Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Guy Opperman and Mhairi Black

Monday 6th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

24. What (a) information and (b) financial advice her Department provides to people approaching state pension age on deferring their entitlement to the state pension.

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

Information regarding deferral is published on gov.uk and provided in the state pension claim invitation letter and through the “Check your State Pension” forecast service, or someone can speak to the Pension Service direct. Deferring a state pension is a personal choice, and whether deferring a claim to the new state pension is the right decision will depend on a range of factors that are relevant to the personal circumstances of the individual, but no specific financial advice is given.

[Mhairi Black]

The DWP wrote to my constituent encouraging him to defer his pension. Unfortunately, he passed away last year, but the DWP told his wife Caroline that she was entitled to a £30,000 lump sum and £100 a week. After weeks of being passed from pillar to post, the DWP is now saying that Caroline is entitled to nothing, but it will give her £50 for the emotional distress and incorrect information. All the correspondence that she has from the DWP contains conflicting information and no warning of the risks of deferring a pension. Will the Minister meet me to rectify the situation and ensure that it does not happen to anyone else?

[Guy Opperman]

If the hon. Lady sends me the correspondence, I will make sure that it is looked into within a matter of days.

Automatic Enrolment: Lower Earnings Limit

Debate between Guy Opperman and Mhairi Black

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Guy Opperman]

I will give a long answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I promise that I will answer it. Some 1.4 million employers have met their duties and are now offering members of staff a pension as a right. That is a significant change for those employers, and a significant burden for them. Raising the threshold, from 2% to start with, up to 5% last year and going up to 8% in April, is a significant burden. We are not talking about just the bigger employers, who can cope with it much better and have advanced payroll systems. Some of them have been paying over the odds from the word go and, to their great credit, some companies up and down the country immediately went to 5% or above. There are two key impacts that need to be assessed. We have only just got the information about the April 2018 increase and the opt-outs that took place then. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there was just under 1% opt-out out because of the increase to 5%.

One of my main jobs in this position, which, contrary to popular belief, I actually asked to do and enjoy doing, is to take the 1.4 million employers and the 10 million employees in this country up to 8% with the minimum number of opt-outs, and the minimum impact on the economic outlook of the country. The harsh reality is that there will be a significant change to the deductions made from individuals’ pay packets, but also to the burden on businesses, whether they are large FTSE 100 businesses or coffee shops or corner shops in our local communities. Dealing with how things go this April is one of the most important, if not the most important, job I have, given the massive impact of this on all our communities. We have only just raised the threshold to 5%. We have the most important rise—a double jump—this April. It would be wrong if the Secretary the State and I, and the wider Government, talked about changing the basis for auto-enrolment before assessing how the 8% rise had gone.

This is quite a complicated process; it will genuinely take the best part of 9 months to go through all the data and get a definitive understanding of where we are on the 8%. At best, I will not know the degree of opt-outs until Christmas. It seems utterly wrong for me to seek to change the nature of the legal basis until I have a real understanding of the impact of the 8% increase.

[Mhairi Black]

The Minister says that we have to wait for more evidence. As I said in my speech, the DWP assumed that roughly 25% of those eligible would opt out, and the 2017 average was 9%. The Minister has talked about getting updated figures, but the participation among 22 to 29-year-olds increased from 35% in 2012 to 79% in 2017. The evidence already suggests that we are heading in the right direction and that the changes are working. Further to that, the logic of the lower earnings limit being set was that some people will not earn enough to get value for money out of their pension towards the end. Would it not be an easier answer just to pay people more, and to introduce a real living wage?

[Guy Opperman]

We are getting slightly off topic, but I am very happy to make the point that in 2010, when the coalition came into government, the living wage—the minimum wage as it was then—was £5.80. It is now £8.21, going up to £9, as the hon. Lady will be aware. I am happy to have a discussion about the tax threshold, which means that individual members of our communities have a huge amount more in their pockets. The tax threshold was £6,500 in 2010. It is now going up to £12,500, which will make a massive difference to the individual take-home.

