State Pension Age: Women

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2016 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered acceleration of the state pension age for women born in the 1950s.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall, and to appear in front of the Minister. I look forward to a positive response from him to all the remarks made today.

A woman born on 6 March 1953 retired on 6 March 2016, aged 63. A woman born a month later, on 6 April 1953, retired on 6 July, aged 63 and three months. A woman born on 6 May 1953 retired a few days ago, on 6 November, aged 63 and six months. A woman born on 6 June 1953 has to wait until 6 March 2017, when she will be aged 63 and nine months. A woman born on 6 July 1953 will not receive her pension until her 64th birthday, in July 2017. We are beginning to get the picture. For each month that passes, women’s pensionable age increases by three months. Let us just dwell on that—a three-month addition to someone’s pensionable age for each month that they were born later than their neighbour, friend or colleague.

I spoke of a woman born in March 1953, who retired this year aged 63. A woman born a year later, in March 1954, will not retire until September 2019, when she will be aged 65 and a half. She will be two and a half years older than a woman born a year earlier before she receives her state pension. A woman born six months later, in September 1954, will have to wait until she is 66, in September 2020. Over an 18-month period, women’s pensionable age will have increased by a whopping three years. As we keep saying, we are not against equalisation of the state pension age. The issue is the pace of change, as well as the lack of appropriate notice.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and on making these compelling historical points about women. For that reason, and because of the documented evidence that he has submitted here today, does he agree that there is a compelling need—and an imperative on the Government—to bring about transitional protection and transitional payments for these women?

[Ian Blackford]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. She makes a telling point. The significance of having the debate today, for which I am grateful, is that next week we will have the autumn statement. That is the opportunity for the Government to respond to the injustices that women are facing and to do the right thing. We often hear about people who have been left behind. The Women Against State Pension Inequality have been left behind, and the Government must act.

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. He has certainly done women a great service, because he has been working on this issue for a long time. The other dimension to the issue, which we see when we do an analysis of it, is that it affects women in different ways. There are different poverty levels involved, so things such as bus passes may not be accessible to them.

[Ian Blackford]

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I will come later to the proposals that my party has made. We have been able to test the number of women who would be taken out of poverty as a consequence, and it is a very important point.

We should remind ourselves what a pension is. It is deferred income. Women and men have paid national insurance in the expectation of receiving a state pension. That is the deal, plain and simple: people pay in, and they get their entitlement. They do not expect the Government, without effective notice, to change the rules. What has been done to the WASPI women has undermined fairness and equity in this country.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman is certainly painting a picture. Does he agree that the impact of the changes to the state pension age cannot be seen in isolation from the impact of historical gender inequality?

[Ian Blackford]

Absolutely. The hon Lady makes a valid point, because women have faced inequality in pension entitlement, whether in the state pension or occupational pension schemes. In the past, they were even denied access to occupational pension schemes, and we are still battling for equal pay for women. It is simply not right that in addition to all the injustices that women have faced, they now face the injustice of having to wait much longer than they expected for their pension.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He is making a compelling case and outlining the lottery of the current arrangements. The WASPI petition was signed by 2,249 of my constituents and I also received many letters. Does he agree that additional transitional arrangements are needed to support a group of women who in the past have often been working mothers and are now carers for elderly parents and sick husbands, and who have often had low-paid manual jobs and just have not been able to build up private pensions?

[Ian Blackford]

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point and demonstrates, rightly, why hon. Members across the House need to unite. This is not about one party—let me make that absolutely clear.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Blackford]

I will in a second. This is about all of us recognising that, as a House, we have a responsibility to do the right thing. It is about giving encouragement to the Government, just as happened last year with tax credits when we realised that we were going to be punishing hard-working families, to do the right thing by the women affected by this issue. That is what the Government have to listen to and respond to in the autumn statement.

[Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

rose—

[Ian Blackford]

I will take another couple of interventions and then I need to move on.

[Dame Caroline Spelman]

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), the fact that this issue kicks in at the latter stages of a woman’s career, when her caring responsibilities can increase significantly because of elderly parents and her own health may start to deteriorate, means that the level of uncertainty and anxiety is greatly increased. Suddenly, the prepared-for pension does not materialise, and women with caring responsibilities are left in limbo.

[Ian Blackford]

The right hon. Lady makes a valid point, and I will come later to the notice period because the issues are both the lack of time that women have had to prepare for the changes and the caring responsibilities that many women in particular have. She is right to raise that point. I will take one more intervention and then move on.

[Ian Austin]

This is a very important point. I have lost count of the number of women in Dudley who have told me that they have not had time to make plans for the new arrangements. They have had to take time off to bring up their children, or reduce their hours or retire early to care for ageing parents or grandchildren. Other women have told me that they have lost their husbands and have not just had to come to terms with the bereavement, but have been thrown into financial turmoil as a result.

There is an additional unfairness in former industrial areas such as the black country, where women typically left school at 15 or 16, started work and did hard work all their lives. That is very different from someone graduating in their early twenties and doing an office job. Women in the black country have done their bit, and that is why the Government should be coming up with proper transitional arrangements so that they can plan properly for their retirement now.

[Ian Blackford]

I agree with that point. Many of the 2.6 million women affected have made more than 35 years’ worth of national insurance contributions. They have paid their way. They have paid their dues. This is about us accepting our responsibility. As I mentioned, 2.6 million women are affected by the increase in pensionable age and have an entitlement to a pension that they should have had. They need to be treated fairly—no more, no less.

The Government often state that the increase in pensionable age under the Pensions Act 2011 means that no woman will have to wait more than 18 months for their pension. That is disingenuous, as it came as an addition to the changes in the Pensions Act 1995, which are still being implemented. It is a fact that women’s pensionable age is increasing by six years over a very short period. That is the issue and the reality. It is about the combined impact of the 1995 Act and the 2011 Act. The Government have a duty to be truthful about the matter.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Ian Blackford]

I am conscious that many Members want to speak and I do want to take interventions, but I will press on, if I may, and take interventions later.

The issue is not only the sharp acceleration of pensionable age, but that many women were unaware of the increase in pensionable age. As the Select Committee on Work and Pensions reported in March this year,

“more could…have been done”

to communicate the changes, especially between 1995 and 2009. Women have been let down not only by the rapidly increasing pensionable age, but by a failure of communication. We face the rapid acceleration of pensionable age and also the nightmare scenario for many women that they were not aware that it was coming. They have had little notice and no time to prepare for an increase in pensionable age. They have not been able to adjust accordingly, and in many cases we are talking about women and families who are struggling.

The Prime Minister talks about those who have been left behind and the duty the Government have to deal with it; the WASPI women have been left behind and it is now our responsibility to deal with it. We cannot just shrug our shoulders and blame past Governments for the failure to give women notice. We have a collective responsibility to deal with this issue and we have to show leadership. We cannot take the line that the last Parliament made a decision and there is nothing we can do; that is an abrogation of responsibility by all of us.

