Valedictory Debate

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Friday 24th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

We do not have time for me to share all my anecdotes about my experiences during my 19 years of being a Member of Parliament. I could tell the House about my trip to Iran with Jeremy Corbyn and Jack Straw, which was like something out of Monty Python—I turned out to be the most pro-European of the three, and it was a certainly an extraordinary experience—or about the touching and important time when, as the Security Minister, I joined the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) on a visit to a mosque in her constituency. She has campaigned against antisemitism for years and years, and she has represented the very best of Labour’s position on Jewish communities and the Jewish members of her party for many decades. As an MP, those kinds of things touch you and go with you in your memories.

I would first like to thank my family. The people who make the real sacrifices for us to be in this House are not us; they are the wives, the husbands and the children, who put up with bullying, separation and all sorts of concerns. In today’s world of social media, they put up with hate as well. Without them, none of us could be here at all.

I will mention the staff in my office. I am very privileged that Zoe Dommett has worked for me since three weeks after the day I was elected 19 years ago. Some of us have colleagues who seem to get through staff like a rotating barrel but, luckily, Zoe, Alf Clempson, Susan Hunt and Una Frost have worked for me for many years. Alf Clempson was my sergeant in the Army, and he is still working for me today.

I turn to the staff of the House. Without the Clerks, the waitresses, the maitre d’s and the Doorkeepers, none of us would be able to our jobs. Long after the debates have got interesting, they still have to hang around this House when many of us can go home or elsewhere. They are absolutely key. They do everything for all of us, without judgment or party political bias, and, in my experience, they are never anything other than polite and supportive. I thank them all the way.

I was going to list all my civil servants—not all 240,000 from the Ministry of Defence. I have been very privileged in this House to serve in government and to govern. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for giving me the chance to be her Security Minister. Our job is to represent all our constituents, but it is to govern on their behalf as well. That is a true privilege and it is also luck.

I used to see colleagues who would think it was their right to govern and that only they were the special people. We are chosen by Whips and Prime Ministers, often at random, but we are not special, not “the one” and should never take it personally. We may have months or years—although, let us face it, in the past few years in this Government, it could be weeks. I felt incredibly lucky to govern on behalf of my constituents and the constituents of this Government, alongside the team that is the Government—that is what it is: a team. I never voted against the Government—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] There are the Whips. Luckily, the smoking ban legislation never made it or I might have been voting against that part of the Bill, so my unblemished record will remain.

It is a team; we should not forget that what allows us to govern are our civil servants—hundreds of them. My private offices and my private secretaries put in hours and hours, unknown, unnamed and often blamed by some colleagues and the media for things not going right. If it does not go right in government, it is because the Minister is not governing right, is not a good Minister, is not doing the extra hours needed, is not making themselves clear and is not taking an interest in how they govern. We govern not just by brand, declaration and policies; Ministers govern by using process, the right people and policies, and by communicating. Those who are good govern across the House as well.

The House was at its best during discussions about Ukraine. It was at its best when I worked with colleagues in all parties, including the then leader of the Scottish National party at Westminster, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), and when I could sit down and talk to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) about secrets and threats to our constituents. It was at its best when we had a Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead, who knew security, and took the hours and days needed to read the intelligence and treat it with the severity it needs.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an outstanding speech. I thank him for the role he played as Defence Secretary and the courtesy he showed to Members across the House, including the Leader of the Opposition, the then leader of the Liberal Democrats and myself. He was gracious enough to ensure we were briefed on a bi-weekly basis, because there are times when the House must come together over matters of national security. What an example the right hon. Gentleman set, and I thank him for the role he played during that time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

It is a real privilege to speak in this debate and listen to all the reflective speeches from right hon. and hon. Members right across the House. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock). I do not know whether he recalls the engagement we used to have when he was at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I actually regret that he moved on to the health portfolio because at the time we had had an important meeting about support for Gaelic broadcasting. He was generous in recognising the strength of the argument that I had put about increasing that support. What happened? He left, and the moment was gone.

I cannot help reflecting on my engagement with another Government Minister, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), when he was the Secretary of State responsible for agriculture. We were having some debates about support for Scottish agriculture. It was a typical, feisty Scottish debate. There was a lot of passion, and perhaps some surprise among the officials in the room. But it ended up with the right hon. Gentleman asking me to come with him to the Treasury to make the case. I thought, “Hang on! You’re the Government Minister—you’re supposed to be doing this.” But I am glad to say that in that case we were successful in getting the convergence uplift money to Scottish crofters and farmers. That is a good indication of when this House is at its best—when Members of Parliament across the House can come together and we can achieve decisions for the benefit of our constituents.

It is an honour and privilege for every Member to serve in this House, but for me there is something particular about representing a remote and rural constituency—the largest in the United Kingdom: at 12,000 square kilometres, it is the same size as Northern Ireland. Engaging with constituents is so important. My one regret about the election coming this early is that I have had to postpone my summer surgery tour. Those who know the west highlands—I can see smiling around the Chamber—will be aware that that is a three-week tour, visiting many islands: 32 different places to hold constituency surgeries. I spent yesterday unravelling all my plans for that, and I wish my successor every success.

My last constituency engagement was on Tuesday, when I was up in the Isle of Skye celebrating 50 years of the Gaelic college in the presence of the Duke of Edinburgh. I am glad to say that the college continues to flourish. But we all have the important role of representing our constituents. Many other right hon. and hon. Members have talked about the importance of coming here to serve. We all do that because we believe in public service—we all believe that we are here to try to make our constituents’ lives better. But of course we come from different political persuasions. In my and my party’s case, although we respect this place and the job we are here to do, our aim is, as Winnie Ewing famously said, not to settle down but to settle up and make sure that we advance the cause of Scottish independence.

When we come out of this Chamber and pass through those doors, we leave the arguments behind, because in the end we are all here to do the same job of representing our constituents. Members on the opposite Benches are not our enemy; they are our colleagues. We should remember the importance of having respectful debate and dialogue. Like other Members, I regret the polarisation we see in society and the toxicity of our social media. Each and every one of us, including those in the media, has a responsibility to ensure that we show appropriate leadership and get to a better place. As was said earlier, young people need to feel encouraged to come into Parliament and politics and must not be put off. I am sad to say that many people today will question whether they want to serve.

I was elected to the House in 2015, making my maiden speech on 28 May 2015. It was one of my shortest speeches, at only 11 minutes—though I will not attempt to detain the House too long this afternoon. I quoted Donald Stewart, the first SNP Member of Parliament to be elected at a general election, who said:

“If I stray into controversial matters, they will, in a sense, be impartial controversies, since as a Nationalist Member I shall be in controversy with both sides of the House from time to time. For that reason, if I stray I hope that it will be less objectionable to the traditions of the House.”—[Official Report, 2 December 1970; Vol. 807, c. 1345.]

I can remember giving my maiden speech, and I have to say that, when the 56 SNP MPs arrived, we were made to feel very welcome by many colleagues across the House, not least by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who I see is in his place up at the back. Having given my maiden speech on the second day, and with the SNP having to respond early to every debate, we found very quickly that we were being asked to speak on subjects I knew little about. I will not say what the subject was, but I took some advice from the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole when I asked him, “Andrew, what am I supposed to do?” He said, “Ian, it's easy. Just attack us.” That was the best advice I was given, and I hope I have been true to it over the last nine years, but in a constructive manner.

The right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who is no longer in her place, spoke about never having voted against the whipping advice. Early in the 2015 Parliament, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) moved a ten-minute rule Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said to me, “Go into the Aye Lobby and I’ll offer to tell for the hon. Lady.” I went through the Lobby only to find out that the whipping advice had changed and we were abstaining, so I became the first SNP MP to rebel in that Parliament. I didn’t keep it up, and I suppose I was giving the whipping advice for most of the period after that.

Let me come back to 2015. When 56 SNP MPs and only one Conservative MP, one Labour MP and one Liberal Democrat MP were elected in Scotland, it was almost a complete whitewash. That came several months after the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. It is worth gently and politely reminding the House that we had just had the Smith Commission and were told at that point that Scotland was to lead the UK and that it was a partnership of equals. I have to say, with regret, that that has not often proven to be case over the last few years.

With respect to the result of the 2014 referendum, it is our right to continue to put the case for Scotland to be an independent country in elections to Westminster and to the Scottish Parliament. I say to the House that that constitutional question has yet to be resolved. There is a fundamental question, given that this is a Union of equals, as to how Scotland is permitted to leave that Union if it chooses to do so. I make that point because in the election to the Scottish Parliament in 2021, there was a majority of independence-supportive Members. What mechanism is there—this will have to be addressed at some point—if the people of Scotland show through the election of Members of Parliament here or elsewhere that they have a desire to achieve a different solution? I accept that, for the SNP and those who believe in independence, we will win that argument only if we can win the economic argument by showing that Scotland can, should and will be a prosperous country. We heard earlier from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) about everything that is happening with green energy. We are faced today by many challenges, but, my goodness, what an opportunity we have with the potential for wind, solar and tidal. That will become an opportunity for us only if we can command the supply chain and drive the investment we need into that industry.

Of course, that desire to achieve economic growth ought to be for a purpose, and that purpose is ensuring that we can improve our public services. I say to Conservative Members respectfully that when we have that debate about the future—whether it is here or in Scotland—we need to have that engagement with everybody.

Let me quickly reflect on economic growth. It would be my contention that ever since the financial crisis in 2008, we have struggled to create the circumstances of sustainable economic growth. Indeed, this morning I was looking at statistics showing that growth in the US economy since the pandemic has been 8.9%, but relative growth for the United Kingdom over the same period has been 1.7%. Now, we can discuss Budgets, financial statements and all the rest of it, as we do, but we need to have that debate about the fundamentals. How do we up our game? How do we drive up investment? How do we drive up productivity? All the pressures that we have, along with the talk about tax cuts and the talk about investment in our public services, will be addressed only when we consider the fundamentals of how we deliver sustainable economic growth in this country.

We had, if I may say so, the disastrous premiership of the previous Prime Minister, which exposed weaknesses in our mortgage market from us not having long-term fixed mortgages, for example. We can talk about the fact that, yes, there are some encouraging signs with the economy, but when it comes down to real people, we know that 5 million households have been exposed to rising mortgage rates since the beginning of 2021. Analysis by the Bank of England shows that, given where we are now—and even with, I hope, the prospect of some reduction in interest rates over the coming period—another 5 million households will still be exposed to rising interest rates over the coming period. We can stop and think about what that means—it means that, on average, people are paying 40% more for their mortgages than they were prior to the rise in interest rates.

If I may, let me quickly reflect on what has happened over the course of the past nine years and, my goodness, the pace of change with Brexit, covid and, of course, the situation with Ukraine and now Gaza as well. I accept that, across the United Kingdom, people voted for Brexit. In Scotland we did not; we wished to remain in the European Union. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) talked about the three votes that she lost in this House. If I have one regret from all of that period, it is that as I think back to the 2015 to 2017 Parliament, or indeed the 2017 to 2019 Parliament, I would contend that in this House there was a majority for staying in the single market and the customs union. It is a pity that we did not come together across the House. Yes, we could have allowed the Brexit that people in the United Kingdom voted for. That did not mean that we had to come out of the single market and the customs union. I regret the economic self-harm that we have had as a consequence.

I am glad about the progress that has been made this week on infected blood and on Horizon. My one regret is that we have not yet successfully dealt with the WASPI women. I know that will fall to the new Government, but I hope that, on a cross-party and consensual basis, we can recognise, accept and deliver justice, as we must, for the WASPI women who faced an increase in women’s pensionable age that simply was not communicated in the right manner.