All those things are good things. There is also the benefit of free childcare. We have gone from having no free childcare available whatever, up to 15 and 30 hours. It depends on how one values childcare, but taking it even on a very low basis, individual low earners would have the benefit of 30 hours a week free childcare, in those circumstances where that applies. If they have 30 hours a week childcare, that is a benefit of £150 a week minimum. I have worked it out on a £5 basis, but other statistics could give the rate.

My point is that if one looks solely at individual earnings on a long-term basis, taken in isolation that is one thing, but we also have to look at the impact of the rise in wages. It may not be as high as the hon. Lady would like, but she is making my point, so I will stop being partisan and saying, “Aren’t we doing well on the living wage, the tax threshold and childcare?” Park that for a moment. Some of those matters are burdens on individual employers.

The harsh reality is that the corner shop in the hon. Lady’s Paisley constituency, or the coffee shop—forget about the big employer—is now paying a considerably larger wage bill, because the low earners who were previously on the minimum wage are now on the living wage. The larger employers are also potentially paying the apprenticeship levy, and in April will pay up to 3% on auto-enrolment. The engagement that took place in the 2017 review indicated that time should be allowed before we reassess the way ahead. I am absolutely sure that there should be consideration of that. I accept that there is pressure on that.

I will try to address the other couple of points that the hon. Lady made, before moving on to some of the other questions. She asked about the reduction of pensions tax relief and the difference between net pay and relief at source. It is entirely right to raise those matters; she will understand that they dealt with by the Chancellor and the Treasury.

The idea that I have full control over the spring statement or the Budget, as the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) suggested, is something that I think we all understand is not the case. I do not have advance sight of the spring statement, but if he wishes to push for my promotion, I would be very keen for that—not that I want to be promoted, because I actually enjoy this brief.

The reality of the situation is that there is clearly a difference between relief at source and the net pay arrangement. It is acknowledged; there is no question but that something must be done on an ongoing basis. HMRC and the Treasury are aware, and there is ongoing discussion with them on that particular point.

While I am dealing with the Treasury, the question was raised about where we are in relation to long-term tax relief on pensions. Again, that is a matter for the Chancellor, but although I accept that there was some discussion about it in some comments made before the last Budget, hon. Members will be aware that there was no fundamental change to the tax relief on pensions.

I have rather disregarded my speech, but I will go back to a couple of key points. First, hon. Members will be aware that we debated this matter briefly in January, and the House debated and then agreed that the lower and upper limits of the qualifying earnings should be aligned with the national insurance earning bands in 2019-20, at £6,136 and £50,000 respectively. Not only does that provide stability and harmonisation on an ongoing basis, but we maintained the earnings trigger at £10,000, meaning a real-terms decrease due to anticipated wage growth, which brought an additional 40,000 savers into automatic enrolment, three quarters of whom were women.

I will address a couple of the other points raised. The hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East, whose constituency I know very well, having ridden at the Overton point-to-point far too many times—not very well; I did not win there—will be pleased to know that there are 14,000 individual employees in her constituency who benefit from the automatic enrolment. She specifically raised the issue of somebody aged between 16 and 22 who was earning but not able to get access to a pension. It is not often known—I have the great delight of telling the House this and urge the hon. Lady to tell others—that that individual aged between 16 and 22 can opt into an automatic enrolment pension with their employer. They have the ability to do that. Similar comments apply to the self-employed; they can opt in and be addressed on an ongoing basis.

The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts called for a pensions commission. With respect, we had that: it was called the Cridland report, an independent pensions commission to which all political parties, including the SNP, along with trade unions and the Labour party, made submissions. Whether they agreed with it or not, it was definitely the case that they made submissions.

On the self-employed, the reality is that we are continuing to expand in a great deal of detail the trials that are going on. We are considering the Taylor review, and it is my strong view that we should expand that more. I am certainly pressing to ensure that the self-employed have greater access to a pension.

State Pension: Women born in the 1950s

Debate between Guy Opperman and Mhairi Black

Thursday 22nd November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Guy Opperman]

I take the hon. Lady’s point, but that matter was unquestionably considered by female Ministers such as the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham and the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford. As the matter has been debated on an ongoing basis, it has been an evolutionary process throughout the past 23 years. I am the latest of many different Ministers who have stood in this post, and I continue to defend the actions of Governments and Ministers who went before me.