When the Government came forward with proposed changes to working tax credits that would have damaged millions of families in the UK, after much opposition, the Government ultimately relented and removed the proposals. We need to campaign in Parliament and throughout the United Kingdom to achieve the same objective here. We are not going away. The Government have to recognise that women should not be punished in the way that they are being by this increase of three months for every month’s difference in their age.

The Government have asked what we would do. That is why, in September, we in the Scottish National party published our own report looking at various options. We suggested a return to the timeline of the 1995 Act, which would slow down the increase to a pensionable age of 65 by 18 months, and defer the increase to a pensionable age for women of 66 years into the next decade. The cost of deferring over an additional 18-month period would be £7.9 billion. The Government estimated that the acceleration of state pensionable age in the 2011 Act for both women and men saved around £30 billion from 2016-17 to 2025-26, but that is simply not the case. That was scaremongering from the Government and, not for the first time, they got their numbers wrong. Depending on the timescale for the increase to age 66, there will be additional costs in the next decade.

I am grateful that, through the Backbench Business Committee, we have secured this debate, which is supported on an all-party basis, with a number of Conservative Members supporting the motion that was originally put forward. Of course, that happened on the back of many of us here today and in Parliament putting petitions down on behalf of the WASPI women. The WASPI women are going to be knocking on Members’ doors this week, next week and until we do the right thing.

We are often told that this is about the money. “We can’t afford it,” they say. This is not about women getting something they are not entitled to; it is about entitlement based on national insurance payments and about the Government meeting their obligations out of the national insurance fund—yes, for those who were not aware, inside Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs there is a national insurance fund. I am grateful to the Government, or more specifically the Government Actuary’s Department, for stating that there is a projected fund surplus of £26.3 billion at the end of 2016-17, rising to £30.7 billion in 2017-18. The argument that the Government cannot do this is therefore bunkum. The money is there. These women have paid into the fund and we should meet our obligations. Women have paid their dues, the fund is in surplus and the Government can make restitution.

Next week we will have the autumn statement. If the Minister chooses, he could tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the strength of feeling on this issue. Next week the Chancellor could, if he is minded, deliver some good news for the WASPI women. Will the Minister demand that the Chancellor uses the surplus to do so? The money is in the national insurance fund to allow the Government to take action—to right a wrong, to reflect on the injustice of a sharp increase in pensionable age, to show leadership and to recognise that Parliament collectively got it wrong with the timetabled increases. This is, after all, about fairness. Men are seeing a one-year increase in pensionable age; for women it is six years, over too short a period. The Minister can be a hero to 1950s women by addressing the injustices that many are facing.

We are often told that there was no choice in the scale of the increase or the timing, and Europe was forcing equalisation upon us. In our report, we published the scale of increases in pensionable age in each European country. There are only two countries that are seeing such a rapid increase in pensionable age: Italy and Greece. When the Prime Minister took office, the first debate she fronted was on Trident renewal. The motion did not have a price tag, but the Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), informed the House that it could be as much as £205 billion. The Government effectively asked Parliament to give them a blank cheque. We can find hundreds of billions of pounds for weapons that can blow humanity to smithereens, but we cannot meet what should be a contractual obligation to 1950s-born women. Where is the fairness? Where is the humanity? Of course, the Government will be prepared to find £7 billion to renovate this place. If I had a choice, I would fund the WASPI women’s pensions first, and not spend a fortune on this place.

I know that a number of Conservative Members are here, and they are broadly supportive of the WASPI campaign. It is a pity that we do not have those who so far do not support it, but I say to the Conservatives: is there anyone on the Government Benches who is prepared to stand up and say that it is right for women’s pensionable age to increase at the rate of three months per month? How can anybody possibly think it is right that pensionable age should increase by three months per month? I would be happy to give way to anyone who wants to stand up and say that it is right, but I suspect that we will get what we always get: silence—silence and the hope that we, the Opposition, the Tories who support this and the WASPI women will go away. As I have said, we are not going away. We have given the Government an option and, unlike their Trident nuclear weapons commitment, it is costed. More importantly, not only are we not going away; the WASPI women are not going away.

The Pensions Commission that reported in 2005 suggested that at least 15 years’ notice should be given on any future increase in pensionable age. Given that, I ask the Minister: how can the Government defend the 2011 Act and some women receiving pretty negligible notice? Does the Minister think that is acceptable? There would be uproar, and no doubt legal challenges, if occupational pension schemes behaved in such a way. Can we imagine the outcry from Members of Parliament if we were told, with little notice, that our pension payments would be deferred by an additional six years?

[Ian Austin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Blackford]

I want to make a little progress, and will take interventions later.

Just as workers pay into occupational schemes, men and women pay national insurance in return for a state pension. Why should women be treated so shoddily? It is little wonder that WASPI women are considering legal action. For too long women have suffered injustices as far as equal pay is concerned. They tend to have much poorer workplace pension protection than men and are now facing state pension inequality. Why do we not stop, take stock and put in place mitigation? Let us have equalisation, but let us do so fairly. When we consider what has been done as far as communication is concerned, it is dismal. Women should have been written to at the earliest opportunity, letting them know what was changing and allowing them to consider their options. Yet in 2011, the Government said their approach was to inform women through leaflets and publicity campaigns. That was a failure of responsibility to act and inform appropriately.

It was only in 2009 that the DWP began to take responsibility and proactively write to women to tell them about the 1995 Act. They started to tell women in 2009, but it took the DWP years to issue all the letters. Last night I was given the response to a freedom of information request on the timeline of the letters—perhaps the most damning thing about this whole debate. Women born between April 1953 and December 1953 were formally told of the increased pensionable age only in January 2012. Women born between December 1953 and April 1955 were told only in February 2012. A woman born in April 1953 under the old regime of retiring at 60 would have expected to retire in April 2013. She was given just one year of formal notice of her new retirement date of July 2016. It was 17 years after the 1995 legislation before the DWP could be bothered to formally tell the women involved—too little notice; too little, too late. We should all hang our heads in shame at the way the WASPI women have been treated. If there is one issue that should force the Government to agree to change now, it is that new information and the timeline of notice given.

Why have we been able to find this out through a freedom of information request from the WASPI women? Why have the Government not come clean about this before? Who knew about this in Government? Did the Minister know? I have had many letters on this issue from the women affected. Rosina wrote to me:

“When the 2011 Pensions Bill was announced, it accelerated these changes, so that Women’s SPA would be 65 by November 2018 and then both Men’s & Women’s SPA would rise together to 66 by 5th April...Letters began to be sent out...but many never received them. I received my letter in early 2013, just before my 58th Birthday and just 2 years before my expected retirement age of 60. The letter advising me that I would now have to wait until I was 66 before I could draw my pension! How can I be expected to plan for a 6 year increase with just 2 years notice? How can this be acceptable? I had already made plans for my retirement. I will lose over £40,000 of pension because of this. I have paid into the system in good faith and the system has now failed me. I want the Government to stand up and admit that they have ‘wronged’ us Women of the 50’s by their gross mismanagement and...that they will now do the right thing and pay us what we are due.”

