Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

We are massively oversubscribed. It is plain that we are not going to get everybody in. I remind those who wish to speak that they should bob. I also ask that, voluntarily, Members restrain themselves to two minutes. If we do that, we will get most people in, but not everybody.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered compensation for women affected by changes to the State Pension age.

It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this Chamber and, as I often do, to draw a very substantial crowd. The genesis of betrayal is trust—the kind of trust that underpins the democratic legitimacy of Parliament and on which the authority of the Executive is founded, and the kind of trust that our constituents, when they send us to this place to exercise our judgment on their behalf, rely upon. Their faith in us is that we will honour what we say we will do and that when we make pledges, they are not empty pledges but are meaningful. When trust is breached and broken, the whole of that legitimacy is undermined.

That is precisely what has happened in the case of the so-called WASPI women—the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. I will use the acronym, because it has become a familiar one to any of us who have taken an interest in this matter, as I have over some time, and as have the public. This campaign is a campaign for no less than justice, to restore trust.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

The right hon. Member is speaking eloquently about trust. Does he agree that it is really important for the Government to help us to have trust in institutions such as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman by adhering to decisions made by it?

[Sir John Hayes]

Although that intervention was not orchestrated by me or choreographed by either of us, it leads me neatly to my next point, because there is an ethical case to be made of the kind the hon. Lady describes, there is a constitutional case to be made, and there is a practical case to be made. In the short time available to me—I know that many others want to contribute to the debate—I will try to make all three.

First, the ethical case is, exactly as the hon. Lady said, about honouring the pledges that were made and fulfilling rightful expectations. Not all expectations and hopes are well founded, but when people have worked all their lives and been told that at the end of their working life, they will be paid a pension at a particular time, it is not unreasonable for them to believe that that will come to pass.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

Given that the Government response to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report said that a compensation scheme would be “impractical”, with “significant challenges” and the potential for “unjustified payments”, and that there were significant concerns about the robustness of the Department for Work and Pensions research in 2006, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government’s position is untenable, given the stark contrast with the way that sub-postmasters were treated?

[Sir John Hayes]

I do agree, and the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that I shall be speaking later in my remarks about the ombudsman’s report and findings, which will bring me to the constitutional matter I raised about the nature of accountability and scrutiny and how Governments are held to account, and whether ombudsmen are meaningful at all if their conclusions are entirely disregarded. He is right to raise that issue.

I want briefly to describe the events that provoked me to challenge the previous Government on this issue when my party held the reins of power. I am not a recent convert to this cause; I made the same argument then—that we needed to recognise the justice of this campaign and act accordingly—but I did so knowing the events that have occurred.

I will not go over things laboriously—because you would not want me to, Dr Murrison, given the number of Members who want to speak in this debate—but essentially, when pension ages were equalised, which was the result of two Acts of Parliament, the notice given to the people affected was inadequate.

I am not an unbridled advocate of the case that every woman who thought that they were going to retire at 60, and then found that they would have to retire at 65, should be compensated. If a woman was young or middle-aged when that happened, there is a fair case that they had time to adjust—they could re-prepare; they could make different plans.

However, if a woman was born in the 1950s and had anticipated retiring in two, three or four years’ time but then had to work up to five years’ longer, it is a very different matter, because many of those women, anticipating their retirement, had prepared for exactly that eventuality. Many of those women, of course, were no longer working. They had ended work to look after elderly parents; they were playing a caring role; or their skills were no longer relevant to the workplace, because they had taken time out of work, first to have children and then, as I have said, to embark on other social responsibilities. These were women who worked hard and had done the right thing, and they are not all, as they are sometimes characterised by their critics, drawn from the liberal bourgeoisie—who, as you know, Dr Murrison, I generally speaking despise.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

Having said that, I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman. [Laughter.]

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

The words “liberal bourgeoisie” made me think. I represent the mainland constituency that is furthest away from Westminster, and I will just point out that this issue affects women from all over the UK, be they “liberal bourgeoisie” or not. In my constituency—that far away—370 people have signed the petition. This issue is huge all over the UK.

[Sir John Hayes]

I meant no slight on the hon. Gentleman. He is right: it does affect women across the whole of the kingdom—and of course, he is much posher than bourgeois, so he could not be slighted by my remark.

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I rise to speak as a WASPI woman myself, and I am very proud to associate myself with this campaign. I know that many people feel that perhaps we should perhaps not be entitled to compensation, because we were able to get mortgages and buy our own homes, we were able to generate more capital wealth, and many of us have private pensions. However, I personally had to stop work because my husband became ill, and I was looking forward to a retirement where my only income would have been the state pension. I am very thankful for my health; I knew that the retirement age had gone up, and when the right hon. Gentleman talks about skills and abilities—

[Susan Murray]

I am sorry, Dr Murrison.

I was able to use my skills and abilities to become a councillor in 2022, and I am now looking forward to a much better retirement. However, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should do a U-turn and implement the ombudsman’s recommendation?