[Mhairi Black]

Will the Minister give way?

[Guy Opperman]

I will give way to the hon. Lady, but first I want to address the point about complaints that was raised by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) and others.

A number of different processes were raised in respect of complaints, including departmental complaints. The Government have worked extensively—there is no change in the policy approach to departmental complaints under this Government or previous Governments—to engage with a significant amount of correspondence from women who have contacted them on this issue. There have been approximately 8,000 complaints on the topic and a significant amount of resource has been dedicated to it. The Government believe there has been no maladministration within the Department for Work and Pensions with regard to the communication of state pension age changes under this or previous Governments.

We have an Independent Case Examiner. If the House will bear with me, I will explain the processes. The steps the Department took to notify the general public about changes to state pension age have undergone additional scrutiny by the Independent Case Examiner, an independent office holder who reviews complaints about the Department for Work and Pensions. The Independent Case Examiner does not consider policy or legislative issues, but examines whether the Department for Work and Pensions has appropriately administered stated policies or procedures. The Independent Case Examiner’s team has concluded investigations into approximately 185 women’s state pension cases to date, and in every case there was no finding that the Department had failed to provide appropriate notice of the changes.

I will finish the last two aspects on complaints and then I will give way to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South.

We also have a Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. Some complaints have been escalated to the ombudsman, who has identified a sample of cases that they feel reflect the issues raised in the WASPI complaints. They are now considering whether to investigate, and, if so, the scope of that investigation. Should they decide to investigate, the Government will co-operate in full with that process.

Finally, colleagues will be aware that there is an ongoing judicial review application. It would be inappropriate for me to comment in any detail on the legal case. I can confirm that the High Court has refused the claimant permission to apply for judicial review, but I understand there is a reapplication for oral permission. I spent 10 years both suing and defending the Government as a judicial review lawyer. My last client was a gentleman by the name of Ed Balls when he was Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. I will not comment on the merit of the matter, because it is for an individual judge to decide. Now I give way to the hon. Lady.

[Mhairi Black]

I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for giving way; no doubt I am probably getting on his nerves after all this time. Can the Government not concede that there has clearly been terrible communication? It was 14 years before letters went out, and now that women are coming forward and saying how hard this issue is hitting them—and bearing in mind the lives and the inequalities that they have suffered—the Government are still not listening to them. When he talks about intergenerational fairness, my generation is looking at how the Government are treating the older generation because they are our aunties or grannies, so how can we have any faith in the pension system? Will there even be a pension system years from now?

[Guy Opperman]

The point of having a balance between spending on state pensions and the number of people coming into receipt of the state pension is to ensure that there is a state pension in the future. With a larger number of people becoming pensioners, any Government has to make assessments, as has been shown, and that is what has happened.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

We may take some time to dissect the specific figures on that, but I will attempt to do so—[Interruption.]—if the hon. Lady bears with me.

One starts with the basic principle that the figure used to be at 40% for relative poverty and is now down to 16%. The reason for the 300,000 increase is that more pensioners are in relative poverty after housing costs. That is the issue in relation to relative poverty, because in the past few years the housing costs of those of working age have reduced, because of lower mortgage rates. That reduction in housing costs increases income for those with mortgages, and that pushes median income up. That then feeds through to increase the number of pensioners who are below the 60% of median income poverty line, as the vast majority of pensioners do not have a mortgage and so do not see any benefit from lower mortgage rates. There can be a discussion about relative and absolute poverty and how to measure them, but the overall trend is dramatically down for such poverty, and I believe the explanation of what the rapporteur said is as I have just set out.

I have not addressed the specific point about the Scottish National party proposals and the vexed question of the Scotland Act 2016. As I understand it, various previous proposals—and specifically the one outlined today—would reverse the 2011 Act in its entirety. The SNP’s projected cost for that is £8 billion. We manifestly disagree and suggest it would be in the region of £30 billion, with further costs as long as women’s state pension age was below 66.