I cannot put it any better than Rosina. Will the Minister now accept that we have a responsibility to Rosina and the 2.6 million women who have been cheated out of their entitlement?

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend has come forward with a shocking revelation today, thanks to the WASPI women who made the FOI request. Nearly half a million women had only a year’s notice to change their retirement plans. I do not think that is acceptable, particularly given everything we have heard about why women are more likely to be dependent on a state pension and likely to be in poverty in old age. Does he agree that it puts an absolute moral imperative on the Government to take responsibility for their failure to let women know before a year in advance that they were going to lose out in such a way?

[Ian Blackford]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I know that the Minister is a decent and honourable man. I hope he listens to the evidence and will go back to his colleagues in Government and recognise that the surplus we talked about is there in the national insurance fund. He would make us all happy, but more importantly he would make the WASPI women happy, if the Government showed they were prepared to act.

[Peter Aldous]

The issue of notice is raised a great deal, and it has been said that notice was given in magazines and the like. Given the high-profile television campaign at the moment for workplace pensions, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue should have been on television 15 or 20 years ago?

[Ian Blackford]

Absolutely. There has been a gross failure of communication at all levels. Many of us have access to occupational pension schemes. We are members of the House of Commons scheme. We get an annual statement of our pension entitlement. That is what the DWP should have been providing, rather than waiting 17 years before communicating with the women involved.

I am conscious of time and I want to begin to wrap up. Much of what I have been talking about was picked up by the Select Committee report in March this year. It said:

“Well into this decade far too many affected women were unaware of the equalisation of state pension age at 65 legislated for in 1995.”

The National Centre for Social Research stated:

“In 2008, fewer than half...of the women who, at that point, would not be eligible for their state pension until they were 65 were aware of the...change.”

That statement referred to research carried out in 2011. Given that we knew there was a lack of appreciation of the 1995 changes, why pour oil on troubled waters by accelerating the timescales in 2011? That was simply vindictive and cruel. Today, let us correct that. Let us show compassion and deliver fairness to the WASPI women.

I have been dealing with this issue on a UK-wide basis, but I want to briefly touch on Scotland. To put this into context, there are 243,900 WASPI women in Scotland. I would dearly love for us to have responsibility for pensions in Scotland, but we do not. The commitment the SNP has given in supporting the slowdown of the increase in pensionable age is one we would legislate for if we had the powers, but we do not. The powers that Scotland has over social security are limited to 15% of such spending in Scotland. We have limited powers. Section 28 of the Scotland Act 2016 grants exceptions to reserved areas where we can top up payments, but this does not include pensions assistance or payments by reasons of age.

I mention that because the Secretary of State, responding to a question I asked about WASPI mitigation last month, said that the SNP

“now control a Government who have the power to do something about this and put their money where their mouth is.”—[Official Report, 17 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 580.]

The Secretary of State created the impression that we hold powers in areas where we do not. I sought to be charitable to him in a point of order I raised later that day; rather incredibly, I received a letter from the Secretary of State on the 19th arguing that his statement was correct. Let me be clear: it was not. I then raised a further point of order on the 19th, when the Speaker suggested I apply for a face-to-face debate. I am grateful the Minister is here, but it is unfortunate that the Secretary of State is not. He should be dragged to this House and forced to accept that he cannot blame the Scottish Government when they do not have competency for the failures of this Government, and it must stop.

This is an important matter. We cannot have the UK Government suggesting that the Scottish Government have powers that they do not have. I wish we did have powers over pensions. If we had those powers, we would do the right thing by the WASPI women. Until such time as we have such powers we will push the Government to accept their obligations. This Tory Government have ducked their responsibility to the WASPI women for too long. It is time to face up to reality. Pensions are not a privilege; they are a contract, and the UK Government have broken that contract with the WASPI women.

[Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)]

I am looking to start the contributions from Front Benchers at 10.30 am, so based on the number of speakers I have been notified of, that will mean about five minutes maximum per speaker. I call Tom Elliott.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which I will attempt to answer in a moment, after I have thanked the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) for opening the debate and hon. Members from both sides who contributed.

I must say that this is the first time that my rather limited attempts at jurisprudence between 1976 and 1979 have been mentioned in the House. At least they will now be recounted in Hansard rather more than they are by my tutors of the time. The serious point that the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) makes is that hon. Members feel that the Government have broken some form of contract, presumably non-written, with state pensioners generally or WASPI women specifically. I have heard that point made several times today, but the Government’s position is very clear: this was not a contract. State pensions are technically a benefit. I add no value judgments to that, but since he made a legal point, I felt I should place the answer to it on the record.

[Ian Blackford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Harrington]

I think I should continue, but the hon. Gentleman will have time at the end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I know about the eight and 15 minutes, but I was asked by the Chairman to leave some time for the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber; I was not being discourteous at all.

Benefits are a complex subject that I am sure we will have plenty of time to discuss elsewhere. Suffice it to say that the range of benefits is quite wide. If the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) feels that there are gaps in the benefits system, I would be pleased to discuss them with him, but obviously not now because there is not enough time. I am trying to make progress, as you requested, Mr Nuttall.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and many other MPs shared cases of hardship, and of course I am sympathetic to them.

[Ian Blackford]

Will the Minister give way?

[Richard Harrington]

indicated dissent.

[Ian Blackford]

I will be very specific.

[Richard Harrington]

Okay.

[Ian Blackford]

The new information that I provided in my introductory speech was that a woman who was born in July 1953, who would have expected to retire in July 2013, was told by the DWP only in January 2012 that she would not be retiring until 2017. When did the Government and the Minister know of those facts? Why will they not now listen on that basis? The statement is that there will be no further changes, but these women have been seriously negatively impacted. The Minister must respond.

[Richard Harrington]

I shall respond in due course. I want to finish my point about the welfare system. The Government are spending £60 billion on supporting people on low incomes, £50 billion on supporting disabled people and £15 billion on incapacity benefits for working people. According to some of the contributions we have heard, it would appear that the Government are really not spending any money at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

I thank all Members who have spoken in the debate. I have enormous respect for the Minister, as I think he knows, but I must say that I am plain disgusted with the response we have had this morning. To that end, I shall be contending that we have not considered the acceleration of the state pension age for women born in the 1950s.

This is not acceptable, because we are now looking at a cliff edge. As I explained, there is an increase in pensionable age of three months for every month that passes. The Minister talked about a leaflet—a leaflet!—that went to the women concerned. We now know that a woman born in 1953 was given just over one year’s notice in 2012 that her pension age was going to increase to July 2017. We now know that a woman born in September 1954 found out in February 2012 that, rather than retiring in 2014, she would be retiring in 2020. Where is the fairness? Where is the notice from this Government?

I have heard various figures from the Government, but this is the first time the House has been told about that £14 billion. The Minister should come with me and I will take him through the Institute for Public Policy Research model. I stand fully behind the £7.9 billion. To hear him dispute that figure is disingenuous, to say the least. The Government have failed to accept responsibility for the WASPI women. The Minister should hang his head in shame. The Government must act, and we will continue to push them.