I see the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work on the Front Bench. I say respectfully that she will know that the other issue I want to see resolved is footballers with dementia. We think about the suffering that they and their families are going through. This needs to be classified as an industrial injury, and I hope that in the next Parliament there is some closure on that issue.

I will begin to wind up, Mr Deputy Speaker. For much of my time in this House, I have had the privilege of being not just the MP for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, but the SNP Westminster leader. I am grateful for the opportunity that I was given by colleagues and, I have to say, for the relationships that I had across the House in that period. I have talked about the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) and his engagement with others, which is an example of the co-operation that needs to happen when we face the situations that we do. Indeed, we reiterate today that all of us will stand by our friends in Ukraine. We must see Russia pushed back and see liberty, freedom and security delivered to those people.

I do regret that the House has not been able to come together to the same extent over Gaza, because we are all watching the humanitarian crisis that is taking place there. I hope that we can show leadership on that issue, agree on the need to bring peace and security to the region, and recognise the importance of delivering a two-state solution so that both communities can live together, and the responsibility on this House to show leadership to make sure we can get to that point.

Finally, let me thank the staff in the House of Commons, who work day in, day out to make us feel welcome and to support us—the security staff, the Doorkeepers and the catering staff—and also the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers, for the roles they play and the courtesy they have always shown me. I want to thank my constituency staff and the leadership staff that I had at Westminster. The job that we all have as politicians, we only do because of the abilities of those who tirelessly work in support of us all.

Leaving this House is a bittersweet moment for all of us who are departing. I thank everyone for their co-operation, and for the arguments that we have sometimes had as well. We should remember that all of us come here to serve. What a privilege it is for each and every one of us. I thank all the voters of Ross, Skye and Lochaber. It has been the privilege of my life.

Finally, I first came to this place in 1980. I came with my partner, who is sitting in the Under Gallery, so there is a sense of closure. Having come here all those decades ago, today we will be leaving. Thank you for the opportunity to serve.

Women’s State Pension Age: Ombudsman Report

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

It is a considerable pleasure to follow my friend, the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris). We have worked together on many issues over the years. I remember the debate in Westminster Hall that he mentioned, and the revulsion when it was said that 1950s WASPI women should go on apprenticeship schemes. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and the Backbench Business Committee have secured this debate.

It is worth reflecting that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has asked Parliament to find a remedy for the WASPI women who have suffered injustice; it strongly doubts that the DWP will provide a remedy. Let us just consider that. The ombudsman has proclaimed that maladministration has taken place, so it would be fair to expect the DWP to accept its moral and ethical responsibility to the women affected and their elected parliamentarians, and to bring forward effective remedies for that maladministration.

The report was published a couple of months ago, but we had the interim report three years ago, so the report is not a surprise to any of us here. The Government knew this day was coming, and must now act with haste to bring forward remedies for the WASPI women.

The Government, if they are meant to be anything, are supposed to be rooted in fairness, recognising their duty to citizens, and when a judgment is made that there has been maladministration, they should respond in an appropriate and timely manner. It is a damning indictment that the ombudsman has no faith in the Government to provide the remedy, and has therefore taken the unprecedented step of asking Parliament to intervene. It means that we parliamentarians must in effect do the Government’s job for them. Collectively, Members from right across the Chamber have to rise to that challenge. All of us here, every single Member of Parliament, has a responsibility to their constituents, many of whom will be looking at us today, whether from the Gallery or on television, waiting for us to take action. We cannot have any more procrastination. We need to take action.

Let us remind ourselves that there were 3.8 million WASPI women—1950s-born women who were affected by changes to the state pension age. They suffered from poor communication, which adversely affected the life choices that they were forced to make. This issue must be resolved by this Parliament. It must not be kicked down the road until after the election. The Scottish National party Westminster group commissioned a report on potential financial remedies for WASPI women, which was presented to the UK Government as long ago as June 2016 but which, sadly, was ignored. If the Government need advice, they might want to turn to Landman Economics, which produced that report.

Parliament has, of course, debated this issue many times, in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall, and the work of the APPG should be commended. On 29 November 2017, I opened an SNP Opposition day debate on a motion calling on the Government to improve transitional arrangements for women born on or after 6 April 1951 who were adversely affected by the acceleration in the increase in the state pension age. There was a vote at the end of the debate; 288 Members voted for the motion, and none against. The voting was cross party: five Conservative Members voted for the motion. If the Tory Government had accepted that proposition, we would not be here now. Why did the Government ignore that instruction from Parliament?

[Kirsten Oswald]

Does my right hon. Friend not think that that was, regrettably, typical of the attitude of this UK Government to the WASPI women? The Government hope that they will simply go away if they are ignored. That is heaping insult on indignity, and it is wholly unacceptable. The lives of constituents such as mine have been destroyed by the UK Government’s inability to see what needs to be done. They deserve so much better from this Government.

[Ian Blackford]

Of course they do. We have heard today from a great many Members in all parts of the House about the 5,000, 6,000 or 7,000 WASPI women— more, in some cases—in every constituency. We have all heard the heartbreaking stories of those who simply could not afford to carry on working, and who were not given adequate notice of the increase in the state pension age. It was an injustice, and it needs to be dealt with.

I should emphasise that this was never about the equalisation of men’s and women’s pensionable ages; we all accept that there had to be such an equalisation. However, some of us will remember the 2016 Cridland review of pensions. Cridland said that there should be no more than a one-year increase in anyone’s pensionable age in every decade. The problem was the pace of the increase in women’s pensionable age. Let us also remember that this is about women who paid national insurance in anticipation of receiving a pension, and who were hit with the bombshell that their pensions were being deferred, in many cases by up to six years, with, in some cases, only 15 months’ written notice. A state pension should be seen as a right, but the Government changed the terms and conditions of that right without consulting those who were paid their pensions.

Some time ago, thanks to freedom of information requests, we learned that the Department for Work and Pensions did not begin writing to women born between April 1950 and April 1955 until April 2009, and did not complete the process until February 2012. Despite the need to inform women about changes to legislation dating back to 1995, the Government did not start the formal notification period for 14 years. What were they doing? Where was the responsibility to the women affected? Taking 14 years to begin informing women that a pension that they had paid into was being deferred is quite something. Can we imagine the outcry if a private pension provider behaved in such a way? There would be an outcry in this House, and no doubt there would be legal action.

Given that entitlement to a state pension is earned through national insurance contributions, with many women having made contributions for more than 40 years, that is quite staggering. A woman born on 6 April 1953 who, under the previous legislation, would have retired on 6 April 2013 would have received a letter from the DWP in January 2012 with the bombshell that she would not get a pension until July 2016.

Think about receiving such a letter. You think you are on the verge of retirement, and the rug has been pulled from under you—no wonder there is a need to pay compensation to those affected. The new pensionable age was three years and three months later than such an individual might have expected. With just 15 months’ notice, what she thought was a contract that she had with the Government was simply ripped up. The implications of all this have left women with no time to put alternative plans in place, despite many having looked forward to imminent retirement.

Then we have the issue of the change supposedly being phased in gradually. We were dealing with a three-month increase in women’s pensionable age for each calendar month that passed. It was simply scandalous that women’s pensionable age was rising so rapidly. That is why today we have the moral duty to immediately correct a wrong. This has gone on for too long. As has been said, sadly, 288,000 WASPI women have died since the campaign started. Another dies every 13 minutes, and a number have no doubt died while we have been having this afternoon’s debate.

We have the ombudsman’s report, and we have to put in place remedies now. The DWP has to play a part in bringing forward proposals for a financial redress scheme before the summer recess, and those proposals must be amendable. Most importantly, any scheme must clear the parliamentary process before the summer recess. We do not have long—less than nine weeks of parliamentary time. This means that within days—I have respect for the Minister, as she knows—the DWP must come forward with proposals. Will the Minister respond appropriately to that demand?

It is now nearly two months since the ombudsman’s report, and we cannot wait any longer. So many of the WASPI women who have suffered as a result of maladministration should have received financial remedy, which is why we must now take action, and this must not be a party political matter. It ought to be about all of us recognising a wrong that needs to be righted, and I appeal to Members from right across the Chamber to recognise our responsibility to do the right thing. Let us make sure that the WASPI women get an apology and get compensation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow my good friend and comrade, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing and leading this debate. She started with some very hard truths that have to be heard, including the simple fact that we would not be debating this subject today if the Government had allocated their own time to discussing the report and how we go forward, which is exactly what should have happened.

I am getting good at the game of anticipating what is in the Government’s prepared text. We will no doubt be told that the pension changes were made for the great cause of equality—that if we punish people equally, it is a great stride towards equality. The simple and brutal dynamic is, however, that women born in the 1950s have been discriminated against throughout their life. It started with growing up and not having a cheque book or being able to hire a television unless they had the express permission of their father or husband. There was the expectation that if they fell pregnant, they were to leave their employment and give up their careers to raise children. As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) said, if they were divorced, the expectation of the financial settlement was that their pensionable rights would be there at the age of 60.

The discrimination against 1950s-born women has been going on for a long time. To say to those women with very little notice, as if it is an episode of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?”, “We don’t want to give you that. We want you to work an additional six years in the name of equality,” is frankly ludicrous. We need to recognise the injustices and discrimination that many 1950s-born women suffered throughout their life.

We also need to recognise that this change was not about some magical equality formula; it was to make women work longer. We need to have a serious debate about the huge difference between someone’s working age expectancy and their life expectancy, because they are two entirely different things, particularly for women whose work involves hugely physical tasks, as in the care sector and the NHS.

[Ian Blackford]

My hon. Friend is making an important point. I want to go back to the Cridland report; I remember meeting Cridland at the time. On the issue of healthy life expectancy, to be told that the DWP did not hold such information because that was the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Care shows the dysfunctionality and the lack of concern about people’s healthy life.

[Chris Stephens]

My right hon. Friend is right. I have always been told that there is joined-up Government here—[Interruption.] Well, I am often told that by Members on the Government Benches, but all too often, hon. Members on the Opposition Benches meet that with the surprised and quizzical look that I just got from the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) on the Labour Front Bench when I said that.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) is correct that we need to consider such things in future, because someone, particularly a woman, who works in a physical environment such as the care sector, the NHS or any other line of work, will not be able to work until they are 66. That is a brutal dynamic.

Several hon. Members, including my good friend the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, mentioned the former Pensions Minister who rose to his feet in the great Westminster Hall debate that was packed to the rafters and said that one of the solutions was for women to apply for an apprenticeship in a new phase of the economy. Those were the most ludicrous comments that I have heard—I have heard many ludicrous comments in my time in this place, but that was No. 1 on the list.

I pay tribute to the WASPI campaigners in Glasgow and Lanarkshire, particularly the great Kathy McDonald and Rosie Dickson, who have campaigned rigorously and vigorously over the last few years, including after the 2019 election, when many people thought that this issue was finished and was not getting anywhere. Those WASPI campaigners—the 1950s-born women who have campaigned consistently on this issue for the last five years in particular—should be commended in this House.

This Parliament has issues to grapple with. Next week we will discuss the report on infected blood; we will have a piece of legislation—rightly so—for the postmasters; and we have the issue before us. I agree with everyone who has spoken so far that we need to conclude this matter before the summer recess, so that we can all say, as a Parliament, that we know and accept the cost. Then we can debate matters going forward. I am very clear about justice for the 1950s-born women, the infected blood community and the postmasters. Those groups should not be blamed for a lack of investment in public infrastructure. The country badly needs those things, and we should not use those wonderful campaigners as an excuse.