As to the Scotland Act powers, I accept that the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran and for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) and I have had robust debate on many such occasions, but I would always say as I have previously, “Don’t take this from me.” I will read the letter from Jeane Freeman of 22 June 2017, in which she sets out what payments can potentially be made under sections 26, 28 and 24 of the Scotland Act 2016. Under the heading of section 26 she states:

“This power is limited to providing help with ‘short term needs’, and those needs must require to be met to avoid a risk to a person’s wellbeing… Their needs and the risks to their well-being would have to be assessed individually.”

[Mhairi Black]

Will the Minister give way?

[Guy Opperman]

I will set these things out, and then the hon. Lady can come back at me.

On the creation of the benefit under section 28, I point out with great respect to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South that in paragraph 3 of the same letter, her own party’s Pensions Minister in Scotland rebuts the point on old age—and she puts “old age” in inverted commas:

“I accept that ‘old age’ is not defined in the legislation, and that most people would not regard this age group as old”.

Under section 28, there is the capability to create a new benefit. That is the heading that Jeane Freeman gives to the relevant part of the letter: “Creation of a new benefit using section 28”. Finally, the situation on top-up and reserve benefits under section 24 is also set out.

[Mhairi Black]

I am very appreciative again that the Minister has given way. I want to say something very directly. First, if he is suggesting that the Scottish Government should mitigate the situation, that does not solve the problem for the rest of the UK, where women are suffering just as much. Secondly, that leads me to question who is responsible. If he wants us to take the burden, will he devolve pensions control to us to let us do it? Currently he is saying, “With the limited powers you have, try and fix this whole problem.” It is like giving us control over the window wipers and complaining about the direction of the car. What he suggests has nothing to do with the issue. Does the Minister support the Scottish Government taking full responsibility for pensions?

[Guy Opperman]

I am not going to re-litigate and re-debate the Scotland Act 2016. I accept that the Scottish Parliament cannot provide assistance by way of a pension to individuals who qualify by reason of old age. However, those who have not attained state pension age are, by definition, of working age, and are not therefore being provided support by reason of old age, and therefore the restriction relied upon by the hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire South and for North Ayrshire and Arran does not apply.

We spend about £50 billion a year on welfare disability support in this country, and the key choice facing any Government of any form when seeking to control and manage 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 ever-larger share of their income to support pensioners. Successive Governments have made appropriate, difficult decisions to equalise and increase the state pension age, and we do not intend to change that today.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Guy Opperman and Mhairi Black

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 1st February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Let me start by paying tribute to the three organisations that are being merged into one—the Money Advice Service, the Pensions Advisory Service and Pension Wise—for the work they have done over many years. The Minister is right that all three agree about the good sense of bringing them together into one body. Why? Because all three know from experience, and have advocated, that high-quality advice—independent, trustworthy and there when it is needed—is of the highest importance, particularly in circumstances of redundancy, death or divorce, when the financial consequences for the citizen can be very serious.

I will give some examples. In Port Talbot, the staff supervisor told Michelle Cracknell, the chief executive of the Pensions Advisory Service, that he was distraught that he had been badly advised on pensions and that the 20 others on his shift had followed his lead. He burst into tears when he said, “It’s not just the mistake that I’ve made; it’s the mistake that others have made following my example.” I remember a victim of domestic violence in my constituency saying, “I borrow to pay the debt, because I borrow to pay the debt, because I borrow to pay the debt.” That is the downward spiral into which citizens all too often fall at a time of crisis in their lives. A Kingstanding dustman said to me, “I’m an agency worker on a zero-hours contract and I would love to buy a house, because my wife is pregnant and we’re paying a fortune in rent.” He went on to say, “It’s not just that: because I’m on a zero-hours contract, I can’t plan. I keep getting into debt. I’ve had bad advice.”—he used stronger words than those—“Where do I turn?”

That is why we made it clear on Second Reading that this is a welcome Bill and a strong step in the right direction, and it has been strengthened by constructive debate in the other place. Our intention is to make a good Bill better still and to inject a sense of urgency into some of its proposals, because the dignity and financial wellbeing of our citizens, in opportunity or adversity, is of the highest importance.