Question put,

That this House has considered acceleration of the state pension age for women born in the 1950s.

The Chair’s opinion as to the decision of the Question was challenged.

Question not decided (Standing Order No. 10(13)).

[Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)]

The fact that the Question is not decided shall be reported to the House. It is possible for the Question to be put to the House subsequently for a decision without further debate.

[Ian Blackford]

On a point of order, Mr Nuttall. Given that this debate was granted by the Backbench Business Committee, I understand that it is open to any Member to take this to the Committee and ask its members to push for a vote on the matter in the House. The Government must and will be held to account.

[Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)]

As Mr Blackford will be aware, that is not a point of order for me. He is aware of the rules relating to access to the Backbench Business Committee, as all Members are.

Could Members who are not taking part in the next debate leave quietly and quickly, so we can make progress?

Improving Lives: Work, Health and Disability Green Paper

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

As my hon. Friend knows, we have had private discussions on this point, and I have heard her discuss it on a number of public platforms as well. I can only repeat what I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith): although we are not looking for new cuts in the welfare budget or welfare benefits, we have no plans to reverse anything that has already been legislated for.

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

I welcome the Green Paper in the broadest sense if we can have a dialogue about improving the lives of disabled people, but the point has just been made that we need to ensure that the funding is on the table to protect people going back into work and those who need support. Perhaps two words are missing from the document and the Minister’s statement: “compassion” and “dignity”. Let us hope we get them in the Government’s response.

[Damian Green]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman and am grateful for his general support. I absolutely agree that the system should show compassion at all times, and that those who deal with the system should feel that they are being dealt with with dignity, and that it is being preserved. We are at one on that.

AEA Pension Scheme

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I am glad that my right hon. Friend raised that point. It has been said in previous debates and in correspondence with successive Ministers that the point about the availability of independent financial advice is material. To the argument I am making it is not material, because even though the pensioners could have sought independent financial advice, and even if it were the case—as a matter of fact, I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire is right that it would not be the case—that the independent financial adviser had advised them about the overall risk profile of the two possibilities, we would still have to ask why advice was given by the Government Actuary’s Department. If the pensioners were meant to rely exclusively on independent financial advice, the only appropriate posture for the Government Actuary’s Department would have been to say, “We’re not offering you any advice. This is not for us. Go to an independent financial adviser.”

On the contrary, the Government Actuary’s Department very unusually constructed a paper, of which we all have copies, and handed that to highly intelligent people with the intent of persuading them that it described the situation, which is the only presumption we can make. Why else would the Government Actuary’s Department give someone such a paper?

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

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in effect, what the Government Actuary’s Department has done is to give a subtle inducement to those who were in the UKAEA scheme to move across? At the end of the day, the Government should have some responsibility for exposing those pension plan holders to risk as a consequence of what has happened.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I agree that there was probably a subtle incentive, but I will come on to that in more detail in a moment. At this stage of the argument, all I am saying is something that I think is unchallengeably certain: the Government Actuary’s Department gave advice that did not bring to light the material difference in risk between one situation and another. That is fact. Beyond that, one can speculate, but that is fact.

When I say that the Government Actuary’s Department had a duty to highlight that difference of risk, I am again not speculating. Although at the time it did not exist, the Government Actuary’s Department now has a statement of practice. I have a copy of it in my hands. Under the heading “Security”, the statement of practice—essentially a code of conduct—says:

“It is recognised that the security of a private sector scheme cannot be provided in the same form as that applying in the public service”.

It is practically impossible to imagine that the Government Actuary’s Department would offer advice now in the form it did then, because it would be guided by its own code of practice. If it were not, I imagine rapid action would be taken to correct it, because if a Government Department issued a code of practice and then did not follow it, that would lead a Minister quickly to do something. Therefore we know that the Government Actuary’s Department had a duty, which unfortunately was not at that time written down in the code of practice, that it did not observe to bring to light the difference in security between the two positions. It did not do that.

It is important to make one last point about what the Government Actuary’s Department did. A freedom of information request has revealed an interesting sequence of events about which I intend in due course to write a little monograph, because it is very instructive about what happens inside Government and agencies when they engage in commercial transactions. The FOI revealed that there were exchanges of drafts between the Government Actuary’s Department, UKAEA and AEA Technology. The drafts went back and forth, and the various parties commented.

When the draft of the very section to which I am referring, which was at that time labelled 3.1.1 instead of 3.2.3—I will come on to that point, but it is ipsissima verba—was sent to AEA Technology, the person looking at it from AEA Technology noted in handwriting, “Delete”. So even an observation that it was possible the AEA Technology scheme might conceivably go bust, or that the UKAEA scheme might not deliver, was objected to by AEA Technology. It tried to get that deleted. To be fair to the UKAEA people and the Department then in charge of them, which is effectively now the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, that did not get deleted.

I mentioned, however, the numbering, which is also instructive. Section 3.1.1 became section 3.2.3 because UKAEA supported the AEAT proposition that the advantages of preserving—in other words, staying in the public sector—should not be presented before the advantages of transferring, as it was in the original draft, but vice versa. Indeed, that change was made. That whole sequence of events illustrates very clearly that AEA Technology and UKAEA had a joint interest in trying to get as many pensioners as possible to transfer into the AEA Technology scheme—not because they were evil schemers, but because they wanted that scheme to be viable. They were putting as much pressure as they could on the Government Actuary’s Department, to get as close as they could get it to go to telling the pensioners that that was a good thing to do.

To be fair to the Government Actuary’s Department, it did not say that that was a good thing to do, but it also did not illustrate the fact that if we looked at the risks, it was a very bad thing to do. That is a very important point. The Government Actuary’s Department did not just fail to point out the risks; it failed to point out the risks under conditions in which some pressure upon it was being brought not to reveal those risks in full.

I want to make one last point about the advice from the Government Actuary’s Department before I move on to the law. The role of the Government Actuary’s Department, which comes out clearly in the whole of its advice, was to look at the benefits of the two possibilities—remaining or transferring the accrued rights—and to see whether, on an actuarial basis, one was superior to the other or the other to the one. The Government Actuary’s Department concluded that there was not really anything to choose between them. That was translated into the view that all in all, the benefits were as good in the one case as the other. Of course, for a particular individual—this was pointed out—it might be different, but by and large, people got the same kind of benefit in the two cases.

We have the word of the Government Actuary’s Department that there would be no financial difference for pensioners, by and large, whether they stayed or went to the AEAT scheme—except, of course, that there was a huge difference. In the one case, they were getting the same benefits guaranteed, and in the other case they were getting the same benefits not guaranteed, because they were supported only by a commercial firm that could have gone bust and did go bust, and whose pension fund could have been in deficit and was in deficit—and lo and behold, they have indeed suffered.

