Oral Answers to Questions

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

The vast majority of people who go through this process are very satisfied with it. Many more people are receiving higher amounts of payment on PIP than on DLA. I work very closely with the voluntary sector and charities to continuously improve PIP.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I am sure that you will be delighted, Mr Speaker, that Wimbledon is now under way. Of course, that means that tonnes of British strawberries will be consumed. I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s recent comments about encouraging more British workers to pick that fruit. Will she update the House on her plans in this area?

[Mr Speaker]

I am even more pleased that Roger Federer won his opening match in straight sets in less than an hour and a half. Conveniently it finished just before Question Time began—that was very helpful.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

I am sure the whole House will appreciate that without looking at the details of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent’s case, it is impossible to do that. As I have explained, the process is designed to treat people with compassion, accurately looking at the medical evidence that it is presented, alongside their assessment of their conditions.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the pensions Minister is doing a lot of work on auto-enrolment for the self-employed. Has he looked specifically at the so-called worker category, in which a person might do their self-employed work for one large firm that could, with willing and regulatory help, roll them into its employee scheme?

[Guy Opperman]

I would be delighted to take up that specific example and will definitely take it forward. I remind my hon. Friend that 12,000 people have been auto-enrolled in his constituency.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

In Scotland we have seen a rise of 207,000 people in employment. This is what universal credit is doing too: making sure people are in work, and making sure they are in work quickly. We are sorting them, and work coaches are supporting them. We have given Scotland the flexibility to do additional work on the ground.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Auto-enrolment has been a great success, but does my hon. Friend agree that we need to do more to encourage the self-employed into it? What steps is he considering in that regard?

[Guy Opperman]

Myself and my opposite number, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), were extraordinarily trendy: we were at a hackathon this morning, which is taking place over two days in Hoxton. The Government are working very hard to make sure that the self-employed have the benefits of auto-enrolment.

Pension Equality for Women

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jo Churchill]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. She works unstintingly for carers up and down the country, and we could have a broader discussion about how we value carers, who are predominantly women.

The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) highlighted the specific issues facing a lot of the affected women, but I say gently that those are issues that women—whether they are in their 50s, 40s, 30s or 20s—are dealing with across the piece. Women tend to bear the brunt of these things. As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) said, there are challenges in rural areas, and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney brought up the issue of financial service organisations and banks not playing their part by also being a conduit of information for women. A series of events led to the current situation, and we have all found ourselves learning that communication should be better.

At the nub of this is the fact that we have a problem. In 1917, 24 letters were sent from the Monarch to women who were turning 100; last year, the Queen sent 24,000. By 2050, some 56,000 people will celebrate their 100th birthday.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We have already heard about Suffolk, and the prediction is that by 2039 the majority of people in the county will be over 65. This is an extraordinary change in our society, and we will have to accept the costs that come with that.

[Jo Churchill]

Indeed we will. The nub of my point is that many of us come to this place as women and as carers. My husband and I still have four living parents, which is great. It is a sign of improved medical care and so on. Nevertheless, we have four children who arguably will bear the brunt of paying for these costs.

In one of my surgeries recently, I spoke to a woman who is affected by the changes to the state pension age—she is a WASPI woman. She said:

“I was born in 1956 and have been fortunate to work all my life”—

I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy)—

“in a variety of careers that I have enjoyed.”

She explained that some of those careers were due to necessity of circumstance. She was warned in two letters that her state pension age would be changing. She will receive her state pension at 66.

She went on:

“I will be 62 next birthday and even if I was in receipt of a pension, I would struggle to stop working as I thoroughly enjoy my current job.”

That is what I mean about the need to consider this issue on a more individual basis. The woman continued:

“I appreciate that I am very fortunate as I am blessed with good health”—

there have been several allusions to that in the debate. She said that she had a supportive husband

“and 3 lovely children. I expect to live longer than my parents but my perception is that my children struggle more financially than I did at their age. I realise that my taxes contributed to my parents’ pensions and my children’s taxes will fund mine. I cannot expect my already financially challenged children to contribute to my pension, for many, many more years. That would seem very unfair.”

If we do not see through these changes to the state pension, the burden on our children will be astronomical. This is not fair, but it is where we find ourselves. We must ensure that our response is proportionate.

It is about choices. I say gently to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) that the Scottish National party has the ability to make a unilateral decision if it wants to.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on bringing it forward.

I have received a considerable amount of correspondence about this matter from the ladies in South Suffolk who are affected by the change, although I do not know whether they are in the Public Gallery today. As everyone else, quite rightly, is focusing on the specific issue faced by that cohort of women, I want to consider its long-term implications for the state pension system. We need to ask ourselves whether the system is really fit for purpose. Do we have a state pension system that actually delivers any longer?

The key thing is that we have a pay-as-you-go system. The most common argument that we hear from ladies who have been affected by these changes is, “I have paid in contributions all my life; it is my pension pot.” They believe that as they have paid in their money, they have a contract for what they should receive in return. The problem is that there is no such pot. None of us in the state pension system has a pot with our name on it. We have a pay-as-you-go system. This month’s national insurance contributions from the working population pay for this month’s pension liabilities in the state system. I am afraid that that system is extremely vulnerable in the face of demographic change.

[Mhairi Black]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Cartlidge]

I always give way to the hon. Lady.

[Mhairi Black]

I am very grateful to my former Committee colleague for giving way. I would just like to ask whether the same pay-as-you-go system applies for the Democratic Unionist party and remaining in power.

[James Cartlidge]

That is not a function of the state pension system. I will resist the bait to which the hon. Lady tries to get me to rise.

It is important that we remember the costs involved. The DWP spends £264 billion a year, of which the largest part is for the state pension. At £111 billion, it is by far the biggest single piece of public expenditure. That sum gives out a state pension of on average just under £160 a week—not exactly a king’s ransom. Of course pensioner poverty would be far higher in the current age were it not for the fact that many of this generation of pensioners are fortunate enough to have occupational pensions—and good luck to them. My parents are in that generation, many of whom own property. Savills estimates that the housing equity of people over 65 is about £1.5 trillion, so that generation has been cushioned to a certain degree. It has also been cushioned by the Government’s actions to protect pensioner benefits and introduce the triple lock, all of which have protected state pension expenditure from the necessary savings made in other Departments.

[Christine Jardine]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, regardless of the figure that he quoted, the people who are paying the price for this are women born in the 1950s?