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Lady’s intervention, though not pithy, was pertinent, because she is one of the 3.8 million women, of all kinds and types, who were affected. Many were not well-off; many did all kinds of jobs that could not be described as highly paid; and many found themselves in a position of financial hardship. That is why I stand here today—because this injustice affects all kinds of women, and it has been mischaracterised by some who do not want to face that fact. That makes me angry and righteously indignant, as I always am in the cause of the disadvantaged.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very kind in doing so. In Upper Bann and indeed across Northern Ireland, thousands of women feel absolutely betrayed by this Government. Does he agree that those women are in financial hardship today because of that betrayal? It is morally indefensible that not a penny has been made available to these women.

[Sir John Hayes]

Yes, I agree. Some women were forced to carry on working, even when—as an earlier intervention suggested—they were not really in a position to do so, even when they had extra responsibilities, and even when they were not really fit to do so. That is just not acceptable. It is not right; it is not just.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

I note the right hon. Gentleman’s righteous indignation, but I question where it was in 2016, when the SNP tabled a motion in support of the WASPI women and he voted against it. Is he not really just a Johnny-come-lately, despite what he said earlier in his speech?

[Sir John Hayes]

I have been in this place a long time, as the hon. Lady knows, and she is here having first been endorsed by the electorate, then rejected, then re-endorsed. I have not had that difficulty myself; none the less, she will know that one learns and grows in this place. As I became more familiar with these arguments—I repeat this—I challenged the Conservative Government, my own party, on this issue, on the record, on the Floor of the House. It is not about this Minister; this is about any Minister who fails to recognise this matter.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

If I might make a little progress, then I will happily give way.

It is important to set out some of the detail. Some of the worst-affected women received just 18 months’ notice of a six-year increase in their state pension age. Just under 2 million women fall into that category. The WASPI campaigners acknowledge that some were going to retire only a matter of days, or perhaps weeks, later than expected, whereas those who were given very long notice were clearly in a rather different circumstance. The campaigners are not unrealistic about that. Having met them and discussed it, I know that they are very realistic about the difference between those two groups, and they therefore simultaneously recognise that the Government response needs to be tailored, and measured in the way it gauges the responsibility. The breach in trust is common, but the effect of that breach in trust is different in different cases.

I do not advocate a response to this problem in which every single case is dealt with individually, so that there are as many different settlements as individuals. That would be impractical and delayed, and I emphasise delay because one of these women dies every 12 minutes. There will be another WASPI woman lost during the course of my speech. That is the reality. These bald statistics mask lives—lives altered, lives damaged and lives restricted by this matter.

[Warinder Juss]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

That is what inspires me to speak today and, I am sure, inspires the hon. Gentleman, who is about to intervene to say just how much he supports me.

[Warinder Juss]

A lot of us have previously publicly supported the WASPI women, including by posting photographs on social media. The Government have acknowledged that there has been maladministration, but to have that acknowledgement without some kind of financial backing, even if minimal, not only undermines the process of the ombudsman, who so many of us rely on, but may undermine public confidence in politicians in general.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is right and he encourages me to turn to the ombudsman’s report, which I have before me. Members will be pleased to note that, although I have inserted many tags into my copy of this report and the previous one, I will not refer to all of them. That would take forever.

Suffice it to say that the ombudsman found

“maladministration in DWP’s communication about the 1995 Pensions Act resulted in complainants losing opportunities to make informed decisions about some things and to do some things differently, and diminished their sense of personal autonomy and financial control.”

The ombudsman’s remedy is set out at the end of the second report. Ombudsmen recommend recompense on a scale—a series of levels, from 1 to 6. The report is here for everyone who has not studied it in detail to see: the ombudsman recommended a level 4 response. That means

“a significant and/or lasting injustice that has, to some extent, affected someone’s ability to live a relatively normal life.”

It suggests that the recompense might be between £1,000 and £2,950.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I will in a second.

That suggestion seems to me to be a pretty modest response. It is not extreme, extravagant, unrealistic or unreasonable. It is a modest, measured response borne of the fact that the ombudsman has found maladministration. I have read the two reports. Having been in this House for a long time, been on the Front Bench of my party for 19 years and been a Minister in many Departments, I have rarely seen an ombudsman’s report as clear as this one about maladministration by a Government Department. On that note, I give way.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. Does he agree that rejecting the ombudsman’s recommendations for the compensation of WASPI women undermines the role of independent bodies in holding the Government to account? If we cannot rely on the Government to implement such findings, what message does that send to the public about justice and fairness?

[Sir John Hayes]

That brings me to the constitutional point that I said I would make. I have established an ethical case, but there is a constitutional issue about the ombudsman. Over the years, we have developed a number of ways of holding the Executive to account. Parliament does that, of course, but there needs to be other means of doing so on particular and specific issues. That is why the Select Committee system emerged: as a way of studying what the Government were doing and making recommendations accordingly. That is also how ombudsmen began. They are an additional mechanism through which Government can be held to account, but for Select Committees and ombudsmen to have meaning, they must have teeth.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. Does he agree that this also undermines our roles as Members of Parliament? As a Member of Parliament, I supported the referral of this case to the ombudsman. Does it undermine our roles if when the report comes back it is just dismissed?

[Sir John Hayes]

Yes. My right hon. Friend is a refined Member of this House. To make a more refined argument in tune with his, I should say that the ombudsman’s report is, as he suggests, to Parliament. It is for Parliament to discuss, debate and make a decision on. The ombudsman’s report is about Government, but it is, exactly as he describes, to Parliament. I am grateful to him for refining my argument in that way.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I can confirm that my right hon. Friend has campaigned on this issue for a number of years, and not just today. He will know that in July 2022, the Prime Minister—then the Leader of the Opposition—responded to Carol, a WASPI woman who rang BBC Merseyside to raise this issue. The Prime Minister said:

“It’s a real injustice, and we need to do something about it”.