Under pressure from those responsible for the transaction, the Government Actuary’s Department assessed the two schemes as being of equal value to employees without taking account of the difference in risk. It failed to point out that difference and therefore led the pensioners to believe that there was nothing particularly wrong with transferring their accrued rights to the AEAT scheme. They could have had the benefits guaranteed permanently had they remained in the UKAEA scheme, but they did not ever realise that great difference in risk.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) on bringing this—

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Blackford, I should have said that there is five minutes each for you and the Opposition spokesman and 10 minutes for the Minister, so if you could limit your remarks to five minutes, that would be great. Thank you.

[Ian Blackford]

I will do so, Ms Dorries, as I was intending to.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for West Dorset on securing this important debate. He has been assiduous in pushing the case, and his suggestion this afternoon of looking at amending the law as it affects the ombudsman certainly has some merit.

I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey). He has very accurately shown what happened with the advice that was given, some of the deficiencies that were there, and the possible interference from AEAT in that process and the advice that was given.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan) said in his concluding remarks, we need to remember that pensions are a contract, not a benefit. Those who have paid in to pension schemes deserve to get their due entitlement. It is the responsibility of the UK Government to ensure that there is confidence in the pensions industry throughout the UK. We all look forward to a time when people can save in pensions, secure in the knowledge that they will get their due entitlement. We need to have that confidence, and it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that the Pensions Regulator and the ombudsman discharge their obligations to ensure that the consumer interest is protected.

It is clear that pension scheme members in this case, as we heard last week in a debate in the main Chamber on the BHS scheme, are not fully protected—they are not protected to the extent that they should be. Lessons must be learned and appropriate action taken. Whether that is done through the ombudsman or the regulator is a moot point and we can come back to it in due course. What needs to be remarked on today is that, with the AEAT scheme ending up in the Pension Protection Fund, those who worked for the company when it was in the public sector have, among others, lost pension entitlement. The Government cannot walk away from their obligation to what were public sector workers. That is not acceptable.

It is clear from its conduct that the UK Government Actuary’s Department has ducked its responsibility to the AEAT pension scheme members. Liability has to lie somewhere. As discussed in a Westminster Hall debate on this topic in March last year, the Government Actuary’s Department was the author of a leaflet designed to inform pension scheme members of their next course of action in the light of the creation of AEAT. According to evidence given to the Pensions Ombudsman Service, that leaflet suggested three options, but also said that it was unlikely that the UKAEA scheme would fail or that

“the benefit promise made by either the UKAEA scheme or the AEAT scheme would ever be broken.”

That was in my book an inducement and assurance to the scheme members. Who will stand behind the scheme members who were made those promises? Will the Minister accept that the Government at least have a moral and ethical responsibility?

[Richard Fuller]

I heard the hon. Gentleman make these points in the British Home Stores debate last week. Does he not think that it will be very difficult for the Government to take action on employer behaviour that seems to fall below the norms that they would expect if they do not keep their own ship in order?

[Ian Blackford]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point. I argued last week and argue again today that we must learn the lessons of the failure that has taken place. We have to ensure that we create confidence in pensions—that is what emerges, whether we are talking about BHS, the AEAT scheme or many others. We have to look at the responsibility that the regulator and the trustees have, but it is a responsibility, ultimately, that we all have as legislators.

The pensions ombudsman said that the scheme’s post-privatisation survival, and hence scheme benefits, were not guaranteed:

“AEAT was a private sector company and so there was a risk of the company getting into financial difficulties or failing altogether.”

It is clear that the circumstances surrounding the information provided by GAD at the time of the transfer, or the lack thereof, warrant thorough investigation in the light of AEAT being unable to meet its commitments. If it is the case that vital information was left out of the leaflet, it is a serious matter and must be treated as such.

This would certainly not be the first time that a UK Government Department has been found guilty of misinforming pensioners. The shambolic handling of the notification process for the WASPI women has meant that thousands of women born in the 1950s face hardship, having unexpectedly to push back their retirement by years. The members of the AEAT scheme deserve a full and thorough investigation that incorporates the timelines from the creation of UKAEA to the present so that mistakes can be identified and those responsible held to account. When hard-working employees are promised a pension and it is not delivered, there should be a concerted effort to establish a thorough and independent investigation to determine accountability and all avenues that can be explored to protect pension rights.

The Scottish National party has long called for the establishment of an independent pensions commission to build the architecture to ensure that employees’ savings are protected, and that a more progressive approach to pensions is taken. Will the Minister commit the Government to doing that today? There are far too many issues affecting pensions policy and they need to be addressed in a holistic manner. Establishing a pensions commission would be an important step in ensuring fairness in pensions policy, dealing with problems such as this one and building confidence in pension saving.

In summary, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. For the first time in his capacity as Pensions Minister, I welcome him to the debate, and also welcome the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham).

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I hope the hon. Lady will recognise that the figures I have quoted on a number of occasions show that child poverty and the number of children living in workless households has fallen. Clearly, there will be different percentages in different constituencies around the country, but we will continue on a path that gets more people into work and means that fewer children are in workless households, so that the prosperity can be spread across all parts of this country.

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

The Minister will be aware that independent research commissioned by the Scottish National party has found that the Government’s figures on a solution for the WASPI women were wrong. Instead of £30 billion, mitigation could cost much less, at £8 billion. Given that there is a surplus in the national insurance fund, why does he not do the right thing and ensure that those women get mitigation?

[Damian Green]

Since September, the Scottish Government have had the power to pay benefits in many new areas; they can create new benefits and top up reserved benefits. The days when this Chamber was just a relaxing place where SNP Members could come to whinge are over. They now control a Government who have the power to do something about this and put their money where their mouth is.

Social Security

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome the Minister to his place. It is a pleasure to see him here. We on the Scottish National party Benches look forward to working with him to the benefit of pensioners when it is appropriate to do so.

We welcome the measure in so far as it enables the award of certain income-related benefits to be adjusted automatically when the new state pension is uprated, but when the measure was drawn up was consideration given to the results of the EU referendum and the uncertainty that arises for the 400,000 UK pensioners living in EU countries? The House will be aware that long-standing rules enable the co-ordination of social security entitlements for people moving within the EU. One result is that the UK state pensioners resident in EU countries receive annual increases to their UK state pension. Elsewhere, the UK state pension is uprated only if there is a reciprocal social security agreement requiring this.

The Government could have taken the opportunity today with these measures to address the concerns of the 400,000 UK pensioners living in the EU. Why has this not been done? Does the Minister agree that those UK citizens residing in EU countries who are entitled to a UK pension and all annual increments, as would be the case if they were living in the UK, should have those rights protected after the Brexit vote? Can he give an assurance today that this will happen?

In a parliamentary answer on the issue on 8 July the then Minister for Europe, now Leader of the House, said:

“It will be for the next Prime Minister to determine, along with their Cabinet, exactly the right approach to take in negotiating these provisions going forward but the Government’s guiding principle will be ensuring the best possible outcome for the British people.”