We agree to the concept of the new organisation and support the direction of travel. We will seek to amend the Bill in certain key areas in order to strengthen it further, so that it delivers, particularly for those in desperate need and in circumstances in which there are still too many rogues taking advantage of the vulnerable. There is a joint determination across the House to ensure that nothing but the best is provided in the future for the British people. I am talking about high-quality advice that they can count on in all circumstances.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

I echo much of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington has just said. I am very grateful, on a Thursday morning, that the Bill is not contentious—I do not know about anyone else here, but I am not in the mood for arguing. We have proper concerns about only three areas of the Bill. The first relates to how young people are involved and educated through it. The second question is whether we can clear up some of the difficulties between guidance and advice. The third and most important issue is dealing with clause 5, because what we have from the Government now is wholly inadequate. With that said, I look forward to having genuine discussions in Committee.

[Guy Opperman]

I am grateful to colleagues for their comments, which I endorse. I look forward to responding to the specific points. I accept and anticipate that there will be a legitimate discussion as to the appropriate way forward in respect of default pensions guidance, on which I know both Opposition Front Benchers wish to address the Committee. I thank them for their comments.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mhairi Black]

I understand the reference that the Minister makes to the functions described in clause 3, but the functions are meaningless so long as people do not understand what the difference is between information, guidance and advice.

[Guy Opperman]

I will come to the comprehension point in a second, if the hon. Lady will permit. I will deal with all three points.

After the legislation was suitably amended, debated, discussed and agreed with their lordships, it was specifically written into the Bill that the information, guidance and advice should be free and impartial. I take the point that the hon. Member for Makerfield raises, but I hope that she is reassured that that has been specifically written into the Bill, and is addressed there.

On the definition of terms, may I address the points made by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South that go to the fundamentals of her amendment? One of the key recommendations of the financial advice market review—sometimes known as FAMR—was to clarify the regulatory definition of financial advice. The Government consulted on revising the definition of regulated advice in the existing Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, so that regulated advice was based on a personal recommendation. That definition is in line with the EU definition set out in the markets in financial instruments directive 2004, catchily known as MFID. The Government agreed that revision, which came into force in early January 2018. We therefore suggest that introducing a new definition of advice in the Bill is unnecessary and potentially duplicative. It would cut across existing regulatory architecture, not just in respect of what the Bill is trying to do and the clients it covers, but across other aspects of the Treasury and dealings with the Financial Conduct Authority and industry and consumer groups. In addition, using legislation to establish definitions for those terms would not provide the flexibility in the future to adapt the definitions appropriately, if and when that needed to take place.

I also take issue with a number of points regarding the amendment. First, the three organisations that we are merging to form the single body do not seek the definitions that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South is seeking to persuade us of. Those organisations are a pretty good guide to what the Government are doing, because we have consulted at length, asked them what they want us to do, and they most definitely have not said, “Go away and define those individual points.” They want the degree of latitude to continue.

Secondly, the hon. Lady asked the body to do this within three months. To answer my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire on timings, we hope that the body will be created—subject to the good will of the House and Her Majesty signing on the dotted line—between the end of October and the beginning of December. Asking the body to make, within three months of its creation, having merged three organisations, a definition that would probably apply across all financial sectors is, with respect, putting quite a big burden on the body. Also, it is not the appropriate organisation to do that. That should be done by the independent Financial Conduct Authority, suitably engaged in consultation with wider parties. We have done that in relation to advice; that is why we had the FAMR review. To be fair to the FCA, it took two years of long, hard struggle to come up with the specific definition that all parties were content with. I go back to the point that while those particular points are not sought by the individuals, I believe that it is not appropriate to give the definitions.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire asked about timings. We will be up and running, with a fair wind, in winter 2018—but beware of Ministers who say when things will happen, and of course winter in parliamentary terms can stretch a long time. The standards by which the single financial guidance body will be judged are set out in clause 10, on which I am delighted to be addressing the Committee this afternoon, so I will not go into detail about the standards now but will ensure I set out a bit of detail in answer to that question when we debate clause 10, so bear with me. He also made a point about resilience and life events, which I will address briefly.