What does my right hon. Friend think he meant by that?

[Sir John Hayes]

Well, it is not for me to second-guess the sentiments of the Prime Minister, but my right hon. Friend is certainly right to say that a number of promises and comments were made. I will talk about them in a little more detail, provoked by his very helpful intervention.

I see in the Chamber today the former shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). He will know that the Labour manifesto in 2019 was fulsome in its support for the WASPI women, promising a generous financial settlement. It is perfectly reasonable to say that parties move on; the new Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, may have taken a rather different view. He may have taken the opposite view.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I will just make this point, and then I will happily give way.

But that was certainly not the impression given by the current Prime Minister’s remarks. He said:

“Justice to end historic injustice”—

that was specifically about WASPI women. The now Deputy Prime Minister said that the Government “stole” the pensions of WASPI women and that Labour would compensate them. Therefore, one can understand why the women, some of whom are represented here today—they are being incredibly diligent and quiet, Dr Murrison, you will be pleased to know—feel that this was indeed a “betrayal”, to use the word that I used at the beginning of my remarks. An expectation was established, and then it was blighted by the decision made since the general election.

[Dr Opher]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. Could I make an appeal to all of us? I do not think that either side of this debate has covered itself in glory. I agree that this is a very dangerous precedent about the ombudsman, but let us not make this party political, please. Let us make this about the WASPI women. Is there not a way, at least, of compensating the very worst off among the WASPI women? I would appeal for that.

[Sir John Hayes]

That is a measured intervention, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for it. It is true that a package could be put together and discussed with the campaign group and the women concerned; one would expect Government to do that. As a Minister, I would have had submissions. I have no doubt that this Minister has had them, and the Secretary of State must have had submissions that gave her options, before she said what she said when she let the WASPI women down. Those options would no doubt have included a series of ways through this. I know the Minister will be eager to explore those options with us when he sums up the debate. I have no doubt about that because he is a diligent and decent man; he will not want to betray those women again in what he says today because he is not that kind of character.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

The Government’s position appears to be that they accept that the failures between 2005 and 2007 constitute maladministration. All of us can see in our inboxes the number of women who, as result of decisions taken on the basis of that failure, suffered as a result. But the Government’s position seems to be that there should be no remedy because it would be too difficult to get it right. What kind of justice is that?

[Sir John Hayes]

There are several arguments used by those who do not want to get it right, to use my hon. Friend’s term. One is that the public do not care, although all the survey evidence suggests the opposite: that 75% of people think that WASPI women should be treated fairly. Another argument is that it will be too expensive. I could make all kinds of rather spiteful remarks about the Government’s decisions about public sector pay, but I will let them stand as a contradiction, without adding to them.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. He makes a very eloquent and persuasive statement. The current Government use compensation as an excuse, saying it is too expensive, but we have seen, for example, train drivers being given an additional £600 a day. We have seen Government intervene on the Post Office scandal. Does the right hon. Member agree that the argument can be easily disabused by looking at the track record on assistance for those who have found themselves at the forefront of injustice?

[Sir John Hayes]

I had alluded a moment ago to the choices that Government make about how they spend money. Of course it is true that Government priorities will determine where money is spent. The issue is clearly not a priority for the Government. It is difficult, of course: Governments face all sorts of challenges that require investment, and this Government have chosen not to invest in this area. Frankly, it is as plain as that.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

With respect, I am going to conclude because I know so many want to speak; I do apologise. [Interruption.] All right, I will briefly give way, but it is the last time.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I am so grateful to the right hon. Member for giving way and indulging me. I simply want to add to his conclusion. These women have been part of a generation of women who have been discriminated against by statutory provisions over their lifetimes—whether by the reprehensible marriage bar, the gender pay gap or now this. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree. [Applause.]

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady; I am slightly jealous that I have not managed to attract any kind of applause, but no doubt that will come at the end of my peroration. The hon. Lady is right: that generation of women, born after the war, did not have straightforward lives. That was a difficult time in this country, particularly for women. I talked earlier about their hard work and diligence, and their role as homemakers, mothers and grandmothers. They just deserve better; that is what has driven and inspired me to bring this debate.

I will end on this note. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I am mindful of the words of Edmund Burke, who said:

“Your representative owes you not only his industry, but his judgement”.

In the end, this is a matter of judgment. Do we think the issue matters or do we not? Exercising judgment, I leave him with this further quote, from J.R.R. Tolkien:

“False hopes are more dangerous than fears”.

We gave these people false hope. I fear that we will not now put this matter right by realising the rightful hope that they had in thinking they were going to retire at a certain time but then ended up doing so at an entirely different time due to a change of Government policy. That was because of nothing they did, nothing they changed, nothing they chose; it was a change in the law.

I hope that when the Minister sums up he will recognise the strength of feeling across the House, and across this country: that this injustice must be put right, in the name of democratic legitimacy and the trust that I set out at the beginning of my peroration.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Dr Murrison.