Given that the Prime Minister has had time to settle in, there has been ample opportunity to address this question. May we have an answer today and remove this uncertainty for UK pensioners? Prior to our entry into the EU, the UK had bilateral arrangements with a number of European countries. What will be the situation where this was previously the case? Do those arrangements remain in force and can the Minister reassure pensioners in those countries?

The measures before us also fail to address the issue of the 500,000 UK pensioners living in territories where there is no annual uprating. Why are not the Government bringing forward today plans to restore annual uprating to all British pensioners, based on entitlement and regardless of domicile? It is morally unjust and truly unfair for the Government to strip pensioners of their right to equal state pension payments. There are a host of reasons why a pensioner may choose to move abroad in later life, such as wanting to be closer to family or friends, or to enjoy a different lifestyle. It is simply wrong to punish them for making that choice.

Pensioners who have paid the required national insurance contributions during their working lives, in expectation of a decent basic pension in retirement, will find themselves living on incomes that fall in real terms year on year. Payment of national insurance contributions in order to qualify for a state pension is mandatory. All recipients of the British state pension have made these contributions, and although historically the level of pension received has varied according to the level of contributions made, it is clearly unfair to differentiate payment levels by any other criterion.

Pensioners will now face ending their days in poverty because they chose to live in the wrong country, in most cases without any knowledge of the implications of their choice for their pension. Others are forced back to the UK, away from the family they love, just to secure an income on which they can retire. All should receive their full and uprated pension according to their contribution, regardless of where they choose to reside. Reform would bring the UK into line with international norms, as most other developed countries now pay their state pension equivalents in this way. We are the only OECD member that does not do so.

Most pensioners had no idea that their pension would be frozen when they chose to emigrate. The frozen pension policy acts as a disincentive to pensioner emigration. As the International Consortium of British Pensioners put it, people currently living in the UK who would like to emigrate and who are aware of the frozen pension policy know they would not be able to afford to live on a state pension at its current level in their older years, by which time inflation will have decreased its value, and accordingly they decide not to move.

There is a real disparity in the treatment of UK pensioners and no consistency in how overseas British pensioners are treated. Those who live in the US Virgin Islands get a full UK state pension; those who live in the British Virgin Islands do not. Overseas pensioners are entitled to fairness. The state pension is, after all, a right, not a privilege. It is not a benefit; it is an entitlement to a pension based on paying national insurance contributions.

Given that the measures before us are provisions that support the annual exercise to uprate social security benefits in payment, will the Minister clarify the Government’s position on the triple lock? There have been suggestions that the triple lock may not survive. We on the SNP Benches fully support the continuation of the triple lock. It is the right thing to do to protect the interests of our pensioners. Will the Minister join me in championing the triple lock and commit the Government to continuing with it?

As we are talking about pensioners’ rights, equity and fairness, can the Minister tell us why, when we are discussing the state pension, there is no mention of the WASPI—Women against State Pension Inequality—women and no solution to the injustices that many face in this secondary legislation package? It is not right that women born after 1953 are having to wait so much longer than those born in previous years to collect their state pension. The Government will have to bring forward mitigation to deal with these injustices, and do so quickly. Why are there no measures in this package to deal with those issues?

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are working closely with the new European unit set up in the Cabinet Office, to which I referred in my previous answer.

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

This is about doing what is right. We are talking about British pensioners living overseas who have paid national insurance. Why not remove that uncertainty? Why not guarantee what they are entitled to? It is all about doing the right thing with a new Prime Minister. Let us get off on the right foot and make sure that happens..

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but we need to have the new Prime Minister in place before those negotiations can start proper.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point about a particularly important sector of our economy, and we will certainly look at anything put forward. I emphasise that the Government are keen to ensure that people, including the self-employed, think about and prepare for a better future in terms of their pension.

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

Pension saving has been undermined by the new lifetime ISA, a new gimmick from the Chancellor, which will promote ISA saving from taxed income over pension saving from pre-tax income—in other words, it is a convenient tool to increase tax receipts today. No employee will be better off saving into an ISA than through workplace pension saving. The Association of British Insurers has forecast that someone saving 4% of an income of £25,000 in an ISA would be £53,000 worse off by age 60. Will the Minister tell the Chancellor to stop his gimmicks, stop this nonsense and get back to pension savings? We need no more con tricks from this Government.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The eloquence might be worthy of Demosthenes, but I think the length would not. Questions must be shorter.

Social Security (Equality)

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) for securing this important debate and congratulate him on having done so. I listened with a sense of admiration to the dignified way he made his case this afternoon. I know that he is a son of An t-Eilean Sgitheanach—for the non-Gaelic speakers, that means a son of the isle of Skye—and he very much conducts himself in the manner of a highland and island gentleman, if I can put it that way.

The hon. Gentleman discussed the use of taxation to create a more equal society, which is something with which the Scottish National party would very much agree. He asked the Minister whether he agrees; I must say that the evidence from the Government is that they certainly do not believe in the kind of things many of us do. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) has been fastidious in highlighting the rape clause. I think she did so on Budget day last year when it came up, and I congratulate her on how she has pursued that case. She also addressed the issue of support for all children.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke passionately about the failings of ESA and PIP and the percentage of people who have won their appeal. There are real questions for the Minister to answer there.

[Jim Shannon]

If I may make one quick point, use of food banks is up 50% in Northern Ireland. We cannot ignore that fact. Disabled people, who need money the most, are using food banks more than ever. Why is that happening?

[Ian Blackford]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and agree wholeheartedly with what he said. The Government must address not only the issue of those who are on benefits using food banks, but the fact that those in work are having to rely on them as well.

As the hon. Member for City of Chester said, it is noteworthy that the Resolution Foundation said last night that inequality in the UK has been falling recently but is projected to rise over the Parliament. That is a direct consequence of the Government’s policies. It is little wonder that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) said, in the letter he sent to the Prime Minister to resign as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions:

“I hope as the government goes forward you can look again…at the balance of the cuts you have insisted upon and wonder if enough has been done to ensure ‘we are all in this together’.”

That is exactly the point. Social security should lift people out of poverty and give the disadvantaged equal opportunities. That is what the Opposition are asking for. Instead, the Government have created a system that breeds inequality and institutionalises unfairness. The relentless attacks on sick and disabled people show how callous the Tories have become. As we say in Scotland, we are fair scunnered at the policies of this Government.

[Jim Shannon]

We use the same words in Northern Ireland.

[Ian Blackford]

I am glad that my friends in Northern Ireland use the same words. We use other words as well.

Families with disabled people are more likely to be in receipt of state benefits than families with no disabled people. In 2013-14, 83% of families in the UK with at least one disabled adult and no disabled children were in receipt of state support, and 38% claimed an income-related benefit. Almost 75% of families with a disabled child and no disabled adults received state support, and 37% received an income-related benefit. Some 46% of families with no disabled adults or children received state support, and 12% received an income-related benefit. We can see exactly how those who are looking after either disabled children or disabled adults rely on the state’s support; it is necessary.