I mentioned the great Rosie Dickson. She contacted me earlier with a quote from one of my favourite political philosophers, the great Jimmy Reid, who hailed from Govan, in my Glasgow South West constituency. He said:

“From the very depth of my being, I challenge the right of any man or any group of men, in business or in government, to tell a fellow human being that he or she is expendable.”

The view of many 1950s-born women is that this Government have viewed them as expendable. I want to send a clear message to the House on their behalf, as many of us have today, that they are not expendable. They deserve justice. If justice is delayed, the price tag will go up; I hope the Government recognise that. I hope the Ministers will confirm today that we will see action and justice for those wonderful, brave 1950s-born women.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Maynard]

Members raised questions about changes to the state pension age. As I said, the ombudsman’s report is clear that it cannot consider the impact of changes in the law on state pension age. The changes are set out in primary legislation and, as such, were agreed by Parliament. The announcement in 1993 of the equalisation of the state pension age addressed a long-standing inequality between men and women. The changes were also about maintaining the right balance between the sustainability of the state pension, fairness between generations and ensuring a dignified retirement.

Changes to the state pension age were made in a series of Acts by successive Governments from 1995 onwards, following public consultations and extensive debates in both Houses of Parliament. From the 1940s until April 2010, the state pension age was 60 for women and 65 for men. The decision to equalise the state pension age for men and women dates back to 1995. It was right to address a long-standing inequality between men’s and women’s state pension age. The report of the Pensions Commission in 2005 recommended that the state pension age should increase in a staged way to 68 in the three decades following the completion of equalisation in 2020. A broad consensus on that was achieved largely due to the commission’s evidence base, which showed that state pension age should follow increases in life expectancy to help ensure the affordability and sustainability of the state pension.

Legislation passed in 2007 introduced a series of increases, starting with a state pension age of 66 between 2024 and 2026, and ending with an increase to 68 between 2044 and 2046. As has been observed, the Pensions Act 2011 accelerated the equalisation of women’s state pension age by 18 months and brought forward the increase in men’s and women’s state pension age to 66 by five and a half years, relative to the previous timetables. The changes in the 2011 Act occurred following a public call for evidence and extensive debates in Parliament. During the passage of the Act, Parliament legislated for a concession worth £1.1 billion. The concession reduced the proposed increase in state pension age for more than 450,000 men and women, and meant that no woman saw their state pension age change by more than 18 months relative to the timetable set by the Pensions Act 1995.

[Ian Blackford]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Maynard]

Sorry, I won’t.

During the course of the ombudsman’s investigation, state pension age changes were considered by the courts. In 2019 and 2020, the High Court and Court of Appeal respectively found no fault with the actions of DWP. The courts made clear that under successive Governments dating back to 1995, the action taken was entirely lawful and did not discriminate on any grounds. During those proceedings, the Court of Appeal held that the High Court was entitled to conclude as a fact that there had been

“adequate and reasonable notification given by the publicity campaigns implemented by the Department over a number of years”.

We recognise the importance of providing information in good time about the state pension age to help individuals to plan for their retirement. Since 1995, the Government have used a range of methods to inform people about the increases in state pension age, including the provision of detailed and personalised information. The methods have included leaflets explaining the legislative changes, pensions education campaigns, press advertising and direct mailing exercises to millions of people. People have been able to request personalised state pension information since the 1980s.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jo Churchill]

Happy birthday! I am sure my hon. Friend’s family and small children will be wishing him well from Stoke.

As has been outlined, there is great work going on. I met the Skills Minister only last week to discuss the better join-up that is happening, and we are really focused on allowing people to progress in work. Allowing them to move up and move on, and to stay and succeed in work, is just as important as getting that first job.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

On 14 September 2023, I led a Backbench Business debate in this House, supported by the hon. Members for Moray (Douglas Ross) and for Easington (Grahame Morris). We asked the Government to take action on footballers with brain-related injuries. The Minister who responded spoke warmly, and the then Minister at DWP, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), indicated that there would be a meeting for the three of us, on a cross-party basis, with the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. I wrote to the Minister on 18 January and 13 March, and there was a Westminster Hall debate on 24 April, but nothing has yet happened. Can we get that meeting with the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to make sure that we get footballers with brain injuries the support they need?

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Mims Davies)]

I have already met the chair of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council in my role as the Minister for Disabled People, and I will continue to engage on whatever is required. To be clear, the council is considering any connection between neurodegenerative diseases and professional sportspeople, and will publish its findings once the investigation is complete. I have also met the Sports Minister and will be keen to share this issue with colleagues. I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman.

Women’s State Pension Age

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

That is once again a question about the timing, and I have given a clear response on that. I have given an assurance to the House that there will be no undue delay in our approach to these matters. That is the answer to the hon. Lady’s question.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

May I say to the Secretary of State that he needs to read the room? Let us remember that the ombudsman has said there has been maladministration. There is consensus across the Chamber that compensation should be paid. This is about women who paid national insurance in anticipation of receiving a pension, who were hit with the bombshell that their pension was being deferred—in some cases, by up to six years—with only 15 months’ written notice. Can we imagine what would happen in this place if it was announced that private sector pensions were being put back by six years? Rightly, there would be outrage, and there should be outrage about what happened to the WASPI women.

This was an entitlement taken away from women, who had a reasonable expectation of retiring denied to them. The Government should have recognised the failings and should have compensated those 3.8 million women years ago. Now that we have the determination of maladministration, let us ensure that this is not another Horizon or contaminated blood story and that the Government come back at pace with firm proposals that the House can discuss after the Easter recess.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Can people focus on their questions, please? That would be really useful.

State Pension Age: Women

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to improve transitional arrangements for women born on or after 6 April 1951 who have been adversely affected by the acceleration of the increase to the state pension age.

Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you and everybody else in the Chamber a happy St Andrew’s day for tomorrow? With your forbearance, I will just remark that today is the 50th anniversary of the mighty Hibernian football club defeating Napoli—with Dino Zoff in goal—5-0 at Easter Road, ensuring that they went on to the next stage of European football.

I am delighted to open the debate and to move the SNP’s Opposition day motion calling for mitigation for women born in the 1950s. We are here in support of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign and its efforts to secure fairness for women affected by the acceleration in their retirement age. I am saddened that we are having yet another debate on this issue, but the fundamental fact is that the Government should have taken action to mitigate the increase in women’s pensionable age. There must be action. The 3.8 million affected women have waited simply far too long for effective mitigation.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman will recall that we both called for action well over two years ago when he and I were our parties’ respective pensions spokespeople. Does he share my deep frustration that we have still had absolutely nothing?

[Ian Blackford]

I welcome that intervention, and I certainly look back fondly on the period when he and I were holding the Government to account. When the evidence is before us that the women did not get appropriate notice and that the acceleration is happening so quickly, it is an absolute outrage that we have had nothing from this Government.

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

This is an important debate on an important issue—I also attended the debate in Westminster Hall last week—but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is wrong to say that the Government have taken no action? In 2011, they ensured that no one waited for an extended period beyond 18 months.

[Ian Blackford]

I have heard about spinning, but let me deal with the facts. The hon. and learned Lady refers to the fact that the Government brought in the Pensions Act 2011, but that increased the acceleration. To say that the Government have mitigated the situation is a distortion of reality, and Government Members should stop spinning and tell the 3.8 million affected women the truth: the pensionable age is increasing by three months per calendar month. That is the reality. The Government should be utterly ashamed of trying to argue that they have mitigated things, which demonstrates that some Conservative Members simply do not get what is going on.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The tragedy is that it falls to us to speak for the individuals who have suffered. I have a constituent in Dolgellau who was born 24 hours too late and now has to work for an extra two years and three months. The change has led to individual tragedies.

[Ian Blackford]

I am grateful for that intervention; I cannot really add much to what the hon. Lady says, because she demonstrates the ridiculous nature of the situation and why the Government must listen.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

rose—

[Ian Blackford]

I will take one more intervention, but then I must make some progress.

[Tim Loughton]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who knows that I support this cause. Although I cannot be here for the rest of the debate due to its late start, if there is a vote, I will certainly support this innocuous motion. The measures taken in 2011 actually benefited men just as much as women, but this is very much a women-focused injustice. Some 33% of men approaching retirement expect to rely on just a state pension, but the percentage for women is as much as 53%, which is why this issue is so important to them and to all of us.

[Ian Blackford]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention. He has been resolute on this matter over the past couple of years, and I know that the women are grateful for his support; I hope that he will be back for the vote later on. I am glad that he referred to the motion in front of us, because we had a choice of all sorts of things to lay before the House today, but the motion is laid in such a way—simply calling on the Government to put mitigation in place—that all the Members of Parliament who have shown support for the WASPI women can support it. Now is our only chance to show that we can stand up and do something for those women.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Ian Blackford]

I know that many Members want to speak, so I will make some progress and let people in later.

This is about women who have paid national insurance in anticipation of receiving a pension and have been hit with the bombshell that their pension was being deferred—in some cases by up to six years—with only 15 months’ written notice. Members should dwell on that. They were looking forward to retirement, but they received a letter telling them that they were going to get as little as 15 months’ notice of an increase in their pension age. Can anybody on the Government Benches defend that? Will anybody stand up and tell the House and the public that giving someone 15 months’ written notice of an increase in their pension age is acceptable? Is anyone prepared to do that? If so, I will happily give way.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

We recognise people’s concerns about the notice, but to rectify the situation requires public funds. In a previous debate, the right hon. Gentleman said that his party’s position was to pay for that from the surplus in the national insurance fund. Is that still his party’s policy?

[Ian Blackford]

Well, there we are. Given the opportunity to defend the indefensible, we again get spin. Let me make things absolutely crystal clear. The national insurance fund is sitting at a surplus in the region of £30 billion, and that surplus has been generated by the women who have paid national insurance. All that we have asked for is that the women be given what they are entitled to receive. A pension should be seen as a right, but the Government have changed the terms and conditions of that right without consulting those who have paid in for a pension. As many of the campaigners have said, “We paid in, you pay out.”

This campaign is at the heart of SNP policy. We have long fought for the Government to rectify the shambles and give the WASPI women the pensions they rightfully deserve. I speak on behalf of SNP Members when I say that we will never rest until justice is delivered for the women affected. The Government have failed time and time again to address the injustices of a lack of notice for the acceleration of the state pension age. There is an opportunity today for the Government to admit that effective notice was not given of an increase in pensionable age. The process of increasing pensionable age must be slowed down.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is speaking with his customary passion on this issue, which he says is at the heart of Scottish National party thinking. I am not an expert on devolved powers, but my understanding from reading the legislation is that the Scottish Government have the powers to rectify this issue if they so wish. He chastises the Treasury Bench for a lack of action, but we have seen no action from Holyrood that could give a lead to the Government.

[Ian Blackford]

There we have it. Does anybody here think the Scottish Government have power to introduce pensions? [Hon. Members: “No!”] I will tell the House why: it is because we do not have the powers. It is about time that Conservative Members stopped creating the impression that we have that power.

Let me be absolutely crystal clear. Power over pensions is reserved to Westminster. There is a bit of a clue, because pensions are paid out of national insurance. I would love the Scottish Government to have control over national insurance. Let me make it clear that if we had control over pensions in Scotland, we would make sure that the WASPI women in Scotland got what is rightfully theirs.

[Simon Hoare]

The Scotland Act 2016 does not preclude the right hon. Gentleman—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

There is a very simple answer. I have respect for the hon. Gentleman, as he knows, and he should go back and read the 2016 Act, because it is crystal clear that we cannot introduce new benefits, nor can we introduce payments based on age. The fundamental point that needs to be made is that we are talking about the state pension in the United Kingdom, which is a reserved matter. It ill behoves any Conservative Member to try to create the impression that the people of Scotland and elsewhere have powers that we do not have. If Conservative Members want the Scottish Government to have the powers to fix this, then give us the powers. Give us control over pensions and we will fix it tomorrow.

[Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman has asked us to tell him what powers the Scottish Government have to help in this situation. Well, under section 28 of the Scotland Act they can create a new benefit, and they can make that argument on the basis of, but not because of, old age—the Department for Work and Pensions has accepted that argument. Further, section 26 allows the Scottish Government to make short-term payments to people who need them,

“to avoid a risk to the well-being of an individual.”

The Scottish Government have the powers. They choose not to use them. [Interruption.]

[Ian Blackford]

The hon. Gentleman should—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I want to hear the right hon. Gentleman. I was about to try to quieten down the House in order that I might be able to hear him, but I realise that most of the noise is coming from those behind him. He is making an important speech, and those behind him are trying to support him, but they are being a bit noisy about it.

[Ian Blackford]

The simple fact is that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government do not have the ability to introduce new benefits based on age. What is really important, and the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) should reflect on this, is that this is a failure of UK Government policy. Nobody can get away from that. Are the Conservatives in Scotland really saying that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government should again clear up the mess left by this Conservative Government? The Scottish Government have already spent £400 million mitigating the worst effects of Tory austerity.

That is the reality—[Interruption.] I see the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) chuntering. Maybe he could answer this question. Was he one of those who signed the WASPI pledge? Did he say to his voters that he would stand up for the WASPI women? If he is true to his word, he has to come through the Lobby with us this afternoon, or his words will be shown to be meaningless and a fraud on the people of his constituency.

[Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I am concerned that the right hon. Gentleman is not willing to listen to Government Front Benchers. I am sympathetic to the WASPI women, of whom there are nearly 10,000 on the Isle of Wight, but the reality is that he can do something about it, but he will not. He is not taking interventions because he would rather score political points than fix this problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

That is pathetic, absolutely pathetic, because it demonstrates well and truly that the hon. Gentleman has not been listening. I have listened to Government Front Benchers in debate after debate in which they have been given the opportunity to do something about this. We introduced costed proposals in the last Parliament. The Minister, like countless Ministers before him, wants to sit on his hands. He wants this issue to go away, and I can tell him that this issue is not going away.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Ian Blackford]

I will make progress before giving way again.

The Government have an opportunity today to do something about it. I remind the House that 250 Members of Parliament have presented petitions on behalf of WASPI women. That is 250 Members of Parliament who I expect to go through the Aye Lobby tonight. There is no point signing a petition unless they are prepared to go through the Lobby, otherwise they have duped the WASPI women. I trust that no Member would wish to do that.

Our motion is a simple one. It calls for mitigation. It is written in a way that allows all Members of Parliament to recognise the injustice that women born in the 1950s are facing, and it allows the Government to bring forward proposals. Let me state at the beginning of this debate that if parliamentary democracy means anything, the House must divide on this motion. The Government must either support mitigation, which we are calling on them to do, or they must have the guts to vote against it.

Now is the time for Members on both sides of the House to signal that we need to put mitigation in place. Let us stand up today for 1950s women, because I believe parliamentary arithmetic is on our side.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Blackford]

I will give way one more time.

[Mr Cunningham]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He and I have been involved in a lot of debates. I think the Government can find this money. It is no good their trying to blame the Scottish Parliament. This is a UK issue, full stop. I assure him that I will be backing him in the Lobby today.

[Ian Blackford]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hoped he would be backing me, and he has been resolute on this issue over a long period of time. He is absolutely right; we can find money on the magic money tree for Northern Ireland and, as I said in the Budget debate only last week, we found £70 billion for quantitative easing last year. A £70 billion cheque was written for the Bank of England to put into the financial markets, so do not tell us that the Government cannot find the money. Of course, the answer to the question is that the money is there because the national insurance fund is sitting on a surplus.

[James Cartlidge]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Blackford]

I must make some progress. I will not take interventions for a while.

The moment has never been so opportune for Members on both sides of the House to come together to do the right thing and to call for this long-standing error to be corrected. Conservative Members made a pledge to the WASPI women as recently as June 2017. Scottish Tory Members—I will not name them, but they know who they are—signed the WASPI pledge before the general election and claimed to be prepared to act against party orders on the issue. There has been a deafening silence from them on this matter since the election, and the heckling has gone.

The House might be interested to know that, in the constituencies represented by Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament, a total of 84,000 women are affected by this Government’s legislative changes. I ask this question of the Scottish Tories, in a friendly spirit, particularly to those who supported the WASPI women during the campaign: will they have the courage to join us in the Lobby this afternoon, or will they turn their backs on the 84,000 WASPI women in their own constituencies?

I flag up to them page 62 of the Scottish Conservative manifesto, which states:

“We will also ensure that the state pension age reflects increases in life expectancy, while protecting each generation fairly.”

So, today, Scots Tories, do the right thing.

[Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)]

The nub of the matter is that people are living longer and contributions were calculated on the basis of people not living so long. Although I sympathise with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, the debt burden would be increased on our children and grandchildren, and that is grossly unfair.

[Ian Blackford]

I am stunned. [Interruption.] I am speechless, because we should put that out in a leaflet. We are not talking about tea and sympathy; we are talking about WASPI women having to rely on benefits, and they are going to get nothing from the hon. Gentleman—that is crystal clear. It is obvious where he stands on this issue.

Today, these Tories should deliver the generational fairness they promised in their manifesto. I sincerely welcome the backing of some 37 Conservative MPs who expressed support for WASPI women during the general election—37 Tory MPs signed the pledge. We will be watching this afternoon, as will the WASPI women, and these MPs will be expected to do what they promised in the election campaign and stand up for the WASPI women. That support stretches from the Tory Back Benches across to the Benches of the Democratic Unionist party—to our friends from the DUP. Page 9 of the DUP manifesto contained a pledge to protect pensions, with the announcement that the DUP would:

“Support an end to the unfair treatment of women pensioners”.

I call on DUP Members to deliver on their pledges made to the WASPI women.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I am disappointed at the tone that has been set in this debate. Despite the fact that we have a motion that could command widespread support, the tone of the debate has not been as I expected. Let me make something clear: we made a manifesto pledge on this issue, and the reason why I am here as my party’s spokesman is that we do support this and we will go through the Lobby on it. However, the WASPI women would be better served if we had a debate that was not divisive and not about point scoring, because there is no party—whether Labour, the Liberals or the Conservatives—that has not caused some of this problem.

[Ian Blackford]

I am grateful that DUP Members will be going through the Lobby, but let me point out that we are trying to set out the facts of the arguments in this House. These women have for too long been let down by politicians, so let us use the opportunity we have today to give them the result they deserve. Thanks to freedom of information requests, we learned that the Department for Work and Pensions only began writing to women born between April 1950 and April 1955 in April 2009, and did not complete the process until February 2012. So it was writing to women to inform them about changes in legislation that go back to 1995 but it did not start the formal notification period for 14 years. Taking 14 years to begin informing women that a pension they had paid into was being deferred is quite something. Can we imagine the outcry if a private pension provider was behaving in such a way? There would be an outcry in this House and, no doubt, legal action. When we consider that entitlement to a state pension is earned through national insurance contributions, where many women have made contributions over 40 years, this is stunning.

A woman born on 6 April 1953 who, under the previous legislation, would have retired on 6 April 2013 would have received a letter from the DWP in January 2012 with the bombshell that she would not be retiring then—she would be retiring in July 2016. That is three years and three months later than she might have expected, and this is with 15 months’ notice. That is what Conservative Members have been defending, and it is no wonder the WASPI women are insulted. We are talking about 15 months’ notice before what they thought was a contract they had with the Government was simply to be ripped up.

A pensions White Paper published in December 1993 stated:

“In developing its proposals for implementing the change the Government has paid particular attention to the need to give people enough time to plan ahead and to phase the change in gradually”.

Not much there that I would disagree with, but when you accept the need for people to plan ahead, you need to write to them and tell them.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I am secretary of the all-party group on state pension inequality for women, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. A serious point for WASPI women is the number of women in their 60s who did not receive a letter. Their pensions were deferred until they were 63, even though they should have received them at 60, but they were not told at the time of those deferments that they should have received them three years earlier. This is another scandal about how the DWP has not been honest in those letters. Does he agree that that is something else the Government should be looking to address?

[Ian Blackford]

Again, I am grateful for that intervention, and the hon. Gentleman is correct in what he says. This is yet another clear example of why there is absolutely no excuse for not collectively taking action today. We have a choice: we can recognise the injustices that the women have faced or we can sit on our hands and do nothing. This is about morality. It is about doing the right thing. The Minister can look up to the skies, but it is not going to remove the problem for him. I do not want to wait until the end of the debate and then get another 10 minutes of ignoring the reality of what is going on. We have had that for too long and it has to stop—it has to stop today.

The intent was there in the 1993 White Paper, but it was 2009 before any formal letters went out. Then we have the issue of phasing this in gradually. What we are dealing with is an increase in a woman’s pensionable age by three months for each calendar month that passes. It is simply scandalous that a woman’s pensionable age is increasing so rapidly. It is indefensible and it is not within the spirit outlined in the Government’s White Paper in 1993.

In October 2002, while giving evidence to a Select Committee, the DWP suggested that the role of the state was

“to provide clear and accurate information about what pensions will provide so that people will understand how much they can expect at retirement before it’s too late to do something about it.”

How does “before it’s too late to do something about it” equate with 15 months’ notice? How can the Minister, and how can anyone who is not going to support our motion today, support that lack of notice? It has gone quiet now, has it not?

[James Cartlidge]

The right hon. Gentleman has to find a way to pay for this and he did say that he would still use the national insurance fund. Ruth Kelly, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said the following in 2003:

“The national insurance fund provides security for those contributory benefits. It is ring-fenced and cannot be used for other Government expenditure.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 231WH.]

[Ian Blackford]

The hon. Gentleman is going to have to do better. Of course this is ring-fenced—it is for pensions. Pay it out! That is what the Government are being asked to do. As I was saying, no formal communication took place until 2009 and the task was not completed until 2012. The DWP has to take responsibility for this failure to communicate and, crucially, for the lack of time that women have had to prepare for an increase in their state pension age. Rather than recognising that women deserved to be communicated with directly, the DWP issued leaflets headlined “Equality in state pension age”. Can anybody in this Chamber remember them? No, I do not recall seeing them either. That is no surprise, as DWP-commissioned research in 2004 highlighted that only 2% of respondents mentioned that they had been notified of changes to their pension age via a leaflet. That is the responsibility that the Government took to inform people. Frankly, it is an insult that the Government at the time thought that changes that affect a woman’s retirement age could be delivered with a leaflet. That was an abdication of responsibility and we have to take responsibility for that. We should all receive an annual statement from the DWP on our expected entitlement, just as we do from private pension providers.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ian Blackford]

I apologise to my hon. Friend, but I have to move on because of the time.

The failure to communicate was highlighted by a 2004 DWP report called “Public awareness of State Pension age equalisation”, which stated that only 43%—less than half—of all women affected by the increase in state pensionable age were aware of the impact on them. If the Government accept that women were not informed in a timely manner and therefore did not have time to react, why do they not accept their responsibilities? I am watching the Minister and he is looking away. He is not interested because he simply does not want to hear the facts. When will he accept his responsibility for the WASPI women and engage in a constructive manner?

The Government sent out 17.8 million letters on automatic state pension forecasts to men and women between May 2003 and November 2006 but—wait for it—the letters did not contain any information about state pension age. You simply could not make this up. What they did say was:

“If you want to know more about the changes to State Pension age, please see Pensions for women—Your guide… See page 10 for details about how you can get a copy of this guide.”