I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing a debate on this important topic. I also thank him, if slightly less enthusiastically, for its timing, which is on my first day in office. That fact also explains the delay in answering the named day question put by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), which he referred to in his contribution to the debate.

I am under no illusion that everyone in this Chamber, or almost everyone in this Chamber, will agree with everything that I am about to say. However, all of us who have listened to this debate and to the important points made by right hon. and hon. Members have benefited from it, and we all recognise the context of this debate, which is the squeeze on living standards that has affected women born in the 1950s just as it has the entire country.

The issues that we are discussing today are important to many women, including my aunt in west Wales, who was born in 1955 and who pays particularly close attention to these issues. I spoke to her last night as part of my preparation for this debate and she would agree with the points made by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), that women of her generation have faced many difficulties and particular discrimination. People have spoken powerfully about that.

It is therefore right that this debate gives the long-held concerns of those women the consideration they deserve, just as it was right that the Government considered those concerns in making the decision that we are debating today. That is also why my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), was the first Minister in eight years to meet WASPI Ltd, why the Government considered the ombudsman’s investigations and reports in detail, and why we look closely at what Parliament has said on this subject. Although I understand that the outcome was disappointing for many, the decision was based on the evidence.

Before I set out how we reached that decision, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) requested, it is worth reiterating the point that several Members have made: the ombudsman’s report was not about the decision in 1995 to increase the state pension age for women, or the decision in 2011 to accelerate that increase. Those decisions were the focus of remarks by many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck). They were taken by Parliament, including by many Members who are here today, and they were upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2020.

[Sir John Hayes]

I welcome the Minister to his place; I appreciate that this debate is his first outing and his comments about the timing are well made. However, the WASPI campaigners have never made that case; they have never said that they were against the equalisation. What they said, and rightly so, is that they were not properly informed and that is precisely what the then ombudsman confirmed in his report. Will the Minister just answer this simple question? The ombudsman said that he felt it was unlikely the DWP would respond to his report—it was sad that he should have to say that. The ombudsman proposed—unusually, in his words—that the matter be laid before Parliament. Will the Minister use his endeavours to ensure Parliament gets to vote on the ombudsman’s recommendations?

[Torsten Bell]

We have already had a long statement in the main Chamber. The point of debates like this one today is to make sure that the Government are held accountable for their decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

If my hon. Friend will allow me to make some progress, I will come to exactly that point shortly.

There was considerable awareness that the state pension age was increasing. I think everyone agrees on that even if they do not agree about the research itself. The research used by the ombudsman, from 2004, shows that 73% of people then aged 45 to 54 were aware that the state pension age was going up. Further research shows that, by 2006—when the ombudsman finds that the direct mailing should have begun—90% of women aged 45 to 54 were aware that the state pension age was increasing. We therefore cannot accept that, in the vast majority of cases—and I appreciate it is in the vast majority of cases—sending letters earlier would have affected whether women knew their state pension age was rising or increased their opportunities to make an informed decision. It would not be reasonable—

[Sir John Hayes]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me for a second time. To be clear about this: there are two issues at stake here—how many women knew, and how communications would have affected that. The fact of the matter is that the ombudsman’s report—I have it in my hand—says

“Research reported in 2004 showed that only 43% of all women affected by the 1995 Pensions Act knew their State Pension age was 65, or between 60 and 65.”

That is a clear majority of women who did not know. Therefore the only debate is whether communicating with them would have been effective. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) said, if it would not have been effective, what is the point in Government communicating at all?

[Torsten Bell]

I was not going to go into this detail, but the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is inviting me to return to some of my past lives with the details of surveys. The 43% figure that he is referring to refers to all women. What the ombudsman did not do is look at the same survey and look at the women who were affected by this change, who were obviously slightly later in life and much more likely to know about their state pension age. That is where the higher figures I am quoting come from. It is from the same survey as used by the ombudsman, but it is focused on the women who are actually affected by the change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to today’s debate. It has shown that the sense of injustice felt by the WASPI women is shared by Members on both sides of the House of Commons. Sadly, however—I am sorry to say this to the Minister—it is not shared by those in the driving seat who are making the decisions.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? I will be quick and nice.

[Sir John Hayes]

No—forgive me, but my time is very short.

I sincerely hope that we will get a parliamentary vote on this issue and I will use every endeavour to ensure that we do. The WASPI women deserve better than the explanation we heard today, which was essentially somewhere between, “We’re not sure that their case is justified, because we think that most of them did know,” and, “We can’t afford it even if their case is justified.” Frankly, neither of those arguments will wash. The Minister, who is, as I said earlier, a decent man, must know that, just as the Prime Minister certainly feigned to know it before the general election. The question must therefore be asked, did the Prime Minister not know or did he not care? Was he careless about the support that he offered the WASPI women or did he not know what the Minister has just said?

I end with Winston Churchill, because I can do no better. He said:

“There is no worse mistake in public leadership than to hold out false hopes soon to be swept away. The British people can face peril or misfortune with fortitude and buoyancy, but they bitterly resent being deceived”.

This is deceit—nothing less, nothing more.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered compensation for women affected by changes to the State Pension age.