[James Cartlidge]

Actually my point was going to be that everyone will end up paying the price. Of course this debate is about a specific cohort that has been hit quite directly and over a specific period, and there is also the whole issue of notification. However, although young people going into the workforce know about the change in the retirement age and have had notification, that does not mean they will be able to save adequately for a pension. It also does not mean that they will be able to afford one, or to get a foot on the housing ladder, and they probably will not have an occupational pension. We cannot look at this issue in isolation; we need to look at the whole system.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must get away from talking about women born in the 1950s as though they are some kind of burden on society? These women are asking only for what they were promised and what they themselves have paid for. They are not a burden; they are people looking for justice.

[James Cartlidge]

No one is saying that. My whole point is this: when the women say they have paid in, that does not exist. That is just a mathematical fact; it is not a nefarious thing. The system was not designed for this ageing population and the demographic changes that we are seeing. The duty on us in government and in this place is to be open and honest about that, and to try to come up with reforms that address it.

In my view—and this is a big deal—we should try to move to a funded pension system. Let us be honest: that is not a minor detail. If my hon. Friend the Minister asked his officials what they would think of that, they would say, “Sit down, put a cool, wet flannel on your head, have a cup of tea, and move on to the next issue.” What I suggest is not a minor deal. As I understand it, the only Government who ever moved from a pay-as-you-go system to a funded one was Pinochet’s in Chile—and he did not have to worry about Back-Bench rebellions and so on.

A funded pension would be extremely difficult to achieve because, of course, a generation would have to pay twice, but I believe that it could be done. We have had two proposals on this. During the April 1997 general election campaign, our party proposed basic pension plus. Peter Lilley came up with a system that would move us from the current state pension to a funded one. It would have been fully in place by 2040, so just 23 years from now, the liability for the state pension would have started to fall very dramatically. Instead, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, the forecast for public spending 50 years from today, at current prices, is an extra £156 billion. That is mainly due to demographic change, higher costs of health care, more complex health needs and so on. That is an extraordinary position to be in and, as the OBR says, it is not remotely sustainable.

My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) has said that the other option is a sovereign wealth fund. Any funded state pension is effectively a sovereign wealth fund. It is a way of taking all the money that we pay into an unproductive, pay-as-you-go state pension system and investing it to meet our country’s needs, thereby boosting productivity and investment, and giving a greater return and greater ownership to people in an age when ownership in the capitalist system is under threat. There are huge benefits to be had. At the moment, the savings ratio is extremely low—that is one of the most worrying things in the Budget Red Book—but if the system forces people to save from a young age, it can be very effective. That is what we have with the new system.

There are specific issues, and we should look at the ladies who have been affected by this change, but if we really want to resolve it, we have to learn the long-term lessons. We owe it to those affected to ask how we can stop future generations being affected. If people own their pension—if it is theirs—the state cannot arbitrarily put in place this sort of change. It will take many years to establish a fully funded system, but there would be immediate short-term benefits as we moved to an economy on a more long-term keel. There would be more confidence in investment and we would move away from a more boom-and-bust, higher consumer debt model, which is why I think my hon. Friend has it spot on with a sovereign wealth fund. Either way, we need to start looking at the problem. We will need cross-party consensus, to be radical, and to look to the future rather than focusing on the short term.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

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

I too woke up this morning and thought, “What the hang am I going to say?” I have said everything multiple times, and there are only so many ways you can state the same facts.

I had an email from a lady called Hazel. She said that, just out of curiosity, she wanted to look at the old TV adverts for the multi-million-pound campaign that the Government had apparently launched. Given that we have focused so much on communication today, I think this is a very valid point. Hazel showed me various adverts; having searched the whole archive, we could find three. The first was presumably aimed at women. It is very patronising, as is the one that is aimed at guys.

Two dogs are talking to each other in a field. One says that it is very confused by pensions because there are so many different types. The other dog says, “Well, the Government have this great new handbook that you can request to be sent to you.” The punchline is “Is that you a guide dog now?” Oh, the banter. That is very good, right? But it was not adequate in the slightest when it came to getting across to people the grave changes that were being made.

My favourite is the third advert. It is only 10 seconds long, and half of it shows a dog chasing its own tail. There is no dialogue whatsoever. That summed up, for me, the Government’s reactions to this entire saga. They are just spinning in the one circle, refusing to acknowledge the facts that people are pointing out to them.

I raised that for two reasons. First, it is the only new thing that I have to add, and secondly, the onus is still on the women to request the information. The onus is still on them to go and find out what the Government might or might not be up to with their pensions.

It is incredible that we are still having to have this debate. As far as I am aware, this is the 13th in which I have taken part since I was elected, and I know that there were others before that. The key issue is that at no point have these changes been explicitly mentioned, and at no point have they been communicated to the women affected.

Until the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), I thought that everyone here agreed that there was poor communication for many years. I think that that still stands. It is a historical fact that both Labour and Conservative Governments totally ignored the problem and, to an extent, there is still a huge communication problem that we have to look at.

From the admission that there is a communication problem, we can safely draw two conclusions. The first, which is the more important, is that the women are utterly blameless. The second is that it is actually an admission of guilt on the Government’s part. It is a recognition that the institution of government has failed those same women again and again.

The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) said earlier that the 2011 Act had been rushed, and I agree with him. It was shoved in at the last minute. Then, all of a sudden, people said, “Wait a second: there is a 1995 Act. Oh my God, this has kicked off.” Instead of doing the sensible thing and saying, “Let us step back and see what we can do to soften the blow,” the Government decided to vamp ahead with it anyway. Can we deal with the fact that the job of current Governments is to fix the mistakes made by previous Governments? That is what we are all here for. We are trying to move society forward, and it is not going to get anywhere if the response is always, “We looked at that; it is rubbish, but let us move on.” However, that is all that we are getting from the Government. We can shout about whose fault this is until we are a Tory shade of blue in the face, but it will not fix a damn thing. I recognise that the Government have made slight concessions to the 2011 Act. That gave some women an extra few months, but it was a wholly inadequate response because it totally neglected the chaos that started back in 1995, and the huge leap that nobody knew about. Can we focus on how to fix the issue now, rather than getting drawn into the blame game of whose fault it is or is not?

As has been mentioned, the SNP produced a report that did the Government’s job for them. It stated that with £8 billion spent across five years—one whole Parliament—things could effectively revert back to the original timetable of the 1995 Act. That would allow a lot of breathing space for a lot of women, especially those worse affected. The national insurance fund has a surplus of £23 billion. People can disagree with that all they want—I am happy to talk to them afterwards.