A simple point is made about resilience, as set out in clause 2 through the various objectives described, whether the consumer protection or the strategic function. It is also fundamentally set out in clause 3(9), which mentions

“financial capability of members of the public”.

One may use “resilience” or “capability”, but the words—without getting too much into definitions—are all but interchangeable and, in the circumstances, we believe that those provisions address capability and the points made by my hon. Friend.

Regarding preparation for life events, my hon. Friend is a passionate supporter, as am I, of the concept of the mid-life MOT, which has been pioneered by certain companies, including Aviva. As a Government, in particular the Department for Work and Pensions, we are looking at the idea of people, at different critical points of their life, the middle point in particular, assessing where they are in terms of finances, pensions, guidance and everything. That seems eminently sensible to us, and we encourage all private sector organisations to do it. We are formulating plans.

[Guy Opperman]

The answer is yes. Capability is about the ability to deal with life events, whether the traditional ones such as marriage, birth of a child, retirement or the middle of one’s life generally, or—the hon. Lady is dead right—the washing machine or the car breaking down. There is formulated, as I am sure she is aware, things such as the sidecar proposal that is attached to auto-enrolment specifically to provide a savings pot to deal with life events, so that people are not affected by the sudden events involving £100 or £200 and so on. The Department is definitely working on such things, as we will seek to work with the single financial guidance body to ensure that it formulates those strategies. As the BBC puts it, there are other providers, such as Moneybox, Plum or—the name of the third one that I am particularly impressed by—Chip, which allow people to make small savings through day-to-day earnings and usage, giving them a pocket of savings to deal with things. We very much support all such organisations, and I utterly endorse the points made.

[Mhairi Black]

The logic behind the amendment is that right now we have hit a fork in the pensions road, because we are recognising that we might not be able to sustain a lot of the things in place now into the future. People are making decisions about their pensions when, to be frank, they do not have a clue about what they are doing, and they are ending up in horrendous situations because of a lack of understanding and of clarity. To me it seems perfectly reasonable to point out that those three terms, which may be used interchangeably in general conversation, in reality can have a massive impact on an individual.

The Government are promoting an ethos of educating and informing people, to ensure they make the right decision, and I do not see how the amendment waters that down in any sense. I know the Minister is saying that the body needs freedom, and so we cannot define terms as precisely as we would like, but that sounds like the Government are saying that we just have to trust the body’s good will. This is a Government Bill, so why not strengthen it where we can? In that spirit, I am happy to withdraw the amendment on the basis that my later amendments are given due consideration, and that the Minister takes on board what I said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Functions

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Debate between Guy Opperman and Mhairi Black

Thursday 1st February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

I apologise for my lateness, Chair; there were travel disruptions outwith my control. No discourteousness was intended. I appreciate the Minister saying that he would get in touch with me about my amendment.

[Guy Opperman]

On the hon. Lady’s previous amendment, which we did not get to, I will write to her before Report or Third Reading with a detailed answer.

[Mhairi Black]

I also appreciate the Minister’s honesty in getting straight to the point and saying that he will reject amendments 40 to 41. To return to my point, I think that if we do not strengthen clause 5, it will be a real missed opportunity. The Lords amendment was a welcome move in the right direction—that is why I was quite looking forward to building on it—so it is a disappointment to hear him say that the Government will carry on with this watered-down version.

It seems totally counter-productive if we are now at a stage where we acknowledge as we write policy that people do not understand pensions and they do not have a clue about them, on the whole. That is the gist. People want someone to hold their hand through the process, not ask them, “Have you had advice?” “No, I haven’t.” “Right. Okay, we’ll move on.” The Minister said that the onus would be put on the individual. To me, what the Government are suggesting does put the onus on the individual rather than on an independent body to hold people’s hands and guide them through the process. It seems like a missed opportunity. Forgive me if this is the wrong time, but I will press amendments 40 and 41 to a vote at the appropriate time.

State Pension Age

Debate between Guy Opperman and Mhairi Black

Tuesday 21st November 2017 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.