Income Tax (Charge)

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Aristotle said that the state exists to advance the wellbeing of its members; a state that fails to advance its people’s wellbeing is not merely a state that acts badly, but an institution that has failed to achieve its defining purpose. Such a positive vision of the state requires strong institutions that are able to act, with a Government accountable to the people but free to take actions driven by what Disraeli understood to be the social welfare of the people.

A Chancellor who hides behind the supposedly impartial pronouncements of the OBR is incapable of delivering real, meaningful change. Restoring accountability in practice requires two parallel processes: first, political control of decision making must be rebuilt; secondly and equally importantly, a greater sense that the public have a stake in society—and by implication the state that serves it—must be engendered.

Restoring political accountability means removing what the economist and writer Dan Davies has termed “accountability sinks”: the mechanisms that ensure that nobody is to blame when things go wrong. Accountability sinks are one of the greatest banes of modern life, from automated call centres to computers that say no to applications for loans or other financial services. They are a matter of design, not accident. In the private sector, they can shield organisations from legal liability, as happened in the Post Office scandal. A decision made by an individual is much more open to question than one that is the consequence of a general policy.

In the public sphere, accountability sinks often shield politicians and other public servants from genuine accountability for Government policy. Privatisation, contracting out and private finance initiatives have all been used as ways of shifting responsibility from Government to market forces. The establishment of an independent Bank of England with an arbitrary inflation target is a classic example of a generalised policy that has replaced specific individual decision making and responsibility. Similarly, the Office for Budget Responsibility was established explicitly to protect the Treasury from taking responsibility for Budget forecasting. As Davies notes, the role of the courts and international bodies is similar.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend suggesting that we ought to replace those bodies and have the Government re-adopt responsibility for economic policy in the round, such as by setting targets for inflation, instead of saying, “It’s all down to an unelected body”?

[Sir John Hayes]

Absolutely. Restoring accountability means reversing many of the processes that have been taken as read in recent years. Democracy is dependent on clear lines of accountability, but in the past 40 years they have been either diluted or displaced. Is it any wonder that the public feel disillusioned with the exercise of power as a result?

The British economy has suffered more at the hands of neoliberal globalisation than those of most of our competitors. Foreign ownership of UK public firms has risen from just over 10% in 1990 to 55% in 2020. Ownership has become remote and unaccountable to workers, customers and even shareholders. Credit creation has facilitated the growth of private equity and leveraged buy-outs. Private equity firms have been able to take on vast amounts of debt in order to take over businesses.

Our economy is controlled by oligarchies careless of their customers and their employees. The result has been to make all other business objectives secondary to the imperative of having enough cash to survive. As Davies puts it, the debt burden “creates an ultimatum”: if companies do not put their efforts into making profits, they go bust. Our constituents can see the increasing power of unaccountable globalist enterprises and can see the Government’s inability to do anything about it, just as farmers can see that the Government’s policy on inheritance is completely belied by the fact that most asset-rich farms do not make a lot of money. It is not about assets; it is about income. Such disillusionment is socially corrosive, but it is justifiable when the most important economic decisions are taken by commercial entities with no regard for the needs and values of the people.

Turning the ship around requires radical concerted action, not just platitudes. We need a new economic model—one that harnesses the power of the state to break up the power of rentier capitalism and restore an economy that works for society, not against it. Fraternal economics is the means; popular wellbeing is the end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Let me start with some positives, because I do not want the Government to think that I do not recognise the challenges that they face. I welcome the efforts to tackle NHS maintenance backlogs, which will help constituents in Mid Bedfordshire who use Luton and Dunstable hospital and Bedford hospital. I welcome the Government’s commitment to improving rural broadband and funding for flood defences and nature restoration. As the MP for the Marston Vale line, I look forward to constructive engagement on East West Rail, making sure that communities in my constituency are heard through the consultation process later this year.

I welcome the fact that this Government acknowledge the importance of economic growth, but I am concerned that, beyond acknowledging it, there is nothing really in the Budget to deliver it. Despite the warm words and platitudes of the Labour party during the election campaign, this is a deeply socialist Budget, with an ever-increasing share of our economy moving into the ambit of Government, only to be distributed by Government into areas that are unproductive of economic growth.

[Sir John Hayes]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about growth. The elephant in the room is productivity. He will know from the House of Commons Library figures that productivity fell in the past year, and we are lagging behind many competitive countries. In both public sector and private sector productivity, it is critical that we take further steps to develop skills to drive growth.

[Blake Stephenson]

I agree that productivity is essential, and everyone in the House needs to focus on it.

This is a dishonest and a damaging Budget. This Government promised that they would protect working people; instead, they have delivered a Budget that is tough on work and tough on the causes of work. This is a Budget that taxes employment, with 1 million employers now set to lose out. Combined with an estimated £5 billion cost of expansive employment rights, our economy will be less flexible and starved of risk capital, jobs and investment in our communities. This is a job-cutting Budget.

This is a Budget that attacks our farming families, our rural economy and our rural communities—men and women working hard day in, day out, in some of the most challenging economic circumstances, at considerable risk and with low margins, all to put food on our tables three times a day. We simply would not survive without our farmers—it is that simple. But this Government are choosing to hit those very people with a family farm tax, which will drive asset disposals, splitting up land farmed by the same families for generations. It will discourage the next generation from taking up the mantle, and tear apart the communities that these farms are integral to. Last year, the now Prime Minister said:

“Every day seems to bring a new existential risk to British farming.”