[James Cartlidge]

rose—

[Mhairi Black]

I am about to come specifically to the hon. Gentleman. He mentioned the problems faced by the pensions system, and I completely agreed with the spirit of his speech. I understand that Gordon Brown had a field day with the pensions pot and made things a hell of a lot more complicated for everybody. I accept that as reality and a historical fact. However, the fact that I agree with the hon. Gentleman about those grave concerns shows why we need to fix this problem. We always hear the argument about it being unfair to put costs on to the younger generations because they are the ones who will be footing the bill—the pay-as-you-go system that the hon. Gentleman referred to. I am from that generation, and I am looking at this problem and thinking: these women have done nothing wrong, yet the Government are still able to afford all these things that I really do not think are that important. Are the Government really not going to act because of me? Wait a second—why should I be paying national insurance, if at the last hurdle the Government can change the rules and move the goalposts? Why should my generation take anything that the Government say seriously? We must be grown up about this—I can’t believe I have to say that in here—and we need to address and fix this problem. This is above party politics, so let us be practical.

Where the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) and I will disagree is when I say that this comes down to tough political choices. The Government have a deal with the DUP to maintain power, and billions of pounds are being spent on Trident. There is the refurbishment for this place, and we have heard about some ridiculous campaigns for boats and royal yachts and so on. I am sorry, but those things are not the priority right now. These women entered a contract—national insurance is a contract; it is a basic fundamental of our welfare state as it functions. We cannot undermine that, yet that is all the Government are serving to do. If this were a private company it would, rightly, be getting dragged through the courts right now, and the Government should reflect on that.

The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) said that section 28 of the Scotland Act 2016 gives the Scottish Parliament the power to mitigate these changes. I have a problem with that argument because section 28 of that Act states that we cannot give pension assistance or assistance by “reason of old age”. We are not allowed to do that—pensions are completely reserved, and when we campaigned for the devolution of pensions we were told no.

Universal Credit Project Assessment Reviews

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Again, we need to know the extent of the issues. I am sure the information system is one of those concerns. The Information Commissioner described the PARs as giving

“a much greater insight than any information already available about the Universal Credit Programme.”

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am going to finish this point. The ICO describes the programme as having

“been subject to a number of high-profile failings”.

In its judgment, the ICO weighed the public interest carefully and determined that the balance supports disclosure of these five reports, not least because UC could affect up to 11 million people, by the estimation of the ICO, with nearly 7 million relying on the programme once it is fully rolled out. The commissioner noted that the Department for Work and Pensions had not complied with the law in its handling of the original request for information and gave it 35 days to release this information into the public domain, with a failure to comply resulting in a written certification to the High Court. So we cannot underestimate the importance of this ruling.

[Debbie Abrahams]

But we do not know, do we? I recognise the hon. Lady’s commitment and drive—

[James Cartlidge]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Debbie Abrahams]

May I just finish responding to the intervention?

We need to understand what is in the reports. I absolutely understand the commitment of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) on this issue, but we do not know until we have seen them.

[James Cartlidge]

This is all fine, but the key stats are in the public domain. The purpose of universal credit is to help people into work. We have record employment and record low unemployment. Those are the stats that matter. Does the hon. Lady celebrate them?

[Debbie Abrahams]

Well, where to start with that? First, unless the hon. Gentleman has a crystal ball and has been able to read the reports, I do not think he is in a position to say that they will reveal nothing else. Secondly, on the stats he mentioned, I think there is enough on the record to refute those points.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), because he gives a certain nuanced view on the coalition. In my view, the Government should seek to reduce the benefits bill. It is not a badge of honour if a Government preside over ever-spiralling welfare bills, and I am proud that we have brought them under control, but I accept entirely that welfare reform has consequences.

I want to focus on the difficult subject of food banks. Two weeks ago, the Suffolk Free Press, my main local paper, ran a piece saying that since the introduction of universal credit in Sudbury on 18 October—the full service roll-out—there had been an increase in the number of referrals to food banks. I received an email from the jobcentre just before this debate, so I feel that I should quote it at length. It is the jobcentre’s stance on the suggestion of an increase. It states:

“It is true that there has been an increase in referrals to Sudbury Food bank with 17 people being referred from the Jobcentre since Universal Credit Full Service rolled out… This is definitely more than we would have expected to have referred under the previous version of Universal Credit, known as Live Service, or previous benefits. While some of this might be because of the longer initial wait for payment there are other factors as well. The Full Service version of Universal Credit introduces a more diverse range of customers with a higher proportion of vulnerable groups – Live Service was only for single claimants who were often young and living with parents.”

Importantly, it also points out that it has itself been giving out vouchers for food banks, so it is no surprise that people would be visiting them.

On the measures in the Budget, the jobcentre concludes:

“It would be hoped that the recent budget announcements reducing the waiting time for the first payment by one week and increasing the amount of advance payment to 100% of their expected first payment will help reduce the number of people that need to be referred to the food bank.”

That is the unvarnished truth, as it were. We all know that the people claiming these benefits are not wealthy. That is the whole point; they are not supposed to be. They are experiencing difficulties. Wages have been compressed across large parts of the western world—I do not pretend otherwise. The key for us is to come up with a system that ensures they can break out and go on to earn higher wages and attain a sustainably better standard of living.

[Hugh Gaffney]

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the system is broken? Food bank use has so increased since his Government came to office that people are worried they will not have enough food this year.

[James Cartlidge]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. However, the number of workless households in the United Kingdom is at an all-time low, and there is no single greater indication that poverty is being beaten than a reduction in the number of workless households. We have made incredible progress. This is not a Dickensian Christmas; it is the Christmas when we have reached the lowest level of unemployment since before I was born, in 1974. [Interruption.]

The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) is trying to intervene from a sedentary position. Let me simply say to her, as I have said in a previous debate on this subject and many times before, that I do not speak theoretically. Like other Conservative Members, I ran a small business before coming to the House. The hon. Lady talks about the effect on pay, but some members of my staff declined pay rises because they would lose so much in tax credit, and refused to work more than 16 hours a week. That was a huge problem, and it brings me to the main point of the debate.

If you want to reform welfare, you have to have a system that deals with inherited problems, particularly the 16-hour issue. The only way to do that without creating much more poverty, and much more dependence on food banks and the like, is to do precisely what I think we are trying to do, and give people incentives to earn more through work. If we give them universal support, they will have the encouragement and the skills to do better in the workplace. The other point about my local jobcentre is that it has been incredibly positive about that experience. This is a joined-up programme that does not just make work pay, but enables people to get more from work and to build a career.

[Jamie Stone]

May I amplify the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd)? Perhaps all Members on both sides of the House are uncomfortable, even within themselves, about the concept of food banks. When I was growing up, there were no food banks because we did not need them. Surely, ultimately, we all agree that they are an evil sight and we would rather it was not there.