That, Minister, was no way to convey information. What should have been communicated was accurate, clear and transparent information. It was yet another failure to do that by the Minister’s Department—another massive failure to communicate from Government. What is he going to do about it? Nothing.

On 23 November 2016, in answer to a written question I submitted, the previous Pensions Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), stated:

“The Government has committed not to change the legislation relating to State Pension age for those people who are within 10 years of reaching it. This provides these individuals with the certainty they need to plan for the future…We recognise the importance of ensuring people are aware of any changes to their State Pension age”.

I welcomed that statement, but that recognition of the need to ensure that people are aware of changes was not afforded to 1950s women. If that statement from the previous Minister in 2016 is to have any credibility, the current Minister has to accept that the women affected were not given that courtesy and the Government need to correct that today.

I shall set the socioeconomic scene in which female pensioners find themselves under this Tory Government. Only 52% of women are adequately saving for retirement, compared with 60% of men. Female pensioners have a net weekly income that is approximately 85% of that of their male counterparts. More than two thirds of pensioners who are living in poverty are women. In August, the Institute for Fiscal Studies revealed that the increase in state pension age has left 1.1 million women £50 a week worse off. The IFS looked into the Government’s reform of the state pension, which was needed to account for a longer-living population, and found that the move to increase the eligibility age for women from 60 to 63 meant that income poverty rates were “pushed up substantially” from 15% to 20%. That is just as a result of the increase in the pension age from 60 to 63. Is the Minister going to defend that? Are the Tory MPs from Scotland, bearing in mind their constituents, going to defend that? There has been an 8.7% rise in the chance of a woman aged 60 to 63 being in absolute poverty.

In my constituency of Ross, Skye and Lochaber, there are 5,400 women who were born in the 1950s and are affected by the changes to the state pension age in 1995, 2007 and 2011. Throughout Scotland, the figure is a staggering 347,000. New freedom-of-information figures have revealed that although almost 4,600 maladministration complaints relating to WASPI women have been received by officials at the DWP, only six investigations have been concluded. The process of dealing with the complaints has taken so long partly because the DWP has only three staff members dealing with the complaints. Three staff members dealing with 4,600 complaints—that is how seriously the Government are taking this issue. The delays have been so long that the pensions ombudsman has now forced the independent case examiner to streamline the process. What a farce! That is an indication that the Government simply do not take their responsibilities to the WASPI women seriously—another let down from this Government for 1950s WASPI women. The Government have a commitment to the WASPI women and should stop playing fast and loose with their rights.

In a Westminster Hall debate on 5 July, the Minister talked about employment or retraining opportunities for 1950s women, stating—wait for it—that the Government had “extended apprenticeship opportunities”. There we have it: women who in some cases have worked for more than 40 years can go on apprenticeship schemes. Later in his speech, the Minister claimed:

“I realise it is not going down well”.—[Official Report, 5 July 2017; Vol. 626, c. 143WH.]

It is little wonder, because 1950s women do not want apprenticeship schemes; they want their pensions.

Women born in the 1950s do not want to be pushed on to benefits, but that is what is happening. Between August 2013 and August 2017, the number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance or universal credit across all ages fell by 42%. We welcome that, but the number of 60s-plus women claiming a benefit rose by 9,500—a 115% increase—while the number of women aged over 60 claiming employment and support allowance increased by 121,000. That is a massive increase of 413%—that is the reality of the sharp increase in the state pension age for women. The reality is that women are being denied their pension and this Government are forcing them on to benefits. The Minister has been ridiculed by, among others, the Financial Times, in which he was described as one in

“a line of pensions ministers with no interest in pensions”.

He certainly has no interest in women’s pensions. Today, the Minister must start to take an interest and do the right thing by putting mitigation in place.

It is nothing short of a disgrace that the Government found no remedy for the WASPI women in last week’s Budget. The Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box and extolled the virtues of spending billions on Brexit, but he failed to address the injustice faced by female pensioners. Transitional measures to mitigate the issue would cost significantly less than the UK Government’s £30 billion figure. Last year, independent research commissioned by the SNP showed that the cost would be £8 billion. We can find billions for Brexit and billions for Trident, but not one penny for our pensioners, who are treated with contempt by the Government. It is bitterly disappointing that the Chancellor did not use the Budget to support the WASPI women. Once again, it falls to the SNP, by securing this debate, to be a voice for this campaign in the House and to press the UK Government to do the decent thing. They have got it wrong—admit it and fix it now.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

I think the hon. Lady is missing the point. I am not saying that to my WASPI campaigners. I am not full of righteous anger, so high on my high horse that my ears pop, like the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). If we are to go out on a limb to that degree, we must have a credible policy. We must be able to say, “This is how we are going to pay for it.”

[Ian Blackford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Cartlidge]

I do not think that I should give way again, but I will, because the hon. Gentleman was very generous to me. However, others wish to speak, so I shall wind up my speech immediately afterwards.

[Ian Blackford]

We have tabled a very straightforward motion that asks the Government to introduce mitigation measures. The hon. Gentleman has asked for costed proposals, but we gave him one last year in the Landman report, on deferring the increase in women’s pensionable age. It would have cost £8 billion. That is one option. We have done our work; the Government have not done theirs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

I am sorry but no, I will not. I need to finish.

[Ian Blackford]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is important. I pointed out earlier in the debate that the SNP published the Landman report last year and it was fully costed. The hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) has made an error by saying that our proposal has not been costed. It has been costed precisely and she should recognise that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

That is not a point of order, it is a point of debate, and it has simply reduced the time available for other people to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Dinenage]

We have taken forward transitional arrangements. It is insulting for Members from parties that have played their part in getting us to where we are today somehow to wash their hands of the matter. I will go on to make a few points, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

Those who are able to work should support those who are not, confident in the expectation of similar support when they reach retirement. Today’s workers provide the support for today’s pensioners, and that is why it is so important that we have the right balance of the contributions that are paid in at present with the pensions that are being withdrawn, and that we adjust pension ages to maintain that balance. Women who retire today can still expect to receive the state pension for 24 and a half years, on average—almost three years longer than men.

As was outlined by the Pensions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), the Department for Work and Pensions has communicated the timetable for changes to the state pension age since they were first set in train 22 years ago. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) pointed out, in response to concerns raised during debates on the Pensions Act 2011 in both Houses, we introduced the £1.1 billion concession that has been mentioned, which staggered the changes and ensured that no one would wait more than 18 months for their pensions, compared with under the previous timetable.

Any further concession would cost significantly more. It would involve asking people of working age—more specifically, today’s younger people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) mentioned—to pay even more for it. Those outcomes simply cannot be justified.

[Ian Blackford]

Will the Minister give way?

[Caroline Dinenage]

I am not going to give way to the right hon. Gentleman. He made criticisms in relation to the Budget and the Chancellor, but he went on to speak for a considerable time today, taking more than 40 minutes for himself and depriving Back Benchers of the chance to have their say. I will make some progress—[Interruption.] I want to address some of the issues that have been raised by SNP Members, so if the right hon. Gentleman would like to listen, I will do so.

As has previously been stated—my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) pointed this out—if the Scottish National party disagrees with any of the UK Government’s welfare reforms, it has the power to do something about it in Scotland.

The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) has mentioned on several occasions that the Scottish National party’s Westminster parliamentary group published a report by Landman Economics, which modelled—[Interruption.] I thought he would be keen to listen to this. The report modelled the impact of a number of options for compensating women affected by the 2011 Act. Of these, the Scottish National party’s preferred option was to abandon that Act entirely, returning us to the timetable under the Pensions Act 1995.

The SNP-commissioned report put the cost of this option at £7.9 billion for the period between 2016-17 to 2020-21. As it stands, that is simply unaffordable, but it has the double misfortune of also being wrong. The Landman report significantly underestimates the full costs of returning to the 1995 Act’s timetable. The Government estimate that the cost over that period would be about £14 billion—nearly double—and that figure includes the impact of lost revenue from tax and national insurance, which the Landman report does not fully take into account.

What is worse is that the SNP’s position applies the costs only to the five-year window between 2016-17 and 2020-21. The costs beyond this horizon are simply not included in the option put forward. If the changes we are implementing did not happen, the actual costs to working-age people would be more than £30 billion over an extended period, which is equivalent to over £1,100 per household. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would like to justify that to his constituents.

The Scottish National party has also suggested using the national insurance fund to pay for the cost of scrapping the Pensions Act 2011. However, that is not the intended use of the fund, and it is worth reiterating that today’s national insurance contributions fund today’s pensions, with an excess of only two months’ outgoing payments at any given time.

The new state pension is actually much more generous for many women, who were historically worse off under the old system. By 2030, over 3 million women stand to gain an average of £550 extra per year as a result of these changes. The acceleration of the increase in the state pension age for both women and men is necessary to ensure the state pension system’s sustainability in the light of increasing life expectancy and more pressure on public resources. In fact, by 2035, there will be more than twice as many people aged 100 and over as there are now.

Failure to act in the light of such compelling evidence would be reckless. Given the increasing financial pressure that I have described, we cannot and should not unpick a policy that has been in place for 22 years. It is simply not affordable, especially when we take into account the fact that the average woman reaching state pension age will get a higher state pension income over her lifetime than an average woman reaching state pension age at any earlier point.

It is important to appreciate the modern lived experience of later life in the 21st century, which has altered significantly since the inception of the state pension in the 1940s. Longer life, better health and continued activity in later decades are reshaping the profile and participation of older people in our society. This includes sustaining work and other economic activity as those over 60 continue to learn, earn, contribute and participate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have just had an impassioned debate, and a clear and decisive result. This House has determined that the Government should bring in mitigation for the WASPI women. I am seeking your guidance as to what we now need to do to empower the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to come to the Chamber, recognise parliamentary democracy, and put in place the Government’s plans to respect the motion that the House has passed.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I think that the most useful thing I can do is read out the written statement made by the Leader of the House on 26 October in which she updated the House on the Government’s approach to Opposition day debates. She said:

“Where a motion tabled by an Opposition party has been approved by the House, the relevant Minister will respond to the resolution of the House by making a statement no more than 12 weeks after the debate. This is to allow thoughtful consideration of the points that have been raised, facilitate collective discussion across Government, especially on cross-cutting issues, and to outline any actions that have been taken.”—[Official Report, 26 October 2017; Vol. 630, c. 12WS.]

I think that it is very clear what the Government will do. The right hon. Gentleman may well wish to question the Leader of the House further tomorrow, during the exchanges on the business statement, about when there might be a response from the Government.

State Pension Age for Women

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is right that there is an arithmetical inevitability about this matter. That is a tribute to the WASPI campaign and the way in which campaigners focused on people who stood for Parliament and gained their support. Given the timescales and the people we are talking about, the sooner something comes forward, the better, because the women cannot afford to wait another five years until the end of this Parliament. I urge the Minister, as my hon. Friend has suggested, to come up with proposals sooner rather than later.

As we have seen following the election, Ministers have changed their minds on a range of matters, so why should the WASPI campaign be any different? Anyone who has spoken to campaigners cannot help but be moved by the compelling case that they make. I have met many of them and they have told me about how they have been affected. Many have received little or no notice at all about changes to their pension age, forcing them to reconsider retirement plans or, worse still, rejoin the jobs market some time after they thought that they would not need to work again.