Today, the existential risk is this socialist Government.

This Budget fundamentally attacks the heart of economic growth. It crowds out private investment and reduces real business investment by £25 billion. The OBR notes:

“by the forecast horizon, government spending comprises a larger part of little-changed real GDP.”

When the Government promised growth, the British people might have hoped that it would be growth in the wealth of our country, not just the size of the state. Their own words sum that up best—the Budget says:

“Rewarding work with a fair wage is the best way to improve living standards”.

This Budget achieves none of that. Instead, it delivers lower real wages, lower real household disposable income, higher inflation and higher mortgage rates. After the Budget, the Chancellor told the British public that working people will not face higher taxes in their payslips, but she knows that is not true. More than 4 million extra taxpayers will be dragged into tax because she has kept the freeze on tax thresholds.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Emma Reynolds)]

I am proud that last week we saw the first Labour Budget in almost 15 years delivered for the first time by a woman, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. This was recognised by my hon. Friends the Members for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes), for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), and indeed by Members across the House including the hon. Members for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and for South Devon (Caroline Voaden).

This is a Budget for jobs, opportunities, investment and economic growth that drives down poverty and protects the payslips of working people. It is a Budget that invests in skills and our economic foundation and delivers the change that we promised during the election. Crucially, it is a Budget that restores economic stability and begins the vital work needed to rebuild our public services, which were left in a state of ruin by the Conservatives. The NHS, schools, roads, affordable housing: that is the difference that a Labour Government make.

This was a lively debate with many contributions from across the House and I want to congratulate all hon. Members, even if I did not agree with them all, on keeping to strict time limits of two or three minutes. I particularly welcome my three hon. Friends who gave excellent maiden speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) spoke movingly and proudly about her late mum’s role as a care worker, and spoke proudly about the industrial and sporting heritage of her constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) spoke proudly of his constituency being home to the first mass production of penicillin. His experience as a pharmacist will be very valuable to this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) explained that Wrexham association football club is the third oldest in the world. That was news to me, and I was glad to hear about that. He also said that his constituency is home to the world’s oldest lager brewery and to other thriving breweries and major manufacturing companies. I would like to thank my hon. Friends for those maiden speeches.

Many hon. Friends and Members across the House welcomed the Government’s allocation of funding to two vital compensation schemes: those for the contaminated blood scandal and the Horizon Post Office scandal. The previous Government talked about those schemes but did not allocate any money for them.

I know that many hon. and right hon. Members are concerned about the changes to agricultural property relief, so I want to say something about these changes and in particular to answer the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), one of my neighbours. A couple who jointly own a farm will be able to pass on land and property valued up to £3 million to a child or a grandchild tax-free. That is made up of £1 million when they combine their standard £500,000 tax-free allowances and an additional £1 million tax-free allowance each for agricultural property inheritance. I hope that gives some comfort to hon. Members across the House. At least the former Chancellor but one, Kwasi Kwarteng, was honest about the track record of the previous Government when he said last week:

“We Tories have to be honest—Rachel Reeves is dealing with our mess”.

This is a once-in-a-generation Budget that turns the page on Tory austerity and economic chaos. In addition to the £20 billion black hole in our public finances, with the last Government spending Treasury reserves three times over, there is also a record number of people relying on food banks, 700,000 more children growing up poor, the biggest increase in economic inactivity in the UK for 40 years, millions on NHS waiting lists, crumbling schools and overflowing prisons. We are determined to fix these problems.

Many hon. Friends mentioned the increase to the national living wage that we have introduced, by 6.7% to £12.21 per hour, which will be a pay rise for 3.5 million people across the country. We are also moving towards a single national minimum wage for all eligible adults, starting with the biggest-ever increase to the rate of pay for 18 to 20-year-olds, which will help nearly 200,000 young people—that is a difference that a Labour Government will make. In addition, our youth guarantee will help young people to fulfil their potential and follow their dreams.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, as she does not have much time. As an economist, she knows that it is not what we spend but what we get for it—it is value for money that counts. What is she specifically doing about productivity, which is a perennial problem in many countries, including our own?

[Emma Reynolds]

First, we want to escape the doom loop of low growth and low productivity that we inherited from the previous Conservative Government. Each Department will have to meet a 2% productivity challenge. This is not a cut to departmental spending but a Treasury requirement to ensure better productivity across the civil service.

Our Get Britain Working White Paper, which we will announce in the coming weeks, will set out reforms to our jobcentres and will empower local leaders to tackle economic inactivity in their towns and cities. This is backed by £240 million of new funding for 16 trailblazer projects. It is because we recognise that many working people face extra barriers to taking up work or increasing their hours that the Chancellor announced the biggest-ever rise in the earnings limit for carer’s allowance to help carers balance work and caring responsibilities. That is a difference that a Labour Government will make.

We will also tackle poverty and help those most in need, which is why this Budget extends the household support fund in England and discretionary housing payments in England and Wales. After conversations with the Trussell Trust, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and many others, we are introducing our new fair repayment rate, which will reduce the cap on deductions from universal credit from 25% to 15% of the standard allowance. This will help 700,000 of the poorest households with children. And because people who have worked hard and saved all their lives deserve security and dignity, we are maintaining the triple lock, which will see state pension rises of around £1,700 over the course of this Parliament.