[James Cartlidge]

The hon. Gentleman speaks as if he wanted to abolish food banks. They are run by a charity that is helping people in need, and I have no problem with that. I accept that even in the wealthiest districts of the wealthiest countries in the world there will be people who are struggling for one reason or another, and it is good that there is that sort of provision. The duty of the Government is to build broad policy that encourages people to improve their position in life, to earn higher wages, and to get on.

[Luke Graham]

As has been acknowledged several times in the House, just over 1.1 million people in the UK used food banks in the last year. In Germany, where pay and benefits are higher, the figure is 1.5 million every week. Although there may be some individual cases, food bank usage is a structural issue. It is not solely down to universal credit.

[James Cartlidge]

My hon. Friend has made a good point. As I said earlier, the issue of the compression of wages in certain parts of the economy is a global phenomenon. It has been seen in the United States, in particular.

Let me end by raising an important issue that I have not heard a single Opposition Member mention in all our debates on this subject. The purpose of welfare reform is not to pay out more in benefits; it is to help people into work, and that is something that we should be thinking about.

In Suffolk, we have a real problem with finding people to pick fruit in our local growing sector, and I understand that in Cornwall fruit is rotting in fields because EU workers are going home and there are not enough people to pick it. Although unemployment is very low—and I am proud of that—more than 10,000 people are unemployed in Suffolk and Cornwall, yet we say that there is no one to pick our natural abundance. I do not understand why not a single Opposition Member, at any point during any debate on welfare, ever comes up with a way to reform the system, to encourage work, and to incentivise people to go out there and get it. Moreover, I am afraid that we should consider the other side of the issue: sometimes we need stick as well as carrot. There are people who are not taking work that is available, and in my view they should be.

[Neil Gray]

The hon. Gentleman’s right hon. Friend, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith)—who designed universal credit—has said that work allowances need to be restored to retain an incentive to work as part of universal credit. Does he not accept that?

[James Cartlidge]

I think that the benefits system remains extremely generous. The difficulty for the Government is that they inherited a system in which millions of people have been taken through tax credit and made unnecessarily dependent on benefits. It is incredibly difficult to wean people off that dependency, and you do not do it by paying out more and more in benefits; all that you do is get the country into ever greater debt. I am proud that we have made the progress that we have made, but it is a difficult issue.

I am trying to focus on the fact that we are starting to see labour shortages in areas where we have 10,000 unemployed. What is going on? What malfunction is occurring in our so-called social security system? For me, the answer is not a softening of the welfare system or the increase in benefit payments that the Opposition are calling for, because that would create even less incentive for people to go out to work. We need to understand how we are going to fill those positions as we head into Brexit and turn off the tap of cheap labour from abroad. How are we going to fill those positions with people from this country? We will have to take some very difficult decisions in regard to the economically inactive and those who remain on unemployment benefit. If the Opposition cannot see that, it shows that they did not learn any lessons when they were in government. They left us with the deficit that caused the whole mess to start off with, and they need to start understanding that welfare is not just about paying more benefits. It is about encouraging people into work and reforming the system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Pidcock]

I am not going to give way, so Conservative Members should save their energy.

Colleagues on the Opposition Benches have conveyed their deep unrest at the system, not to score political points but to try to get the Government to see what we see: people in work and out of work enduring what is essentially an ill-thought-out experiment. It is an experiment built on deeply flawed assumptions about what causes worklessness and what creates low pay. It is based on a deeply flawed model of what traps people in a cycle of debt and financial crisis, and it is a deeply flawed ideology that labels workers and people unable to work with the worst of motivations rather than the best, created by people who, if I am honest, know little or nothing about poverty and what it means to struggle in that poverty.

Leaving aside the ideological differences, the practical issues are enough to go on alone. We have listed them in this place time and again. We have had meetings with the Secretary of State. We have written letters and held evidence sessions. We have listened cumulatively to thousands and thousands of people, from claimants to advice agencies, about the chaos the system brings, and we have witnessed the fear that people are experiencing or anticipating.

Let me say what is still wrong with the system: the wait is still too long, the advance payments are still a loan, the disability premium remains removed, explicit consent is still a barrier and universal credit still penalises people with fluctuating wages. There is still uncertainty about claimants’ entitlement to free school meals, prescription exemptions and Healthy Start vouchers. Private landlords are still wary about having universal credit claimants as tenants and housing associations are still anticipating arrears. So, I was not cheering and whooping at the Chancellor’s announcements. On all the things we raised that the Government conceded on, there was originally no acknowledgement that there was a problem.

On behalf of my constituents, I would like to know why the Government are rolling out this system in Consett and Crook jobcentres on 13 December. Who thought that was a sensible idea? Who on earth signed it off? I still do not have an answer to that. At a time of year when people quite rightly take leave and endure increased costs because of all the difficulties of winter, who signed that off?

The Opposition, backed by some brilliant campaign groups, have won victories against the Government, including concessions on phone-line charges, the increase in advance payment entitlement and the repayment schedule, and the removal of the seven-day waiting period. But let us be under no illusions at all: the Government would not have conceded on any of those points were it not for the political pressure and the activism of those groups. We need more popular resistance to this Government, who have repeatedly told us that everything is fine. Everything is fine, until they concede on another wholly inappropriate part of the universal credit system, so to find out that they have been withholding the publishing of papers—reports that potentially give us the facts to support everything that we know and have been saying is already going on—feels like a betrayal.

I want to see the papers and I want the Work and Pensions Committee to see them in time, before universal credit is rolled out in my constituency on 13 December. The Select Committee will not have time to analyse the information before the system is rolled out. I do not think any of us can buy the argument that the content cannot be shared while retaining the anonymity of those surveyed. Of course these assessments can be published. Let us be honest: the Government are embarrassed. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) said earlier that the Opposition were trying to embarrass the Government; no, the Government are embarrassed about this system. They are hell-bent on continuing the roll-out of this system, irrespective of the evidence. As I have already said—

[James Cartlidge]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Laura Pidcock]

I am not giving way to Government Members. I have heard enough of their contributions about my community. I have sat here for hours. I want to say my piece and then continue to listen to the rest of the debate.

The Select Committee will not have time to analyse the evidence. The announcements that were made by the Chancellor will not take effect until next year, so they mean nothing to the people in my constituency. I beg this Government to please pause the roll-out in North West Durham.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It was the former hon. Member for Foyle, Mark Durkan, who is sadly missed in this place, who once referred to Opposition day debates as being like a silent disco: the Opposition talk about the motion on the Order Paper, and Government Members talk about something that might have a tenuous link to the motion on the Order Paper. In this debate, some Conservative Members— rather naughtily I thought, Mr Speaker—have questioned occupants of the Chair as to whether the motion is actually in order. I should have thought that the fact that it is on the Order Paper would suggest that it is in order.