I have heard from constituents who volunteered to take redundancy to save the jobs of younger colleagues on the false assumption they would receive their pension at an earlier date. They deserve better. It is no longer acceptable when we hear the Government say that change is unaffordable. As we have heard from various Members already today, we need only to look at what has happened in Northern Ireland in the past week to know that where there is a political imperative, money can be found.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

rose—

[Justin Madders]

I will not give way any more.

What about the cost in unintended consequences? Constituents have told me that the position they find themselves in now has had a detrimental impact on their mental health. That has a cost to the public purse as well. If the moral and financial arguments are not persuasive, perhaps the Minister will reflect on the message that this sends out not only to the WASPI women, but to everyone.

The state pension is part of the social contract that the Government have with the people of this country. It is an important part of the state’s guarantee to people that if they pay their taxes they will be looked after in their old age or when they fall ill or otherwise face misfortune. If people do not trust the Government to deliver on that promise, we are heading down a road that we will come to regret.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I was going to congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on bringing this subject to the House again, but I actually find myself wishing that he had not, because I cannot believe that we are still debating it. I am absolutely scunnered with banging on about the injustice to this group of women. The fact that we have to have another debate is an absolute disgrace and says a lot about the Government and their priorities.

We are at the stage where these debates are almost scripted for me. I know exactly what is going to come back from the Government Benches and, like most people here, I know what I am going to say. We have heard the Government argue, “Well, the 1995 Act gave 15 years’ notice. That is exactly what the Turner commission recommended, so what is the problem?” Let me say it as clearly as possible: the problem is that nobody knew about these changes. The first letters were not sent out until 2009—14 years after the changes. To put that in context, I have been alive only eight years longer than that. That is 14 years in which consecutive Governments sat on their backside and did nothing, and the Government are now complaining that women are—quite rightly—angry that they never knew about the changes.

The thing is that the Government did not tell us about this issue with their hands in the air and say, “Aye, you’re right, sorry. We got that a wee bit wrong.” The information came from the hard-working women behind me in the Gallery through freedom of information requests and constant letters to the Government. The Government have been nothing but obstructive and downright stubborn the whole way through this campaign and since the issue was raised—so much so that the SNP actually went away and re-did its own work. We used our own money to commission our own report, which shows that this issue could plausibly be sorted and the legislation could at least be amended a wee bit.

All it would take is £8 billion spread across five years. That is a substantial amount, but as was said by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham)—I had the pleasure of serving with him on the Work and Pensions Committee—the idea that the Government will genuinely stand in front of everyone here and say, “We can’t afford it,” is quite frankly laughable. It has been pointed out many times that they found £1 billion for a deal to cling on to power, but they say they cannot find the money to give women the pensions they are due.

[Ian Blackford]

My hon. Friend is a very reasonable person; let us see whether we can help the Government. We know that the national insurance fund has a surplus of £30 billion. Let us lay to rest the myth that there is a black hole. The Government Actuary’s Department’s own figures suggest that that fund will remain in surplus until at least the mid-2030s. May I suggest to the Government that they use that surplus? Women have paid in to the fund; let us make sure they get their pension, and let us do it today.

[Mhairi Black]

Not surprisingly, I agree with that statement. I heard some muttering from the Government Benches about how that is a lot of rubbish. Let me just say this: if that is a lot of rubbish in their heads, they should bring their plans forward. They do not get to criticise other parties’ plans when they have not even bothered to come up with their own.

Like I say, the debate is almost scripted, because I know that the Minister will say at some point, “We did look at this in 2011 and we did make the concessions at the time.” I guarantee that the Minister will say that. Let my reply be this: that is not how the world works. That is not how society works. If citizens come to them with a time-sensitive problem and say, “This still isn’t working,” it is the Government’s job to listen. It is not the job of the Government to look back and go, “We talked about that a couple of years ago, so I’m afraid there’s no movement there whatsoever.” If that is the case, I am looking forward to the next time the Army needs new funds, the next time this Parliament needs doing up, and so on. The idea that we cannot afford it is ridiculous.

Fundamentally, the worst part of this whole issue is that these women are targeted. The Government like to sit back and act as though these women are just unfortunate casualties of austerity and say, “Our hands are tied; we can’t do anything.” That is not the case; they are targeted. These are women who have suffered pay inequality and social inequality all their lives. We even heard earlier that women were told to use their husbands’ pensions. Society has changed a lot since then. What are we doing for these women now? And what about lesbian couples—women who are in equal marriages with other women? Are they just expected to bear the brunt? [Interruption.] It is not even a double whammy; it is a quadruple whammy at this point.

I am amazed that I feel the need to point this out. These women are blameless. They are guilty of nothing. They have done nothing wrong other than, for instance, not reading the back pages of the Financial Times in 1995. The only other two things they are guilty of are being born in the ’50s and being women. The Government do not get to plead that this is all in the name of equality; when only women are suffering under their definition of equality, it is time for them to reassess that definition.

Fundamentally, Governments should look after their people. When their people are coming to them and saying there is problem, it is their job to fix it. Let me put a little reality into this. I got an email today from a WASPI woman. I cannot remember where she is from—it is somewhere in England. She told me that her friend committed suicide after seeing the general election result because she could not face what would happen to her. Citizens are committing suicide over an issue that could be solved just like that—an issue that the Government could do a U-turn on at any given moment.

The Government managed to fork out a magical £1 billion to cling on to power; they must really want the job of having to fix these things. When they can find £1 billion for self-interest, they do not get to claim that money is the reason they cannot help.

The Government quite rightly dropped their manifesto pension plans—two of them in total, I think—because they saw how damaging, unworkable and unpopular they would be. That was wise. In actual fact, I have a bit of respect for them for being able to go, “Aye, we got that wrong, guys, so we’re pulling back. We’re listening to you.” I say, I hope for the last time: just drop one more plan. Realise that this issue is cross-party and affects people from different backgrounds and different areas. These are people’s mothers, aunties, sisters and cousins. Please do the right thing. Do the job of the Government—fix the problem and start looking after people.

State Pensions: UK Expatriates

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who made a gracious and fine speech about why this House, working cross-party, must deal with this issue. I commend all the other Members who have spoken in this debate, too. Let me say to the Minister that I suspect this is the last time in this Parliament that we will be discussing pensions matters. I have always enjoyed our spats across the Dispatch Box. I know he is an honourable and decent man, and I ask him to reflect carefully on all the speeches made this afternoon and to give us an indication that the Government are prepared, on the basis of affordability, to deal with this very real injustice that too many people are facing.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate on a motion standing in my name and that of the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale). I am also grateful but saddened by the fact that we have to be here today debating this issue, which is fundamentally about fairness and which should, as has been said, have been resolved many decades ago.

The motion addresses the rights of just over 1 million UK pensioners who live overseas. We are talking about those who have paid national insurance on the basis that the payments made to the UK Exchequer entitle an individual to a UK state pension. When someone makes national insurance contributions, building up their entitlement, there is nothing that suggests that their right to a full pension will be determined by where they choose to live in future. Each individual has earned that entitlement, and it should be honoured. It is a simple matter of entitlement in what ought to be a contractual arrangement.

The Government repeatedly call the state pension a benefit, but that argument is undermined by the basic principle that entitlement is earned by making contributions. To achieve a full UK state pension, a person needs to have accrued 35 years of payments. In such a regime, why should someone’s place of domicile affect their rights? The UK is the only member state of the OECD that does not confer full pension rights, including the annual uprating of pensions, to those who have made contributions. It is simply not right that we discriminate against pensioners because of where they live; and let us make no mistake: that is what it is—discrimination. It is a failure of the United Kingdom to accept its responsibility to give full pension entitlement to those who have earned that right.

A person’s entitlement to the annual uprating of the state pension is determined by what country they live in. Some 679,000 UK pensioners who live in other countries do get the annual uprating, but there are 551,000 whose pensions are frozen at the level at which they first received their state pension when living abroad. Someone who is now aged 90 who had retired aged 65 in April 1991 would, had they qualified for pension uprating, now be receiving £119.31 per week; if their pension was frozen at the 1991 level, their weekly pension would be £52 per week. That is without justification. Such an individual would have lost out on £39,489 of pension income over a 25-year period as a consequence of their being in receipt of a frozen pension and denied their full rights. Think about what that means: by refusing to grant uprating, we are impoverishing our pensioners.

The average amount received by a pensioner with a frozen pension is just £2,258 per year, whereas the average for a pensioner living in the UK is £7,198 per year. We are denying pensioners income that rightfully ought to be theirs. Many will have to receive support from relatives, or perhaps they will have to return to the UK, where the cost of supporting such elderly residents is invariably higher when health and other social costs are taken into account. We also have to think about the fact that many people came to this country to work, often for many decades, and want to return to their country of origin in retirement. Such folk are put off by the reality of potentially being penalised through the receipt of a frozen pension. Where is the humanity in this? Where is the dignity in stopping people who have given long service to this country and paid their way retiring as they wish? They want to know that they will receive their full pension rights. This is a wrong that we must deal with. People who come to this country should not be penalised when they choose to go home.

Other countries see the current situation as a diplomatic grievance, and that will no doubt be a factor when the UK discusses trade deals. Other countries are going to turn around and say, “You want a decent relationship with us, but you are not prepared to treat your pensioners who live in our country fairly.” The fact that we are unique in the OECD in not accepting our obligations does not go down well with other Governments. We need to show leadership, and that we will stand by those who have earned a pension entitlement.

The International Consortium of British Pensioners has been mentioned by many speakers. I commend the consortium for the work it has been doing with the all-party group and the research it has conducted, which shows that because of the lower health and social care costs of somebody not living in this country, there is a saving of £1,575 for every pensioner who moves abroad. Such savings would partly offset the costs of annual uprating.

The House debated frozen pensions on 11 May last year. This debate follows other debates on this matter going back over the past few decades. The hon. Member for Worthing West mentioned Winston Churchill at the turn of the century; indeed, his grandson, also Winston Churchill, was involved in this matter, too. I have been sent a copy of a letter sent in 1993 by the younger Winston Churchill, the then Member for Davyhulme, to a retired pensioner living in Australia called Victor Humphries. Churchill stated in his letter that he hoped the

“Government may be shamed into taking steps to honour its commitment to expatriate pensioners”.

He went on:

“I have no doubt that if sufficient weight of Parliamentary support can be demonstrated for redressing this clear injustice, the Government will have no alternative but to back down.”

Winston Churchill was right in 1993, and all the Members who have spoken in this debate are right in 2017. It is shameful that, collectively, we have not yet dealt with this issue.

There is, of course, a topical aspect to the debate. Brexit hangs like a black cloud over this issue. Of the 679,000 UK pensioners who do receive an annual uprating, 492,000 are currently protected by the social security provisions of the EU single market. What is going to happen to the rights of those 492,000 UK pensioners post-Brexit? Will the Minister commit today to the continuation of the annual uprating for those living in EU member states? We often hear from the Government how they want to protect the rights of UK citizens living in Europe. Many of those citizens will be listening to or will hear about this debate. They will be concerned about their pension rights to the extent that, in the absence of any guarantees, many will consider whether they might not be able to afford to continue to live in an EU member state. The Minister can deal with that uncertainty today.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is inconceivable that this Government, or the Government after the election, would not guarantee uprating to British pensioners who live in the EU 27? As my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) said, it is therefore inconceivable that justice would not come at the same time for the people who have been denied it for so long. That would be discrimination of the worst sort.

[Ian Blackford]

I concur 100% with the hon. Gentleman; he is absolutely right. We have the opportunity today to deal with this matter and with the uncertainty facing UK citizens who live in Europe. That would be the right thing to do. As has been demonstrated, the cost of doing this for other British citizens would not be all that great. We can actually deal with this matter today if the Minister will recognise that it is a matter of good faith. As we go into the election campaign, I implore us all to make the commitment, collectively, to deal with the injustices we are discussing. If he so chooses, the Minister can remove the uncertainty today, or he can at least give us an indication that the Government are prepared to do something about this issue.