This is the first Labour Budget in almost 15 years. We shun the choices of the last Conservative Government. They chose low growth, low productivity and decline in our public services. We choose investment and growth, restoring economic stability, fixing the foundations, rebuilding the NHS and our other public services, pushing forward with a decade of national renewal, recruiting more teachers, bringing down NHS waiting times, building more affordable homes and, yes, filling more potholes.

This is a Budget that makes a choice about rebuilding our public services, rebuilding Britain and investing in vital infrastructure. This is a Budget that invests in the future of our country, and I commend it to the House.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Anna Turley.)

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Women’s State Pension Age: Ombudsman Report

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the opportunity for this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for opening it. I should make it clear at the outset that I was the Minister for Pensions between December 1998 and July 1999, and again between May 2005 and May 2006, which is part of the period covered by the ombudsman’s report.

I draw the House’s attention to the evidence that my Committee, the Work and Pensions Committee, took on 7 May on the ombudsman’s report—we are grateful to all who gave evidence to us that morning—and to the letter that I sent to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions yesterday on behalf of the Committee, setting out our suggestions for a way forward. Those documents have been tagged for this debate.

The ombudsman opened an investigation of all this in 2018, six years ago. After receiving more than 600 cases, it stopped accepting new ones and selected six sample cases to investigate, one or two of which have been referred to today. The investigation was split into stages. The first report, published in July 2021, found maladministration in the way in which the DWP had communicated the changes to affected women. A further report, published in March this year, concluded that this had meant that

“some women had lost opportunities to make informed decisions about their finances”,

which had

“diminished their sense of personal autonomy and financial control”

and

“caused unnecessary stress and anxiety”

and

“unnecessary confusion”.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Let me say at the outset that the right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished Minister, well respected across the House in his various Government jobs. Is communication not the nub of this? Of course the decision itself is a matter for a debate on pension entitlement, but there is the entirely separate issue of how the decision was communicated, and the injustice lies in that failure to communicate. When we change people’s circumstances with notice and they have time to deal with it, cope with it, make alternative arrangements, that is one thing; but when we do not give them adequate notice because of their age, that is quite another. Disraeli, I think, said “Justice is truth in action”, and that is the truth of the matter.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The right hon. Gentleman has echoed a number of the points that the ombudsman has drawn to our attention, but I think we should be clear about the fact that a great many people did know about this change. The passage of the legislation was widely reported at the time, nearly 30 years ago, and I vividly recall that in the first of my two stints as Pensions Minister, I spent a fair chunk of most days signing replies to MPs who had written on behalf of constituents who were unhappy about the impending change, or were calling on the then fairly new Government to reverse it. The replies that I signed were robust, and made it clear that the decision would not be reversed. The decision was quite well known, and—the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) made a useful point in this regard—I think that citizens have a responsibility to keep themselves informed, by listening to the radio or reading the papers, of changes in the law that will affect them.

However, the ombudsman has established and made clear in the report that the Department found out, at around the second time I was Pensions Minister, that only 40% of women had known about the forthcoming pension age change. Forty per cent. is a large number, but 60% —the proportion who did not know about it—is even larger. The Department found that out as a result of research done in 2003-04, but did nothing about it until 2009. That is the maladministration that the ombudsman has identified. We do not know why nothing was done—well, I certainly do not—because the ombudsman has not told us, but it cannot be credibly argued that this was not maladministration. When a Department discovers information and then does nothing, there is clearly a problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee on granting it. The purpose of the debate is to consider the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report of 21 March and how best to implement its recommendations.

In brief, the following issues arise from the report. First, the PHSO found that in 2005, the Department for Work and Pensions,

“failed to take adequate account of the need for targeted and individually tailored information”

to be shared with women affected by the changes to the state pension age. That amounted to maladministration and resulted in the six complainants whose cases were considered not being able to do things differently or make informed, mitigating decisions. The PHSO concluded that they should be compensated for that.

Secondly, the PHSO took the highly unusual step of laying its report before Parliament, due to its concerns that the DWP would fail to provide a remedy. Although the PHSO has put forward a suggestion as to what the compensation should be, it has asked Parliament to intervene to agree a mechanism for remedy and to hold the Government to account.

Thirdly, the PHSO points out that it is “extremely rare” for an organisation that it investigates not to accept and act on its recommendations. It makes the observation that a failure to comply with its recommendations represents a constitutional gap in protecting the rights of citizens who have been failed by a public body and in ensuring access to justice.

My interest in the injustice arises from the fact that, for approximately eight years, as regular as clockwork, constituents have been highlighting to me the enormous challenges and hardship that they have faced and endured. For the past four years, I have had the privilege of co-chairing the all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality for women with, first, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and, more recently, the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey). I take the opportunity to thank our predecessors, the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton).

It is important to thank the PHSO for its work and the duty that it has carried out. It has received criticism for the time that it has taken and for the narrow remit of considering six cases that some are concerned do not fully reflect the injustice that 1950s-born women as a whole have had to endure. However, it would have been very easy for the PHSO to have decided that this was not a case for it to investigate. Instead, it has not shied away from the past. The investigation has taken a long time because it is complicated and there was a need to get it right.