Given that this is pantomime season, we have seen a competition on the Government Benches as to who their top pantomime villain is—[Interruption.] Well, he was pulled up. We almost, but not quite, had the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) suggesting some sort of corporal punishment for the unemployed when he was talking about using the big stick. I thought that that was completely and utterly outrageous.

[James Cartlidge]

I was simply saying that, when we have a massive lack of labour—for picking fruit, for example—and thousands of people unemployed, we have to ask ourselves what is wrong in the benefit system that we are not getting people to fill those positions. That is not calling for corporal punishment; it is a perfectly fair thing to ask for.

[Chris Stephens]

I asked a number of my hon. Friends before I rose to speak whether the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest some sort of corporal punishment, and I have to say that they thought that he did.

I want to talk about the Information Commissioner, because what has happened is quite strange. The DWP appealed to the Information Commissioner over the publication of a 2011 report and then went to the first-tier tribunal, but the appeal was not upheld. Having been told that it had to publish that report, why is the Department now blocking further such reports—from May 2012, February 2013, June 2013, March 2014 and March 2015? I hope that the Minister will explain why the Department, having previously lost decisions at tribunal and been forced to respond to freedom of information requests, is choosing to appeal now.

The report from the Information Commissioner is particularly devastating for the Government. It even quotes a National Audit Office report, saying that it stated that a project assessment review report from February 2013

“raised serious concerns about the UCP which lead ‘to a reset of the programme between February and May 2013.’”

I think the Work and Pensions Committee, of which I am a member, has the right to review these reports, and also to look quite specifically at what recommendations have been brought forward and which of them the Department has not acted on. Could the issues covered include telephone calls and telephone charges—something I have been campaigning about since I came to this place two and a half years ago? Has a previous report suggested that calls to the Department for Work and Pensions should be free? Have recommendations been made, for example, regarding the difficulty faced by those who have to rely on a text relay operator or to use Minicom services—another issue I have raised recently? The Select Committee heard rather disturbing evidence of people having to use the text relay operator service who waited 45 to 50 minutes to contact someone, but found that they were hung up on. That is something the Department should urgently address, and the same applies to Minicom services. Did these project assessment reviews look at the closure of jobcentres? We have seen the Department’s proposals for the closure of hundreds of jobcentres across the UK.

State Pension Age: Women

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[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—

[Hon. Members]

Ah!

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I agree with the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood). The WASPI campaigners are very passionate and tenacious, and one obviously sympathises with those who, having saved all their lives, feel they were not given adequate notice. Obviously there is a legitimate grievance there, but the point is that, as parliamentarians, if we decide to go through a Division Lobby and vote for something—to join a cause, to jump on its bandwagon—we must have a credible, funded policy to stand behind, otherwise we are selling snake oil. Once again, we have it from the SNP. It stills says we can use the national insurance surplus. I will read out a few more written answers about the ability to use the surplus, which is their policy for saving the WASPI women.

In March 2008, the former Minister Mike O’Brien said:

“Any surplus of NICs over social security benefits in any one year…is not…an extra resource available to spend.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2008; Vol. 472, c. 2605W.]

In February 2009, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer

“what assessment he has made of the merits of using future national insurance fund surpluses to fund an increase in the state pension.”

That was Labour’s policy at the time. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), then a Minister, replied, on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,

“Any increase in the basic state pension has a cumulative impact on Government spending going forward. The Government consider the short-term use of the surplus on the national insurance fund in this way to be unsustainable in the long term.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2009; Vol. 487, c. 1852W.]

That is not least because it has been in deficit and it is cyclical. I think that any of us who claim to support the WASPI women must say which line of taxation, or which line of expenditure, in the Red Book we are prepared to use to pay for this.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I am afraid that the position of the Scottish National party is so obviously partisan and unaffordable that it does the WASPI campaign no favours, but for all that, there are women in my constituency who were not notified and who are clearly experiencing hardship. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be far more constructive to consider sensible, affordable measures, such as the early draw-down of bus passes, which could help to address the genuine need that exists?

[James Cartlidge]

Of course there are measures that we can consider. My point is that unless we can identify specific lines of tax or expenditure to pay for them, the money will simply be borrowed and paid back by future generations.

[Mhairi Black]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Cartlidge]

I should be delighted.

[Mhairi Black]

I have heard a lot about how no one is coming to us with a plan for what we can do. As I said earlier, we came up with a plan, and we think we can argue for it. If the hon. Gentleman disagrees with it, he should come up with a plan himself. There have been umpteen debates, and we have been waiting for months—years—for the Government to come forward with some kind of proposal, because the 2011 proposal clearly is not good enough.

[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 ---

[James Cartlidge]

I gave way to that intervention, so I shall now wind up my speech, because others wish to speak.

Given that £8 billion is a huge amount of money, it is necessary to identify a specific area of taxation or expenditure—other budgets, as an Opposition Member has said. Until people are prepared to do that, we cannot say that a policy is available to fix this. We are just jumping on a bandwagon.

State Pension Age

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Mr Hollobone, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, which has seen more than a dozen people take part in this short debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) on securing his first of many Westminster Hall debates. I very much believe that he is loud and proud. I love that voice, which reminds me so much of home, although I left the area when he was just three years old. He made an excellent speech; it was a trip right through the social security system and how it is failing so many of our people.

We could talk about many things today, from the plight of the ’50s-born women whom the Government are continuing to ignore, to the ill-advised increase in the state pension age that was brought in by the Tory Government and which hits the poorest and most vulnerable people hardest. Several Members have addressed the WASPI issue and the Minister will probably be pleased to hear that I will not dwell on the ’50s-born women. However, as I said in the House last week, this issue will not go away and the Government need to act, starting with an extension to pension credit, giving women the option to claim their state pension two years earlier at a slightly reduced rate. That is not a complete solution, but it would provide something for that very wronged group.

Then we have the issue of increasing the state pension age. Age UK said that it is reasonable to look at the state pension age as longevity increases, but it needs to be accompanied by support to enable people to work longer and protection for those who cannot. I share Age UK’s view, but I must stress that longevity is not enough. We need to consider quality of life and health. That said, University College London’s Sir Michael Marmot says that increases in life expectancy have slowed down or halted, but even if we might be living a little longer but not living healthily for any longer, increasing the state pension age is bad news, particularly for the poorest in our country and those with ill health.

