy would very much like to know about any specifics of what is clearly a very regrettable story of illness.

[Dr Whitford]

I had a meeting with the appropriate Minister earlier this week, and it has been found that the person who should pay has money to pay, but if that had not been the case, the response would have been “another 15 years”, which seems inhuman to me.

[Guy Opperman]

I am very pleased that my colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), has met the hon. Lady and has the matter in hand. I am sure that she will be addressing both the individual case and the long-term issue of assessments made on that basis. I should pass on her apologies. I am not the responsible policy Minister, but my hon. Friend has been answering a three-hour debate in Westminster Hall this afternoon on the support that the Department for Work and Pensions offers care leavers, so asked me to step in on her behalf.

I also apologise if the letter in relation to the constituent identified with the self-employed issue had not reached the hon. Lady. My understanding is that it was sent on Tuesday. I was able to hand-deliver it today, but I offer my apologies if it had not made it into the hon. Lady’s hands prior to that. Clearly, there are answers to some of the points in relation to the self-employed in the letter, but if, upon sober and long-term perusal of that letter, the hon. Lady wishes to respond, I am sure that the correspondence can be continued.

I will briefly set out the Government’s approach to the Child Maintenance Service. The Department has since 2012 been delivering a comprehensive package of reforms of the child maintenance system, which is intended to support parents to take responsibility for paying for their children’s upbringing. For many years, the old system, under the Child Support Agency, did not provide the right support to parents. That is why the Government are closing cases under the Child Support Agency and giving parents the opportunity to apply to the Child Maintenance Service.

The new system run by the Child Maintenance Service is designed to encourage collaboration between parents, which we know has a direct positive impact on child outcomes, including health, emotional wellbeing and academic attainment. Parents can obtain free advice and support from the Child Maintenance Options service on making an arrangement that is right for them, whether that is a family-based arrangement or a statutory one.

More than a quarter of those who have contacted Child Maintenance Options have a family-based arrangement, and 82% of these arrangements are effective. The charges introduced in 2014 provide a further incentive for parents to consider making a family-based arrangement. The total income from fees and charges is less than 10% of the costs of providing the service, which remains heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. The statutory scheme is available for those who are unable to set up a family-based arrangement. These parents are therefore most likely to have conflict and difficulties meeting their child maintenance responsibilities.

There is a range of strong enforcement powers, and the Government are ramping up the usage of them. We aim to take immediate action to re-establish compliance wherever a parent fails to pay what they owe. In June 2017 the Government instigated 550 more enforcement actions than in June 2016, and the intake of cases to civil enforcement increased by 670 on the previous year.

Last month, we announced plans for new legislation to allow deductions to be made from jointly held bank accounts, closing a loophole that allowed a small minority of parents to cheat their way out of paying towards their children. Our efforts on compliance and debt recovery are firmly focused on helping today’s children. We have continued to uphold this principle since it was set out in the arrears and compliance strategy in January 2013.

We have also been frank about the shortcomings of the previous Child Support Agency schemes, which included the build-up of debt through unpaid maintenance payments, and the Department is currently working on a new strategy that will maintain the principle of focusing our efforts on collecting money for today’s children while looking at creative and innovative ways to maximise compliance in the system.

This new system introduced simplified calculations and increased automation, allowing cases to be processed with a higher level of accuracy than under previous schemes. Additionally, survey data published in December 2016 showed that 91% of parents receiving payments through a direct pay arrangement were receiving all or most of the maintenance due to them. The most recent statistics show that 85% of new applications were cleared within 12 weeks and 81% of change of circumstances actions on live cases were cleared within 28 days, and the level of complaints received remains extremely low, at less than 0.1 % of the case load. No one is complacent, but in the grand scheme of things, 0.1% is relatively low. The caseload on the Child Maintenance Service is still growing, however, and we are taking every opportunity to maintain compliance and deal with non-compliance before enforcement action is needed. We are continuing to increase the operational resources allocated to enforcement, with 290 full-time enforcement case managers in place as of September 2017.

Turning to fees and charges, the one-off £20 application fee for the Child Maintenance Service is intended to prompt parents to consider whether they can make a family-based arrangement. We want to help parents to reduce levels of conflict after a separation and work together more effectively, as we know that this is in the best interests of their children. The application fee is waived in three cases: for the most vulnerable clients; for applicants who are under 19 years of age; and for those who have been victims of domestic abuse. For parents who need to use the statutory scheme, there are no further charges for using the direct pay service, where parents manage payments between themselves. I will go into the direct pay service in a bit more detail later.

Collection charges apply only to the collect and pay service and are intended to encourage both parents to collaborate. The 4% charge for receiving parents ensures that both parents have an incentive to work together and to try direct pay. The collection charge for the receiving parent is deducted only when maintenance is paid, so they do not owe money to the Child Maintenance Service if maintenance is not paid. In addition, charges make a modest contribution to the cost of running an expensive service, which remains heavily subsidised by the taxpayer.