It is little wonder that there is widespread fear among those in the disabled community about their vulnerability to an assault on social security, which often provides recipients with a level of dignity that the Government seem to want to undermine. The arbitrary £30-a-week cut to ESA is a regressive measure that is part of this Government’s continued attack on disabled people. The Government continue to peddle the line that such cuts will incentivise disabled people to work. That is a cruel and completely misjudged justification. A review conducted by the House of Lords in December 2015 found no evidence that such cuts will incentivise work, and surveys by the Disability News Service and Mencap show that cuts will force sick people backwards and further away from getting back to work. Social security should lift people out of poverty and give the disadvantaged equal opportunities. Instead, we are breeding inequality and unfairness.

The Resolution Foundation recently called universal credit

“a post-code lottery on steroids”

because it has continued to be cut while similar cuts to tax credits have been scrapped. Universal credit will now be less generous than the benefit that it replaces. Where someone is in the country will determine whether they are eligible for universal credit or the existing system.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central has said, women have been bearing the brunt of Tory welfare cuts, as they are twice as likely as men to rely on income from social security payments. Since 2010, £26 billion has been taken away from benefits, tax credits, pay and pensions, 85% of which has been taken from women’s incomes. That disgraces all of us.

Because of the time constraints, I will cut my remarks short, but I want to refer to the different agenda that we have in Scotland. The Scottish National party has pledged to restore housing benefits to 18 to 21-year-olds, giving back to Scotland’s young people what the Tories have taken away. That will protect 2,000 unemployed single people under 21. The SNP is also committed to treating disabled people with dignity and respect. Responsibility for disability benefits will be devolved to Scotland in 2018, and the SNP has pledged to chart a different course. The SNP’s compact with disabled people will treat everyone with fairness, respect and dignity. We will abolish the bedroom tax and increase carer’s allowance. We will continue the £52 million independent living fund, which was scrapped by the Tories. We will support disabled people into employment with a £20 million fund. We will maintain disability benefits when they are devolved to Scotland, not cut them. That is the difference that a caring Government who are on the side of the people will make. The Government in London must go back to the drawing board on social security to protect the disadvantaged and build a system based on equality, dignity and respect—all currently sadly lacking.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

You put that so eloquently, Mr Speaker, but I hope you will allow me to make the odd comment. It would be impractical to follow the Opposition’s policies because they have no sense of arithmetic.

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

We are not just dealing with the issue of the notice period: there is a fundamental unfairness. Let us take an example: a constituent of mine born in 1953 would have retired at age 63, but a woman born on 10 February 1954 will not retire until July 2019, two and a half years later. That is patently unjust. What the Government can do is to mitigate the timetable so that people have time to react. That is the right thing to do, and the Government should act.

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Gentleman talks about mitigating things. May I just say to him that transitional arrangements were made at the time? Those transitional arrangements cost £1.1 billion. The period that women would have to work before they retired was reduced from two years to 18 months, and 81% of the women affected by that period of 18 months will not have an extension of beyond 12 months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

I am delighted to hear of the outstanding work undertaken by our local Jobcentre Plus staff. In fact, all our JCP staff across the country do great work supporting people, getting them off benefits and into work and helping to transform their lives. I am delighted to see that the employment rates in my hon. Friend’s constituency are going from strength to strength.

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

T5. The House will be aware that hundreds of thousands of pensioners live in countries where there is no uprating. Now that we are facing the EU referendum, and given that 400,000 British pensioners live elsewhere in the EU, will the Minister tell us what will happen to either the partial or the full uprating for British pensioners if we leave the EU?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the position of the Government is that we are better off in the EU: the people of Britain will be safer and more secure.

Motability Car Scheme

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) for securing this important debate. Time does not allow me to reflect on all the speeches, but I thank everyone who has spoken so passionately about the casework they have come across showing that people have been disadvantaged by the changes. I hope the Minister has listened and will respond to what has been said this afternoon.

Restricting access to mobility vehicles will increase the institutionalisation and isolation of disabled people, when we should be focusing on promoting their integration and inclusion in communities. The Scottish National party is extremely concerned that taking transport away from disabled people will make it extremely difficult for them to travel to and from work. The Government have pledged to halve disability unemployment, but their policies for disabled people fundamentally fly in the face of that aim. The Motability scheme provided independence for disabled people and helped them to live as normal a life as possible. As has been said, almost 14,000 disabled people’s specialist cars have already been taken away from them following reassessment. According to Motability’s 2014-15 annual report, 70,000 people in Scotland use the service. If the current level of loss continues, 31,500 people in Scotland will no longer be able to access this vital scheme, which should shame us all.

We know that we are facing these challenges because of the Tory obsession with reforming welfare. People are losing their Motability vehicles because the eligibility criteria in PIP assessments are different from the eligibility criteria for DLA, as many hon. Members have said. The Government should listen to those who have pointed out the consequences of the changes. For example, the MS Society has condemned them, stating that the Motability scheme plays a vital role for many people with multiple sclerosis. They conducted a survey of MS sufferers and found that the Motability scheme was particularly important to sufferers, enabling them to manage their condition and live more independently, which is something that we should all support. It also helped users participate in family and social activities.

Let us look at a typical case of someone who is being reassessed. Mrs C has been in receipt of DLA since 2014, after being hospitalised for five months, and she still has serious health problems. She got her Motability car in October 2014. As DLA is being phased out, she was asked to claim PIP instead. She did so, and received a decision letter dated 1 January 2016, which told her that her entitlement to DLA would end on 26 January. It also told her that, although she qualified for the daily living component at the enhanced rate, she scored only eight points for the mobility component, four less than the number required for the enhanced rate. Because her award does not include the enhanced rate mobility component, she will no longer be eligible for a Motability car. The letter told her that she had until 1 February to ask for a reconsideration of the decision.

She submitted a letter asking for reconsideration on 20 January, and on following up, she was told that it could take up to nine weeks—until 21 March—for a decision to be made. She had been told that she needed to return the car by 16 February: that is, nearly five weeks before she was likely to know the result of the reconsideration. Mrs C did not know how she was supposed to bridge that five-week gap and was unable to make any proper plans to meet her transport needs beyond 16 February. Should she buy a wee cheap car for just a few weeks? Did she need to find the money to replace her Motability car? Can the rules be changed so that Motability vehicles remain with the claimant pending their appeal? That would be the right thing for the Government to do.

The SNP in Scotland is doing all that we can to help disabled people, who are disproportionately affected by welfare reform. New powers over disability benefits in the Scotland Bill will provide opportunities to develop different policies for Scotland that are fairer and ensure that people are treated with the dignity and respect that are lacking from this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Tomlinson]

I will make some progress, and then we will see how much time is left.

On the wider issue of the money that we spend on disability support, we are increasing it year on year, all the way to 2020, compared with 2010. It is about £50 billion a year. We are also spending 14.6% more on supporting disabled people and people with long-term health conditions than those out of work for more than two years who are trying to find work.