The inequalities are not illustrated better anywhere than in my constituency, where a man in the poorest ward can expect to live 16.4 years less on average than a man in the most affluent ward. The man in the poor ward may have started work at 16 and paid national insurance contributions throughout his adult life, and is more likely to have been in a physically demanding job and to have experienced ill health at a younger age. He may even be lucky to get the state pension for a handful of years before dying. Contrast that with a more affluent, professional person, who may not have started work until his 20s, who retired at 60 because he could afford to, and who then picked up his state pension when he was still fit and healthy enough to enjoy it. The manual worker will have worked more years and may have paid contributions for 50 years—perhaps 10 more than the professional. How is that just? How is that fair? We have heard that people die younger, and the illustration from Glasgow of somebody dying aged 63 and never reaching state pension age is very relevant.

The Cridland review, which will effectively cost 7 million people £10,000 each, failed to come up with an answer to this question, but even John Cridland spoke of the need for greater support for people in hard physical jobs that offer them limited chance, if any, of a few years of healthy retirement.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

We have not yet heard anything from the hon. Gentleman about costs. Does he accept that unless we raise the retirement age, the system of paying for the state pension will be financially unsustainable?

[Alex Cunningham]

Cost will always be an issue, but some have made the point that we need to base decisions on fact and new data. The data are changing. People will not necessarily live longer, so the cost might not be higher in the longer run.

We believe that we should have a variable state pension age whereby a person’s work background, health and income are considered, with their retirement age being based on their life expectancy, not just the national average. The proposal to raise the state pension age even further all but wipes out the chances of many of our people enjoying a few years of retirement in good health. The state pension should be flexible and recognise the contribution that people have made to our country, and the system should be designed to work for everyone.

I really worry about the pressure facing older people in our country. The cost of living is going up and their pension is getting further away. At the same time, many are unwell and unable to work, or they may be caring for even more elderly parents or young children, making a very different but relevant contribution.

I wonder whether the Minister is even aware that 1.9 million pensioners now live below the poverty line. That means more struggling older people on social security and extra strain on the NHS when vulnerable people are living in poverty, all within a system that has seen that value of income shrink since 2010. I referred to older people with caring responsibilities. Many will fall short of the 35 years of contributions that are needed to secure a full pension. We need to do things for all those people, for all the different groups in our community, because that would be the fair and right thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

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

[James Cartlidge]

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

[Guy Opperman]

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

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

Universal Credit Roll-out

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Neil Gray]

I thank the former Minister for his intervention. I said last week, and I say again, that we agree with the premise of universal credit—rolling together all these benefits into one payment and simplifying the system—but under successive Chancellors and Work and Pensions Secretaries, of whom there have been too many in recent years, the benefits have been salami-sliced to nothing. The issues facing universal credit are the result of the Government’s cutting and cutting the areas where they are meant to be helping people.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Further to the very good intervention from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), if the hon. Gentleman thinks that universal credit has been cut too much, and given that the Scottish Government have tax-raising powers, will he put his hand in his pocket and add extra relief north of the border?

[Neil Gray]

The hon. Gentleman knows better than just to regurgitate the Whips’ interventions notice, and he knows that the Scottish Government are responsible for 15% of social security powers and that they have already mitigated more than £400 million of Tory cuts. How much more does he expect the SNP Scottish Government to clear up this Tory Government’s mess?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is incredible fun to follow the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney), who seemed to be commenting on whether or not the Speaker was here, as far as I could tell. Last Wednesday, when we had the Opposition day debate, was the first day of the roll-out of universal credit in South Suffolk. I will be keeping a close eye on that. Like everyone else, I am sensitive to what people are saying about the real cases that are out there, as we need to be.

I remind hon. Members that we are here today not just because of process or a parliamentary vote, but because Gordon Brown committed one of the greatest blunders in UK public policy. He extended the means-tested benefits system so that it covered not just the poorest, the incapacitated and those in areas of industrial decay, but every area of the income stream. He nationalised millions of families’ incomes and created a massive new era of benefit dependency through the so-called tax credit system, and that was a fundamental error.

I am not speaking theoretically. The Opposition have talked about the real world, so let me talk about my experience. When I ran a small business, I had members of staff who refused to work more than 16 hours a week, because they would lose their tax credits if they did so. I even had someone decline a pay rise because of the impact it would have on their tax credits. We have to understand that Gordon Brown created the road to serfdom—the idea that everybody should be dependent on the state—and I fundamentally disagree with that.

It is impossible to move from such dependency on the state through a cuddly process. When people have been made dependent, it is difficult to break them away from that in the way that is best for them, but universal credit does so. Of course the process is incredibly tricky, but we need to look at the benefits of universal credit. It encourages people to work more hours and make the most of their talents instead of relying on the state. It includes universal support from work coaches, to help people to make the most of their ability. That is the sort of system we want, and we should remember that principle.

[Ms Rimmer]

The last Labour Government lifted more than 1 million children out of poverty and paid off more debt—all inherited from a Conservative Government—than any previous Administration on record.

[James Cartlidge]

Fundamentally, we asked taxpayers to spend £30 billion a year putting a ceiling on wages and productivity. That is basically what happened, as I saw. Why would people want to earn more or be more productive, if they were so penalised through the benefits system? We ask ourselves why we have had such flat wage growth and such flat productivity. It is because we are paying people not to work harder.

That has a fundamental implication for the years ahead, because Brexit is coming. We need to remember what the country voted for. I campaigned to remain, but in my view the biggest issue was immigration. We want sustainable numbers of people to come into this country, but if that is to happen when we lose access to this almost limitless pool of very hard-working labour, particularly from eastern Europe, we will have to get the work done by people in the United Kingdom.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an extremely passionate case. I want to mention an incident in my constituency of Taunton Deane. A vegetable farmer recently said that he could not get people to work for him, and has to use eastern Europeans. He knows that there are unemployed people, but because of the 16-hour rule they simply will not take the jobs.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I very gently point out that if Members who have arrived in the Chamber relatively recently intervene, they risk preventing colleagues who have been here for some hours from contributing? I know that the hon. Lady, who is a most courteous person, would not want that to happen.

[James Cartlidge]

It is absolutely right to look at welfare reform in the context of Brexit. My worry, and I say this sincerely, is that—let us look at the seasonal agricultural workers scheme, for example—there is already pressure for a scheme not to get more British workers, but to ask whether we can have workers from Ukraine or Russia. We must think about that, because at the moment unskilled migrants can come to this country only from the EU, not from outside the EU. We have to look at welfare reform through the lens of seeing whether British people will rise to the challenge of stepping into the breach.