A further 186,000 UK pensioners live in countries with which the UK has a historical bilateral agreement on social security, including the US. A total of 551,000 UK citizens live in countries in which their pensions are frozen, with the largest numbers being in Australia where there are 246,000, and Canada where there are 144,000. The all-party group has met members of the Canadian diplomatic community, and I can tell the House that they are less than impressed with the behaviour of the UK Government on this matter. We are offending our international friends with our failure to take action.

We often hear about a postcode lottery; this is a national lottery, but one in which 551,000 British pensioners are paying the price. I am glad that the motion has cross-party support, and hope that the Minister will recognise the nature of that support and that we are all appealing to the Government to signal that there is an obligation on them to see sense on this matter. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope we will hear from him that the Government are prepared to take action. It is about doing the right thing, and standing up and recognising that all pensioners, irrespective of where they live, deserve to be treated equally.

When we consider that the Government are lifting the limit on the period that UK citizens may live abroad but vote here from 15 years to their entire lifetime, we have to ask why the Government would want to confer voting rights on UK pensioners but deny them full pension rights? Perhaps the Government should reflect on the fact that more than 1 million UK pensioners live overseas. Those pensioners may have a reason to want to register to vote in this coming election campaign, given the infringement of their pension rights. As the hon. Member for Worthing West mentioned, there are 264,000 registered overseas voters—400 per constituency. Can Members imagine the threat to MPs up and down this country if frozen pensioners and others decided that they were going to exercise their franchise? With an election coming, a rise in registrations may just help focus the mind of the Government. What drives the decision-making process of the Government? Is it cost saving, or is it about accepting our obligations to meet a commitment to paying pensions regardless of country of residence?

I appreciate that the Minister will have been told by the Treasury not to offer anything. I know that he is a loyal Government servant and I understand his position. Let me, if I may, try to help him by strengthening his arguments with the Treasury. The right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, said during a debate on the Pensions Bill in the 2003-04 session, when acting as the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury:

“If the system worked in the way that most people think, it would not matter where a person lived.”––[Official Report, Pensions Public Bill Committee, 18 March 2004; c. 256.]

I have to say that, on this occasion, I agree with him; it should not matter where a person lives. I appeal to the Minister to reflect on the words of his friend, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. Those words were spoken when the right hon. Gentleman was in opposition, but each and everyone one of us should be judged by our deeds in government. It is not good enough to say the right thing when in opposition and then, when in government, claim that it is all about cost. We should be judged by our deeds, and today we have that opportunity. I implore the Minister to do the right thing on this issue today.

I have faith that the Minister will listen to reasoned argument and recognise that this is an injustice that needs to be corrected. Let me deal with the issue of affordability. The Government like to claim that the cost of unfreezing pensions is unaffordable. Ministers have sometimes cited numbers in the billions, but any such claim is highly misleading. The motion for debate proposes the withdrawal of the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Regulations. That would include previously frozen pensions in this year’s 2.5% increase, which would cost £30 million. Assuming that this inclusion continued in subsequent years, the total cost would rise by around £30 million extra each year.

The ICBP has historically campaigned for pension parity, bringing currently frozen pensions up to UK levels immediately, which would cost £580 million, but that is not what is being proposed today. Any higher number cited by the Government involves looking at the cumulative cost over a longer period, which is not how new policies are usually assessed and is therefore misleading. The additional cost of uprating at 2.5% over the next five years would have a cost in year one of £30 million, rising to £33 million by year five, by which time it would have a cumulative cost of £158 million. Let me put that in context: the bill for UK state pensions is currently £86.8 billion. Partial uprating is equivalent to 0.03% of current pension spending.

Let me assist the Minister again. We are all aware that there is a separate national insurance fund, and we know from the Government Actuary’s Department that it is anticipated that that fund will have a surplus of £30.7 billion this year. Clearly, the cost of doing this can be met from the surplus that currently sits in the national insurance fund. Of course this is affordable. This is about our obligation to our pensioners and the human cost of not meeting those obligations. We need to listen to the voices of those who are discriminated against by our failure to pay full pension entitlement.

I will close now with some quotes. I know that the hon. Member for North Thanet has eloquently presented us with some human experiences, but let me just add to them, because at the end of the day it is the cost for the individuals that should concern us. Abhik Bonnerjee is 72 years old and now lives in Kolkata, India. After contributing to the British economy for 38 years, he is now scared of losing his home as he is struggling to survive on his frozen pension. He is considering moving to an unfrozen country. He said:

“The Government should be doing more, especially for Commonwealth countries, and MPs can’t explain why they are not.”

Bernard Jackson, 91, moved to Canada, but was forced to return to the UK in order to obtain his full pension. He said:

“I was brought up to believe that Britain was a fair country. It’s a disgrace, it has to end. It’s terrible to meet pensioners over here who say they have to come back to Britain because they can’t manage.”

[Mr Virendra Sharma]

This is an opportunity for the Minister to say today that Britain is still a fair country, so that the people can get social justice in other countries.

[Ian Blackford]

I am grateful for that intervention. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and it is up to us to demonstrate that fairness. Why should people who have emigrated from the UK be put in this position? They have a pension entitlement, but they have to return here to get what is theirs. That cannot be right. That is not something that we should support.

Joe Lewis, 90, lives in Canada and has recently lost his wife. He will be moving back to the UK as he can no longer cope with his frozen pension. After suffering a severe fall, Joe is increasingly struggling to afford living and medical costs. The only way he can make ends meet is to use up all his savings. Joe says:

“All I want is my full state pension, which I have paid into my entire life.”

Why should Joe not get something for which he has paid? That is the salient point. Joe and everyone else we are talking about have paid national insurance. This is an entitlement.

George Gray, 77, now lives in South Africa. He paid national insurance for 48 years until reaching retirement at 65. He was completely unaware of frozen pensions until it came to applying for one. He states:

“I was even told that getting our state pension was not a right, but merely a benefit from the British Government that could be amended at any time - but I’ve paid for it all of my working life.”

Anne Puckridge, 90, now lives in Canada. She worked in the UK up to the age of 76, paying mandatory national insurance contributions, and now has a frozen pension. She says:

“The Government should be doing more, especially for Commonwealth countries, and MPs cannot explain why they are not.”

Jane Davies, 70, now lives in British Columbia, Canada. She worked in the NHS for more than 20 years, helping hundreds as she worked in rehabilitation and elderly care. She was unaware that pensions could be frozen. She has said:

“It’s outrageous when you think that it’s mainly Commonwealth countries that are affected, especially when Canadian pensioners living in the UK receive a full pension.”

That is why the Canadian Government are so exercised about this. They pay a full pension to their citizens living here, and yet we fail to reciprocate.

Wendy Moss now lives in Australia. She moved there in 2002 and was completely unaware that her pension would be frozen. She says:

“I am looking into a potential return to the United Kingdom, but need to ensure that my family can make the journey back with me.”

In conclusion, these stories are heartbreaking. Let this House show that we can deliver compassion and recognise injustice. Let the Government commit to fixing this issue before we go out and campaign. Let us show that we are prepared to do the right thing. When we are back, I will look forward to legislation being passed to fix this and to fix the injustices for the WASPI women as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

Well, it is about the subjectivity of those words, if I may say so. I will try to address some of the points he made, but I cannot successfully answer his cricket team question. However, given that our civil servants will probably have less to do over the next few weeks than they have had to do over the last few weeks, I will formally write to him. As a child, with “Wisden” and everything else, I would probably have been able to answer his question myself, but I am afraid I cannot do that now.

As I was about to say before I was hit for six by that intervention, the United Kingdom state pension is payable worldwide, regardless of the recipient’s country of residence or their nationality. I say that formally on the record because were I a member of the public watching the broadcast of this debate or reading it in Hansard, I could quite easily get the impression, when we talk about scandals and things like that, that people were leaving the country and not getting their pension at all. The state pension is paid to people who are entitled to it when they leave the country, but increased—“uprated” is the expression in this context—abroad every year only when the recipient is in certain areas: in the European economic area, Switzerland, or a country with which the UK has a specific reciprocal agreement that allows for uprating. This is a long-standing policy that has remained consistent for about 70 years, and, as has been said, it has been the policy of consecutive Governments of all persuasions.

I recognise that this subject arouses strong opinions, and some of the language used is very concerning. Please do not think, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I think that the language used has been improper in any way, but it is very strong language about people suffering hardship and so on.

[Ian Blackford]

Does the Minister appreciate that there is clear evidence that people who have gone to live abroad have come back because they do not feel they can manage on a frozen pension? There is clear evidence that people feel that they have been affected quite significantly by that situation.

[Richard Harrington]

I do not disagree with that, but people also return for many other reasons. When people decide to emigrate and live abroad, they do it for a number of reasons. They take into consideration the cost of living generally and the cost of property, or food, drink and entertainment—whatever it may be—and the pension is part of that. Similarly, when they decide to return, part of the reason might be whether their pension increases by the rate of inflation, but I suspect that there are many other reasons as well—for example, ill health, getting older, and family issues. I could not dispute what the hon. Gentleman said—in fact, I would never try to dispute what he says—but it is part of the picture and it is not right just to pick out that particular point.

I felt it my duty when taking on this portfolio to speak to as many people as possible. In November last year, I attended a meeting at Lancaster House—a very grand venue—where there were leaders from the overseas territories. It was a big Joint Ministerial Council. I met many of the people mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet, from Montserrat, the Falkland Islands and elsewhere. They were very impassioned people who gave a series of speeches that were basically saying the same thing. That has been reflected in what has been said today. Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, referred to people not having parliamentary representation. That point was made strongly by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). I was born and brought up in that constituency, so I accept what he said about its minority communities; I was a descendant of one of them. I could only say to the people at the conference that I was there to listen. It seemed from what they told me that Ministers of all persuasions have politely declined such an invitation before. I know that this is a very impassioned debate. People do feel very strongly about it, and it is not something that I take lightly.

Several contributors, including my hon. Friend, said that because all workers pay their national insurance contributions towards their state pension there is a moral right that they should receive an uprated state pension wherever they live. Moral rights are very subjective, but I know exactly what was meant. However, the rate of contribution paid has never earned entitlement to the indexation of pensions payable abroad. That reflects the fact that the scheme overall is primarily designed for those living in the UK, and it operates on a pay-as-you-go basis. Contributions paid into the fund in any one year contribute to the expenditure in that year. That is the way that public finance works. The contributions provide a foundation for calculating the benefits, but they do not pay for those benefits.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) mentioned the national insurance fund. It is convenient to bring this up in debates, but in reality there is no surplus in the national insurance fund because it is all used to pay contributory benefits. It is basically a system of public accounting. The £16 billion that was mentioned is two months’ expenditure. It is just an advisory level for the fund suggested by the Government Actuary because it is a prudent working balance. It is not like having a bank account where we can say, “Oh, we’ve got a surplus—let’s use it.”

[Ian Blackford]

We all understand and accept that it is a pay-as-you-go system, but that does not detract from the fact that when someone pays national insurance, it is on that basis that they are earning entitlement from that mechanism. As for the national insurance fund, the surplus is actually £30 billion, and it needs to have—the Minister is right—two months’ cashflow within it, which is £16 billion. So the point remains the same—the money is there to do this.

[Richard Harrington]

I think, as we do on many things, the hon. Gentleman and I will have to agree to disagree on that, but we both fully understand each other’s arguments, I am sure.