In relation to domestic abuse cases, the Department is committed to ensuring that victims of domestic abuse get the support they need to use the Child Maintenance Service. I have explained about the waiver of the £20 application fee, and the fact that the more expensive enforcement charges are levied on the paying parent. Where a direct pay arrangement is in place, no fees are required. Research from the 30-month review published in December 2016 showed that receiving parents who had experienced domestic abuse were just as likely to have an effective direct pay arrangement as other receiving parents. We are supporting those parents to use the direct pay service safely without having contact with an ex-partner by: facilitating the exchange of bank details; ensuring that personal information is not shared; and providing information about setting up bank accounts with a centralised—rather than personalised—sort code which does not allow parents to be traced. I have very much taken on board the hon. Lady’s suggestion about bank transfer messages, and I will ensure that the Minister looks into that and gets back to her, in respect of that matter and any others that I have not addressed in the limited time available today.

In addition, we have worked with stakeholders to develop a new training package to ensure that all caseworkers are able to understand and recognise domestic abuse and respond appropriately to clients who are victims of abuse. This training has been piloted and is being rolled out nationally from September 2017. The Government are genuinely committed to continued evaluation of the effects of the child maintenance reforms, including the impact of charging. We will continue to consider our current position in the light of any further evidence that our evaluations produce.

I want to touch briefly on the 30-month review, which included the report on the impact of charging that was published in August 2017. The review consists of a series of independently conducted and internal research reports, official statistics and administrative data. The survey data showed that most direct pay arrangements were in force 13 months after the original direct pay calculation, and that 91% of parents who were receiving payments through a direct pay arrangement were receiving all or most of the maintenance due to them. I accept the need for continued evaluation of the impact of charging as we complete the Child Support Agency case closure process.

If there are any specifics that I have not addressed, I will ensure that the Minister who holds the portfolio responds to them. I want to make it clear that there are no targets to keep people from moving from collect and pay. I reassure the hon. Lady that the Government are absolutely committed to promoting parental responsibility and collaboration and to providing an efficient, effective statutory scheme to be used as a last resort. Our priorities remain ensuring that as many families as possible have effective arrangements in place that are appropriate for their circumstances and taking action to maintain compliance in the statutory scheme, so that today’s children can benefit from maintenance payments.

Question put and agreed to.

Pensions

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

The Government have now completed the examination of the cap that applies to member-borne charges in default investment funds within defined contribution (DC) pension schemes used for automatic enrolment (AE).w

After seeking a range of industry and consumer views and considering the findings of the recent pension charges survey, which captures data from providers covering 14.4 million scheme members, we do not feel that now is the right time to change the level or scope of the cap.

The cap is working broadly as intended, helping to drive down member-borne costs, while allowing flexibility to allow asset diversity or tailored services for members and employers. It appears some small schemes are less able to take advantage of the most competitive market rates, and we have launched proposals to simplify the scheme consolidation process. This will allow smaller schemes who cannot secure value for money in the long term to exit the market and secure a better deal for their members elsewhere.

There continues to be a lack of transparency on transaction costs, which is hindering trustees and independent governance committees’ (IGC) attempts to monitor and evaluate whether these represent value. We believe that it is vital to get disclosure right before deciding on whether a cap on transaction costs is appropriate. Recently announced DWP legislative proposals will ensure trustees have sight of these costs and can give that information to members. The FCA is developing similar rules for providers.

The Government remain committed to ensuring AE members are protected from unreasonable and unfair charges, and recognise that there is ongoing concern among consumers.

We will actively monitor the situation, by reviewing the information which trustees of DC schemes will be required to publish from April 2018, and which providers will publish in due course, to monitor whether the downward trend in charges is continuing.

That will also inform our next review. In 2020 we intend to examine the level and scope of the charge cap, as well as permitted charging structures, to see whether a change is needed to protect members. This will also allow us to evaluate the effects of the next stage of AE and the new master trust and transaction costs regimes.

While we are not pre-judging the decision, we expect there to be a much clearer case for change in 2020.

[HCWS249]

Oral Answers to Questions

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

6. What assessment the Government have made of the equity of pension provision between men and women.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

In 2012, overall participation of female eligible employees in a workplace pension was 58%, but since the introduction of automatic enrolment this had increased to 80% in 2016. For males, this has increased from 52% to 76% in the same period.

[Carolyn Harris]

Two former Pensions Ministers have criticised the Government for the policy, all Opposition parties recognise that the Government are wrong, the continuously growing number of cross-party MPs who have joined the all-party parliamentary group say it is wrong, and hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged 1950s-born women know it is wrong. When will the Pensions Minister and the Government admit their mistake and take action to rectify this grave injustice?