The Work and Pensions Committee—I was a member of it—carried out an investigation and we looked at these issues before the general election, and the truth is that large parts of our economy are dependent on migrant labour. If we are to change that, we must understand that the sorts of reform we are now introducing will be just the start of it. There will have to be a real look at education, training and welfare. None of this stuff may necessarily be easy or palatable, but it should move us to a situation in which, instead of flat wages and flat productivity, British people are given a fair chance: they do their bit, and we back them. We will give them support through the universal credit system and we will give them training, and we will have a competitive post-Brexit economy.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that welfare needs to be a platform to build from, not a ceiling people cannot break through?

[James Cartlidge]

Absolutely. Tax credits created a ceiling.

[Ruth George]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Cartlidge]

I will not give way again. I respect the hon. Lady, but I only have a minute left.

As a mortgage broker, I had many cases where an extraordinary amount of a family’s income came from the tax credit system. That is not healthy, and it is not sustainable. I give the Government credit for having the courage—yes, the courage—to take these unpopular decisions. Sometimes, we have to back unpopular decisions, because without such decisions the country cannot move forward. We are doing the right thing, and we should be proud to be doing the right thing.

Housing Benefits (18 to 21-year-olds)

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

Absolutely. That is a point. A very important exemption is included, so where that is inappropriate—where a parent cannot or will not accommodate their child—such people will be exempt from the policy.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

The key point is that nipping the dependency culture in the bud at the earliest opportunity is very important, because once it takes hold it can be very damaging to the interests of those concerned. I must say one thing, however: young people may well think this is fair, but when we do this and protect every single penny going to pensioners, including the winter fuel allowance for millionaires in mortgage-free mansions just because they are over 65, they can be forgiven for thinking that we are not playing fairly by everybody. That would be my observation.

[Caroline Nokes]

We are trying to play fairly by young people who are in work but have to make the decision that they simply cannot afford to leave the family home and stay living with their parents.

Intergenerational Fairness

James Cartlidge Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the eloquent speech from the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson). The report on intergenerational fairness by the Work and Pensions Committee, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), raises some interesting points. The UK Government have built an economy that offers no long-term security for future generations. The Scottish National party’s vision of economic development is, however, built on the idea of inclusive growth based on equal opportunities, a fair and inclusive job market and a safe, secure future for the younger generation.

I know you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will find it hard to believe that I am not a millennial, but I am apparently a baby boomer. To make my contribution more authentic, I shall use personal examples of what has happened either to me or to others of my generation. According to the report, my fellow pensioners and I are in danger of breaking the intergenerational contract, in that my state pension—which I will always assert is not a benefit but a contract between me and successive Governments—and those universal pensioner benefits that I receive come at too high a cost for today’s working-age population.

I shall pause for a moment to consider the WASPI women, who have been treated abominably by this and previous Governments. Many of them have been required to wait far too long for their pension, which will come later than they were told, and this is causing them serious hardship. I was fortunate to be born when I was. I paid national insurance contributions until I was 60, and I continue to pay PAYE on my salary. I contribute to the national Exchequer. Indeed, over my lifetime, I have paid in more than I take out. I am happy for my fellow pensioners to be paid what they deserve, even if they have been unable to contribute as much as I have done. In Scotland, there are many more folk like me.

I welcome the report’s conclusion that it is not the fault of the baby boomers that the economy has become skewed in their favour. This echoes a point made by the hon. Member for North Swindon. We should not be allocating blame. Believe me, Madam Deputy Speaker, there have definitely been times in my life when the economy was not skewed in my favour. Some people in the Chamber will remember 16 September 1992, and I certainly cannot forget that day. Two years previously, I had taken out my first mortgage at a rate of 7.5% and, after numerous increases on that day I found myself laughing hysterically on my drive home from work. I had just found out that the interest rate was now 15% and that it could rise even higher. Actually, it is not exactly true to say that I was laughing hysterically. I had stopped worrying by that point, because I figured out that no one else would be able to pay their mortgage at that rate either, and that my house would be repossessed and my three children made homeless only after the building society had repossessed the homes of all the people whose names began with the letters A to E.

The economy was definitely not skewed in my favour when the then Chancellor Gordon Brown’s change to dividend taxation in 1997 sounded the death knell for defined benefit pensions. For many of my generation and for future generations, that has had an ongoing effect. After his decision, pension schemes became unable to reclaim the tax credit on dividends. Regular dividends are hugely important to overall investment returns, so having a significant chunk taken out of them at a stroke blew a huge hole in the schemes’ finances, and the vast majority of them were frozen and closed to new entrants.

Speaking at his party conference in 2009, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) said:

“Gordon Brown’s disastrous tax raid on pensions heralded the start of the age of irresponsibility.”

He also said that a Conservative Government would

“reverse the effects of Gordon Brown’s pensions tax raid and get our country saving again.”

However, the right hon. Member for Tatton abolished the dividend tax credit altogether in 2010, making it impossible for him to reverse Mr Brown’s raid by making the credit reclaimable in future. Thus, we now have the rise of money purchase schemes, which means that pension values are even more subject to the variations of the stock market. Indeed, many people of my generation suffered after their defined benefit pension schemes were frozen, and the money purchase schemes that they were forced into did not even hold the value of the contributions subsequently paid in. In one case, a pensioner and his employer paid in for more than 10 years, but he received less back when he retired because the market was at its lowest point on his retirement date. All generations will feel the effects of those calculated moves as they move towards retirement age.

When addressing working-age challenges, it is important to be mindful of generational gaps. It is the protections offered by the triple lock to the state pension that protects pensioners in their old age. With inflation set to rise further, the protections must be retained while we address the stress on younger generations. While the triple lock remains in place, we need cast-iron guarantees that it will not be abandoned after 2020.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a captivating speech. None of us wants to make changes to the triple lock, but there must be some recognition of what the country’s finances can afford. That recognition must be balanced against the security for pensioners.

[Marion Fellows]

There certainly is recognition, but I totally disagree with some of the ideological truths held by those on the Government Benches. We have to look after pensioners just now and pensioners in the future. Indeed, Age UK told me to refer to the Pensions Policy Institute, which calculated that a younger person with lower earnings has a 63% chance of achieving an adequate retirement income if the new state pension is increased by the triple lock, but that could fall to 36% if it is linked to earnings. That is about future generations, not just me and my generation. Other parties should be united with the SNP on future protection. Notwithstanding the report’s importance, we must be clear that addressing the challenges for working-age individuals does not mean deprioritising the safeguards for future pensioners. The way to tackle intergenerational fairness is through inclusive growth, ensuring that all generations can live in security in retirement.