The point about cost has been made very coherently. The Government generally take the view, of course, that the first priority is to ensure that older people in this country have an adequate income in retirement. Uprating all state pension payments in full to the rate currently paid in the UK, regardless of the recipient’s country of residence, would cost about an extra £500 million a year, increasing significantly over time. While that may not have been specifically argued for in this debate, people in favour of the motion are talking about a moral argument, not a legal argument. Many of us are here because we believe in moral arguments generally in our political lives, and I hope in our personal lives as well. That is why many of us do the job, so please do not think that I am pooh-poohing the idea of a moral argument. However, both systems of calculating this could be seen as being based on a moral argument.

This debate has been predominantly about so-called partial uprating. I understand this to mean not to uprate fully but to uprate the current level of state pension that the person is receiving through the triple lock or equivalent from a future date, and only pay uprating going forward with no arrears. I had to look at that very carefully when I saw that we were having this debate, because partial uprating can mean different things in different contexts. It is superficially a very attractive argument to say, “We could do this because it’s a few million pounds a year—tens of millions, not hundreds or billions.” It is not like the cost involved in the case of the WASPI women; the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber correctly mentioned that some independent research has been done on that, which I have read very carefully. That would cost billions of pounds, but this is about tens of millions of pounds, which, on the face of it, sounds like small change within the full scale of Government expenditure.

Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]

Ian Blackford Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 29th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

May I associate myself with the remarks made by the Minister and the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) about the events of last Wednesday? We should reflect on the fact that those events were unfolding outside this Chamber while we were having our debate. Our thoughts are very much with those who, in the line of duty, defended our interests, including the police officer who lost his life, as well as with the others who lost their lives, those who have been injured and all those who have been affected.

As we have this debate, we should reflect on the responsibility that all Members have to build an architecture that creates a climate in which consumers around the UK can safely invest in pension schemes and savings, and in which there is an element of trust. I broadly welcome the Bill’s role in improving the landscape. It is an important step forward in so far as it puts in place the necessary protection for those who are investing through auto-enrolment. It is crucial that we have the regulation in the Bill.

Like the Labour spokesperson, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, I would have been happier if the Government had accepted some of our amendments. Having said that, I was very much encouraged by the Minister’s response last week, particularly to an amendment I tabled regarding section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995. I welcome the commitment to revisiting this issue. As has been said, the Bill has to be seen in the wider context of what we are seeking to achieve on pensions.

Two of my new clauses were not selected for debate, one of which was on the establishment of a pensions and savings commission. I still believe that the Government should consider that proposal, because an awful lot is going on in this landscape, some of which was described by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth. There is the forthcoming review of auto-enrolment. We have had the Cridland review, the Green Paper on defined-benefit pension schemes and the FCA paper. I think that there is a willingness among all of us to work collegiately to improve the interrelationship of all these factors. I look forward to the debates that we will have in taking this forward. This all comes back to my point about how we can create further confidence so that we get effective saving in the pensions landscape.

I put this in the context of the Green Paper, one of the most striking features of which is the indication at its beginning that the average defined-benefit pot is £7,000. We all have to accept that pension savings are not at an appropriate level. We all want people to save to such an extent that they can have dignity in retirement through both their workplace pension and the state pension provision. I look forward to working with the Government on the review of auto-enrolment. While we are improving the protection for today’s consumers, we need to do more to protect other people, particularly a lot of women who have been excluded, such as those in part-time jobs who are below the threshold, and the self-employed.

I applaud the Government for what they are doing. While the Bill is a very necessary step forward, there is much more that we can do by working together for the mutual benefit of those who invest in pension schemes.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

I would like to be able say that it is enough, but I do not think it is. The steps we intend to take should make prosecutions for scam cold calling much easier. If I am asked the question again in the future, I hope to be able to answer in the affirmative.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

On the issue of accurate and clear information, the Cridland report, published last week, stated:

“An increase of the State Pension age every ten years—and by only one year per decade—represents an appropriate pace of change”.

Does the Minister agree with that statement? If so, will he revisit the issue of the WASPI women, who face an increase in the state pensionable age of more than five years this decade?

Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2017 Commons Chamber

In conclusion, I am concerned that a lack of transparency in the scheme is a problem, and that that problem lies with insurance companies and master trusts. I am concerned about the low paid; the person with multiple jobs; women; people under 22; carers; and the self-employed, who have not been looked after by this Bill. I am concerned that the Government have removed the funder of last resort clause, which the Labour Lords succeeded in putting into the Bill. These are all issues that, I assure the Minister, we will continue to debate. However, for now, I look forward to his response to the new clauses and amendments I have highlighted.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 6 to 9 and amendments 5 to 9. I am disappointed that new clauses 10 and 11 were not selected for debate.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is because of such examples as he has touched on of unincorporated businesses at risk of losing personal assets that it is so pertinent that the Government bring forward the solution right now rather than wait for the opportunity to pass?

[Ian Blackford]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. These are complex issues. That is why we make the suggestion that we are willing to work with the Government on this. We have to find a solution to this because at the end of the day ordinary people who have done the right thing could now be faced with losing their house, and that cannot be right. This issue has to be resolved.

There are a number of options for the UK Government to consider but each one has complications for the pension schemes, employers and scheme members. We urge the Government to weigh up the interests of employers with the need to protect benefits for pension scheme members. The former Pensions Minister in the other place, Baroness Altmann, indicated that she would look closely at how a solution could be reached to this complex issue. We need the same assurances from the Minister that he will work to find a solution for the industry and use this Bill to bring forward a solution.

SNIPEF’s four objectives are to achieve an amendment to section 75 debt legislation, as its main concern is for those involved in the unincorporated businesses that my hon. Friend mentioned who are at risk of losing their personal assets including their homes. It wants the Government to conduct a review of the actuarial methods used to value pension scheme liabilities, as it believes that the calculation of section 75 employer debt on a full annuity buyout basis is inappropriate and detrimental to non-associated multi-employer schemes given current economic conditions. It argues that orphan debt in any non-associated multi-employer scheme should be excluded from the calculation of section 75 employer debt. It suggests that provided the scheme is deemed to be prudently funded, the PPF acts as guarantor of last resort for orphan liabilities. It also believes that any changes in legislation should apply retrospectively to all employers from 2005. It would be helpful to get the Government’s view on this request. SNIPEF recently met the Minister, and it has advised SNP MPs that he confirmed that the objectives may have been incorporated within the Green Paper. We are now interested to hear the Government’s view as to whether they have identified a solution.

I want briefly to make passing reference to my two new clauses that have not been selected for debate, and signal my disappointment about that. New clause 10 would require the Secretary of State to identify support for women affected by the changes to the timetable for state pension age equalisation. We are disappointed that a pensions Bill has not been brought forward to deal with the pressing injustices within the pensions system.

[Mhairi Black]

Does my hon. Friend agree that by missing this opportunity the Government are wilfully ignoring it, much like they are ignoring the WASPI women themselves?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We do not discuss new clauses that have not been selected. We have to deal with what is before us and that is the new clauses on the selection list. I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to stay in order by dealing with those, not those that have been omitted.

[Ian Blackford]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I am happy to receive the guidance that you have given me. I simply wanted to put on record that we had missed the opportunity to debate the measures today. I know that we will have the opportunity to raise these two issues again, so I will skip on without making any further reference to them.

The SNP believes that we need to look holistically at the problems inherent in the system and build on opportunities such as auto-enrolment. Only by giving pensions thoughtful consideration can the Tories get this right. With alarm bells ringing about the injustices facing the WASPI women, and concerns that we could see another hike in the state pension age, even the idea that the Government are contemplating reviewing the triple lock post 2020 is deeply troubling. If I may say so, we know that only by delivering an independent Scotland can the SNP deliver dignity in retirement.

I turn to amendment 5, which would mean that the financial sustainability of the scheme funder had to be taken into account when assessing the financial sustainability of a master trust scheme. The Association of British Insurers has told us that insurance companies already hold a very significant amount of capital under the European regulatory framework for insurance, solvency II. In our view it would not be reasonable, nor is it necessary, for insurers to be required to hold separate or additional capital on top of that to meet their new obligations as master trust providers under the Bill. We would like to hear assurances from the Government that insurers will be exempt if they already adhere to FCA and PRA regulatory and financial sustainability requirements.

Amendment 6 allows for exceptions to the requirement that a scheme funder must only carry out activities directly relating to the master trust scheme for which it is a scheme funder. Amendment 7 makes provision for the Secretary of State to define “restricted activities” by regulation, including a list of specific activities restricted to minimise the risk of loss by master trust scheme funders. Through these amendments, we acknowledge that there may be circumstances in which the scheme funder requirements in the bill should not apply. The amendments state that the requirements need not apply to firms whose activities are already restricted by virtue of existing regulation.

The ABI has said that, in particular, the Prudential Regulation Authority rules mean that insurance activities of the scheme funder that are not directly related to the master trust scheme are transparent and do not threaten the solvency or sustainability of the master trust. The ABI says:

“This is a sensible and pragmatic approach”.

It would be useful to understand what additional requirements will need to be met for firms to be exempt from the scheme funder requirements. It would also be helpful to gain an assurance that the Government are committed to working with the industry throughout the development and consultation process for the regulations.

Amendments 8 and 9 provide the Pensions Regulator with an alternative to stopping payments to the schemes under section 5(b) of a pause order. Amendment 9 is consequential on amendment 8. The Bill creates a new power enabling the Pensions Regulator to make a pause order requiring certain activities to be paused once a trust has experienced a triggering event. That includes accepting new members, making payments, accepting contributions and discharging benefits. The TUC is concerned about the impact of a pause order on a member’s savings because there are no mechanisms in place to allow ongoing contributions to be collected and held on behalf of a saver. We contend that it is unacceptable for a member to be penalised, and in effect to lose wages in the form of employer contributions, because of events out of their control. The Society of Pension Professionals has said that it will be necessary to ensure that the period of effect of a pause order cannot start before the trustees actually receive notification of the pause order. That would mean that any contravention could occur only after the trustees are were receipt of the order. Without this, they argue the trustees could be in breach of a pause order, through no fault of their own, if a direction is not complied with during the period between the date on which the regulator makes the order and the date on which the regulator notifies the trustees of it—for example, if new members joined the scheme in that period contrary to a direction under clause 32(5)(a).

The Government should clarify whether they intend to take action to protect savers now, as we are disappointed that our amendments were defeated at earlier stages. I look forward to hearing the Minister respond. We have sought to work constructively with the Government to enhance the Bill, which we broadly welcome. We affirm our position of wishing to work with the Government where we can to create an environment in which workers can have faith and trust in pension savings.

We should all desire to develop a landscape in which pension saving is encouraged, allowing us to ensure that all our pensioners—from both their own provision and the state pension—have dignity and security in retirement. The Bill helps us along that road, as far as the regulation of master trusts is concerned. There is more to do to enhance auto-enrolment, and I look forward to working with the Government to take steps to include those who are currently excluded from pension savings, particularly the self-employed and many part time workers, especially women.

In closing, although I welcome the Bill, I reflect on the fact that it was necessary for me to put down a prayer last night on frozen pensions after the Government again brought forward a statutory instrument to freeze the pensions of hundreds of thousands of British pensioners who are being denied their full rights. In pushing the measure through, the Government have denied Members of this House the right to debate the matter. I encourage all hon. and right hon. Members to sign early-day motion 1097. I hope that if we can, as I believe we can, demonstrate broad cross-party support against this measure, the Government will have the grace to bring forward a debate on this matter before recess. This early-day motion has already been signed by Members from six parties, including the Government party. I encourage them to listen to us on this matter, as part of proceedings on the Bill.