[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 Acts of 1995, 2007 and 2011. This would require people of working age, and more specifically younger people, to bear an even greater share of the cost of the pension system.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

The Government’s former Pensions Minister, Baroness Altmann, has said that she regrets the Government’s failure to properly communicate state pension age equalisation, an approach she described as

“a massive failure in public policy.”

Does the Minister appreciate how much this failure has affected the ability of the 1950s-born women to plan for a happy and secure retirement, and their sense of outrage about this issue?

[Guy Opperman]

Since 1995 successive Governments, including Labour Governments, have gone to significant lengths to communicate the changes, including through targeted communications, hundreds of press reports, parliamentary debates, advertising and millions of letters, and in the past 17 years the Department has also provided over 18 million personalised state pension estimates.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Can my hon. Friend confirm that if changes are made to the women’s pension arrangements, it will create discrimination against men, and that would be unfair?

[Guy Opperman]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. The proposal whereby women would receive early pensions would create a new inequality between men and women, the legality of which is highly questionable.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

The Government seem to be under the misapprehension that the campaign by the wronged ’50s-born women will eventually go away if they just keep ignoring it. They even told the Table Office that they would not answer a question on the subject from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams). It will not go away, however, so why does the Minister not engage with the campaigners to find a solution, and in the meantime support our proposals to extend pension credit to the most financially vulnerable and give them all the opportunity to retire up to two years earlier?

[Guy Opperman]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have already introduced transitional arrangements costing £1.1 billion in 2011, which mean that no woman will see her pension age change by more than 18 months relative to the 1995 Act timetable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

11. What steps he is taking to assist people affected by the collapse of the AEA Technology pension scheme and its predecessor.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

The Government’s position has been out in a parliamentary debate in October 2016, as it was previously in March 2015 by the hon. Lady’s Liberal Democrat colleague Sir Steve Webb. I have great sympathy for those affected, but they are now covered by Pension Protection Fund compensation scheme.

[Layla Moran]

In 1996, the Government Actuary’s Department, in a note sent to AEA Technology staff, failed to clearly outline the risks of transferring their pensions to the new private sector scheme. We regulate financial advice in this country, yet when it is the Government giving the advice not even the parliamentary ombudsman can review it. Surely this is grossly unjust? Why does the Minister not pursue this mis-selling scandal, as the Financial Conduct Authority did with the payment protection insurance one? Is it because the Government would be to blame this time?

[Guy Opperman]

The hon. Lady suggests one thing. I can only refer her to the two parliamentary debates that dealt specifically with this matter; this was set out by her own Lib Dem colleague Sir Steve Webb in March 2015, when he was part of the coalition.

[Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)]

The PPF is a vital lifeboat for individuals whose employers become insolvent. Will the Minister update us on when his White Paper looking at the affordability of defined benefit pension schemes will be available?

[Guy Opperman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As he knows, the Green Paper was published in February 2017, and extensive consultation and much consideration of the matters put forward has taken place thereafter. We are in the process of analysing those responses and intend to publish a White Paper in the new year.

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

13. What estimate he has made of the number of jobs created since 2010.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

We all know that the Government are bogged down in all manner of ways and that they have been slow to develop secondary legislation for several new Acts, but will Ministers tell the House when they will bring forward regulations to enact defined contribution and give pension savers the opportunity of the vastly increased benefits of those schemes that was predicted this week by the Pensions Policy Institute and Schroders?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

Those matters are being considered and will be addressed in the new year.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

T7. Can the Minister update the House on progress with the pensions dashboard and confirm that all pension schemes will be required to release the comprehensive data required to make that system useful?

[Guy Opperman]

I am firmly committed to delivering the pensions dashboard. Its introduction will clearly transform how people think about retirement. I will make a statement in the spring that will tackle some of the delivery challenges, including the point that my hon. Friend raises. There is an ongoing feasibility study and there will be a stakeholders’ meeting on 11 December, which I urge him, as well as many interested stakeholders, to attend.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

T2. How does the increased conditionality associated with universal credit, such as the requirement to attend at jobcentres more frequently, square with the DWP’s estates review and the decision to close jobcentres, starting with Maryhill in my constituency—which, incidentally, I have visited?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Members of the British Steel pension scheme need to decide whether to go into British Steel pension scheme 2 or the Pension Protection Fund by 11 December, but there is still a lack of clarity around the position of high/low pensioners in the PPF and whether that might change after the point of decision making. Will the Secretary of State look at this so that the information is available to people before they make that decision?

[Guy Opperman]

I acknowledge the issue that the hon. Gentleman sets out. If he writes to me, I will sit down with him and go through it in more detail. Clearly it is a matter for the trustees on an ongoing basis as to what particular decisions are taken.