The report also looks at universal pensioner benefits such as winter fuel payments, which are not index-linked and have dropped in value over the years. The Committee’s opinion is that universal benefits should not be off limits when spending priorities are set by future Parliaments. However, some commentators have said that the cost of removing them from better-off pensioners could be more than the benefits themselves.

I have granddaughters and I might have grandsons one day, too—who knows? I want things to be better for them. I would like the UK Government to look closely at what can be done to improve matters for them. As I said, the UK Government have built an economy that offers no long-term security for future generations. The SNP’s vision of economic development is to build on the idea of inclusive growth based on equal opportunities, a fair and inclusive jobs market, and a safe and secure future for the younger generation.

The Scottish Government are building a safe and secure future for future generations. They believe that a fair and inclusive labour market that provides sustainable and well-paid jobs is key to a more equal society and a more resilient economy. To achieve intergenerational fairness, we need to tackle the legacy effects of the economic recession, such as youth unemployment and in-work poverty. The Scottish Government are ambitious in their aim to reduce youth unemployment and are now implementing the Wood commission’s recommendations through a youth employment strategy. Scotland has been a strong advocate of collective action at EU level and has supported initiatives such as the European youth initiative.

I might run out of time, but I will swiftly talk about home ownership and housing costs, which the Scottish Government have done a lot to improve. The Scottish Government will build 50,000 affordable homes, which will help the younger generation, and passed the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 to create simpler tenancies that offer stability and security to the 700,000 tenants who call the private rented sector home. The Act improves security for tenants, contains comprehensive and robust repossession grounds and includes an opportunity for local authorities to implement rent caps.

What we need for all generations is hope for the future and robust policies that do not pit one generation against another. My children and grandchildren do not begrudge what I have earned and paid for, and I want the best for them, too, but I have grave misgivings about their life chances under this Tory Government. Theresa May has indicated that the UK could follow down a road of deregulation.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), who is a very good member of the Select Committee on which we both serve. I will echo one of his key arguments, which is that we need to reform the triple lock and other pensioner benefits and to use the savings for adult social care and the NHS, given how much of those savings would go to those who are pensioners.

The key word used by the hon. Gentleman was “honesty”. We must level with the British people about the financial situation we are in. The way to look at it is to ask: if we had a blank canvas today, what would we keep of what we have now? No one starting a pensions system today would come up with the triple lock. No one would suggest a winter fuel allowance, costing £2.1 billion, which is paid to everyone regardless of their income or their national insurance record. In my view, no one would suggest a free bus pass, which costs £1.2 billion. No one would even suggest the £10 Christmas bonus, which Ted Heath introduced in 1972, costing £124 million at Christmas, at a time when the NHS is in crisis and needs more funding.

The essence of my argument is that 2020 is way too late. To have such a date is to use an arbitrary political timetable to enforce policy, at a time when the national interest requires us to look at the state of adult social care and the NHS and to find the money needed for them in a fair way. To me, the proposition that we are about to put more money into adult social care and the NHS but that none of it will come from existing pensioners is extraordinary. We have to look at pensioner benefits and the triple lock.

When it comes to the triple lock, we must remember that by 2050 the number of pensioners—the number of people over 65—will not be 10 million as it is today, but 19 million, which is almost twice as many. Look at the pressure our services are under today, let alone when there are almost twice as many pensioners. If we keep the triple lock, it will cost an extra £15 billion by 2050. My view is that we should recognise that the most vulnerable pensioners—those who need help from the state the most—are in the care system or in the NHS and in need of care.

I think we should look very hard at the winter fuel allowance. I would capitalise it for a year to invest in remediation measures, provide help with heating and so on, and move people on to more competitive energy tariffs, and then I would wind it down and spend the money on the care system, because that is what pensioners need, particularly in the winter.

We should look at the free bus pass. We could put a nominal charge on the pass and allow pensioners to travel at peak time. According to my county council, that would be a huge saving. It is actually what many pensioners want, bearing in mind how many do not take advantage of the free pass, which costs the Exchequer £1.2 billion a year.

I have to add that we should look at free prescriptions. In England, we say that we pay for our prescriptions, but 90% of prescriptions in England are not paid for, because so many of them go to the over-60s. The cost of free prescriptions in England for the over-60s is £4.8 billion. I recently went to a pharmacy in the beautiful village of Clare in my constituency. Most of the over-60s there are relatively well-off and probably own their properties outright—of course, there are pensioners there who are not well-off—but the fact is that they receive free prescriptions while many far less well-off people of working age do not. That is the sort of moral issue we must talk about.

What would I use the savings on? People should be as open and honest about this as I and our Committee have been prepared to be.

[Julian Knight]

My hon. Friend is slaughtering sacred cows in such a steady fashion that I am wondering whether he is also considering looking at free BBC TV licences. Is that an expense we cannot afford?

[James Cartlidge]

My understanding is that the BBC will be asked to pick up the tab for that shortly, which I think is fair enough.

As I say, none of us would introduce such things today. They were political measures that bear no relation to contributions to the national insurance system or to the incomes of the recipients. That is the sort of politics we simply cannot afford today. Instead, we should be prepared to look at these measures, and use the savings to support a fair deal for those who have assets and need the care system, as well as to support those in the care system who cannot support themselves. Raising money to support the care system offers the possibility of another aspect of intergenerational fairness. The care sector is desperately short of staff and too many are badly paid. If we raise the money to support the social care sector, which will not be hit by the robot employment era, we have a way to give better paid work to young people and to provide a better career structure to those who might otherwise be on relatively low pay.

I want to finish on the key point made, in an excellent speech, by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose). I strongly agree with him on the issue first raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) in relation to the basic pension plus in April 1997 that we should move to a funded system. All our constituents who are pensioners will make the point, “Why should you take this stuff away from me when I have paid into this all my life?” And quite right. Pensioners come to my surgeries worried about having low interest rates on their savings when council tax is going up. They are affected by that. I accept that many of them are not wealthy. In fact, many are struggling. I accept that, but the root of the problem is that we have a pay-as-you-go system. We have vast freebies, such as prescriptions, and nobody feels any link to them. My hon. Friend is right that this is about the contrast between a Government who would be doing the right thing, even though it is not popular, of building towards a funded system, and those in the past who have given out vast freebies at the expense of future generations. The former is the model we should move towards. It may not be popular, but I think the public know that tough decisions have to be made. We should not shy away from them. If we want inter- generational fairness, we will have to have a little bit of intergenerational honesty.