The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) mentioned a specific case involving three Departments. I have never heard of that before, which suggests that it is an isolated case. We will talk further on that and try to get to the bottom of it. Also, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) said that a decision was reversed on the back of a petition. That had no bearing on the reversal. I will discuss how the appeals process works later, but a petition would have no bearing on it. A decision is either right or it is wrong, and it will go through appeal. Individuals do not need to secure a petition. They may feel that it is an important part of their campaign, but it does not influence how things are done.

Motability is a fantastic scheme that was founded in 1977, following the introduction of mobility allowance in 1976. The scheme was founded by Lord Sterling, who I have had the great pleasure of meeting on a number of occasions, and the late Lord Goodman, with cross-party support that still continues today. Before Motability, there was the invalid carriage, which was a small, blue, motorised trike. It had a poor safety record and was unable to carry passengers, so it was of no use for the most severely disabled, who needed carers to drive them, or for those with children. As well as being unsociable, it was—frankly—awful-looking.

Today the Motability scheme helps about 600,000 people and they can choose from 2,600 vehicles. It comes as a “worry-free” package, with insurance and repairs included, and its average cost is more than 40% less than that of the equivalent commercial lease. I have had the pleasure of handing the keys to a Motability vehicle to one of my constituents, so, like many Members who have spoken today, I have seen what a difference the scheme makes to people’s everyday lives.

Most Motability users qualify through enhanced-rate personal independence payment mobility or higher-rate disability living allowance. A small number of people qualify through the armed forces independence payment and the war pensioners’ mobility supplement schemes, which are run by the Ministry of Defence.

DLA was inconsistent, subjective and out of step with the needs of a 21st century welfare system. The reality was that more than 70% of people on DLA had received a lifetime award, yet the conditions of one in three people on DLA significantly changed every year. Because people were on lifetime awards, time and time again those people who might not have been on the highest rate and whose conditions had worsened were not being reassessed, and so were missing out on benefits. It is no surprise that under PIP the percentage of those people who qualify for the highest rate of benefit is about 22.5%, whereas under DLA the figure was only 16%. Therefore, it is wrong to try to convey the impression that DLA was the utopian benefit; there was widespread support for its reform.

There are still things that need to be done and those things are part of our ongoing work. PIP is designed to determine awards consistently and objectively, with most people having a face-to-face consultation with an independent health professional to help them to build their case. Members should remember that the assessors are not awarding benefit; that is done by us in the Department and we set the rules and the levels of benefit. The assessors are there to help people to build their cases. So, rather than being presented under DLA with a complex 50-page self-assessment form, which many people could not do justice to, PIP is there. I have sat through PIP assessments and I have seen how the assessors help to support people, particularly when individuals have a mental health condition or a learning disability and therefore need to be guided through the process, to ensure that their case is as strong as possible.

The Government are committed to delivering PIP in a safe and secure way. Full roll-out of PIP started in July in a controlled way, allowing us to test and improve the service before scaling it up. From October, and in line with previously published plans, we began the full national roll-out of PIP. I look at the statistics twice a week. We control PIP and it has been in a settled state for about nine months now, which is widely reflected among all the stakeholder groups that I engage with. That process and the claimant journey will continue to improve. We continue to work with stakeholder groups and claimants, looking at ways to improve communication and the process. Nevertheless, it is widely recognised that the process is now in a settled state. Claims are now taking an average of 11 weeks from start to finish, which is much quicker than we anticipated when we produced PIP. As of October 2015, 611,000 are receiving PIP and new applicants to Motability are now split 50:50 between PIP and DLA.

The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) talked about mental health. Unlike DLA, PIP considers the impact of someone’s condition on them and not just what condition they have, and it treats all impairment types equally. So, 21% of PIP claimants with a mental health condition get an enhanced rate of mobility, compared with just 10% of such DLA claimants, and 68% of PIP claimants with a mental health condition get enhanced-rate daily living, compared with just 22% of such DLA claimants. That is an example of how the improved assessment process is getting people to the right level of benefit—the level they should be receiving. We considered mental health at every stage of the design process, and that awareness has been built in to the activities that are examined.

A number of hon. Members have highlighted individual cases. Without all the evidence, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on a specific case. However, it is important to point something out. Many people have talked about a figure of 14,000 people; actually, there are now 24,000 more people using the Motability scheme than there were at the start of 2013, when we began introducing PIP. So, there are many, many more winners now, which is an important point to remember.

If people in individual cases, like those set out today, believe that an assessment is wrong, they have the option of a mandatory reconsideration, which looks at evidence afresh and allows for a late submission of evidence—

[Ian Blackford]

Will the Minister give way?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I am just tight on time, but if I can give way, I will. If people are still unsatisfied, they can go to an independent appeal that is separate from our Department. Those who lose an appeal, which is a relatively small proportion of the total number of claimants, have had that opportunity to present their case.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) made a brilliant point when he said that in a utopian world, and former Governments have tried this, as a Department we would have all the relevant information at our fingertips. However, the “supercomputer” did not quite work, which is a shame as it could have helped hugely. A lot of the appeals that are won are not won because we made the wrong decision. We made the right decision on the evidence that was presented. However, when we send out the letter explaining why an applicant has not been unsuccessful and has not received what they believe they are entitled to, it sets out why. A lot of people then go, “Oh, actually, while I submitted my GP’s”—

[Ian Blackford]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I will be tight for time, but I will do my best. Very quickly.

[Ian Blackford]

Given the fact that in many cases people are going through the appeal process, would it not be right for them to retain the ownership of their vehicle until the appeal process is finished, rather than losing the vehicle, particularly if they live in a rural area where losing a vehicle puts them at a massive disadvantage?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I understand that point, but it is a long-standing principle that benefits are not paid pending an appeal. A negative decision means that there is no entitlement to benefits, so we would not normally pay benefits unless the decision is overturned on appeal. That is true of all Governments for all time, which is a point that the hon. Gentleman himself has made. Again, with devolution there will be opportunities to do things differently. However, as it stands, that is how things are.

Generally, decisions are overturned on appeal because additional evidence is presented. We will continue to do all we can to make it as easy as possible for people to get hold of that information, because it makes a significant difference.

For those people who are no longer entitled to Motability, there is a transitional support package, and discussions conducted by staff in my Department before I became a Minister meant that the Department was able to secure a £175 million package for transitional support. That gives significant help to DLA claimants who leave the Motability scheme. They can keep their car for seven weeks; they are allowed to buy their own vehicle; and most of them will receive up to £2,000 in benefits, which is normally enough to buy a used car. Motability helps to pay to adapt new non-scheme cars and it provides advice on matters such as car insurance. That support is paid for by donations from Motability Operations, to make things as smooth as possible.

A number of Members have powerfully raised important points. We keep a very close eye on the Motability scheme, but the overriding factor is that PIP is being delivered in a controlled and measured manner, and we are making sure that we deliver it to the most vulnerable people in society. As I have said, we see a much higher number of applicants securing the highest rate of benefit under PIP compared with the number who secured it under DLA.