The PHSO has provided us with a snapshot. It is up to us—Parliament, Government and the DWP—to extrapolate and put right a problem that may well extend much more widely. To do that, the PHSO has provided some guidelines that we need to follow. Parliament should take immediate steps to find a resolution for those who do not have time on their side. Each case should be considered on its own merits. Finite resources are not an excuse for failing to provide a fair remedy. If Parliament chooses to do nothing, that will undermine the ombudsman. The Department for Work and Pensions should respect what Parliament recommends. There must be a commitment from Government to take on board the PHSO’s findings and to work collegiately with Parliament in finding and then implementing a fair and just remedy.

A wider issue that needs to be considered, perhaps in the first instance by the right hon. Member for East Ham and his Committee, is the breakdown in communication and implementation of policy in the DWP, going back over 30 years. I accept that the Department’s remit is large, challenging and complicated, but the PHSO highlights repeated failures in the Department’s communication of state pension reforms.

[Sir John Hayes]

We must not let cause become more important that effect. As my hon. Friend described, it is right that we look at why and how this happened, but what really matters is what happened, because what the WASPI women need is action quickly. If we were to spend a great deal of time looking at the genesis of the issue, I am not sure that quick action would be delivered, so I endorse what the right hon. Member for East Ham said about establishing criteria that can be effected with reasonable speed.

[Peter Aldous]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that point, which he makes quite well. I am diverting slightly from the main cause and theme, but I think he and I are on the same page.

As I said, I am concerned about repeated failures in the Department’s communications. Only last Saturday, a constituent highlighted to me how the introduction of the new state pension penalises those women born in 1951 and 1952. The End Frozen Pensions campaign points out that 85% of frozen pensioners did not know of the policy’s existence prior to moving abroad.

State Pension Triple Lock

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman, who by the way—and I do not want to lower his reputation on his own Benches—is a friend of mine, has given way. He knows very well that today is not about a lasting decision by Government but about political theatre. When we vote this afternoon, we will not be voting for what happens in practice; we will be voting because Labour has chosen to try to make political capital out of a difficult issue. I simply say to him that if the Government were to propose breaking that promise, they would not have my support, and they know that, by the way. I would stand by the triple lock. But will the right hon. Gentleman just answer this: was he not the adviser to the former Labour Chancellor Gordon Brown, who awarded pensioners a 50p increase?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

On the latter point, the right hon. Gentleman will recall that the state pension rose by over 50% under the last Labour Government and has risen by around 40% under this Government. I do not want to make an enemy of the right hon. Gentleman, because I know that he agrees with me; I read his comments in the Daily Express yesterday. Indeed, I suspect that he will agree with probably 90% of my speech—so much so that I was tempted to email it to him in advance of this debate, but I did not want to be removed from the Front Bench.

Let me make a bit of progress. The real-world impact in our constituencies of cutting the state pension again means more and more pensioners turning to food banks and more pensioners shivering under blankets in cold, damp homes, putting themselves at risk of hypothermia. It means more pensioners cutting back, at a time when they have already had to swallow a real-terms cut in the state pension of around £480. Breaking the promise on inflation uprating for next year amounts to a further real-terms cut in the value of the full state pension of £440. We are talking about a £900 cut, around £37 a month in the fixed incomes of Britain’s retirees; a cut in the fixed incomes of groups of the population who cannot easily earn a wage; a cut in fixed income when one in three relies solely on the state pension; and a cut that is punishing at the best of times, but is more devastating when prices are rising and energy bills are increasing.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)]

Can I open by saying that it is a pleasure to at last stand opposite the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) in debate at the Dispatch Box? We have heard a lot of sound and fury from the Opposition Benches, but not much illumination and light. Indeed, the entire speech was predicated on a perceived answer to the question that he has put in the motion—namely, that we will short-change pensioners in some way—and that is far from necessarily the outcome we will see.

The right hon. Gentleman’s speech started pretty well—he read out the motion and so far so good—but it was on the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who claimed him as a close friend, that he started to go down hill and lose his politics bearings. I should just correct my right hon. Friend, who I think was being over-harsh on Gordon Brown by suggesting that, in 1999, Labour put up pensions by 50p. It was, of course, 75p—a full 50% more than he suggested.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am immensely grateful to my right hon. Friend for correcting the record. I did say we were friends and I was trying to be generous to the right hon. Member for Leicester South, but adding the extra 25p would have come as cold comfort to the pensioners who suffered under Labour. We should remember that the triple lock was a Conservative policy, which is why we must stand by it.

[Mel Stride]

I thank my right hon. Friend, and given the impact his intervention had on a speech that deteriorated very rapidly thereafter, he will now be my secret weapon in every debate now; he will be there, poised.

Universal Credit: Managed Migration

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

CS Lewis said:

“We are what we believe we are,”

and I believe that a civilised society is coloured, crafted, characterised by how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. To that end, I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment that claimants moving through the process will receive transitional protection and protect their income as they move. However, Mr Speaker, you will know as a constituency MP, as we all do, that the assessment of need is of critical importance and that too often in analysing need the system has been cruel in its crudity and callous in the criteria being applied to that assessment, from being rigid and insensitive to dynamic conditions, particularly degenerative ones. So will the Secretary of State during this process agree to review the means by which needs are assessed, to ensure they are fit for purpose?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and his continued interest in ensuring that the poorest in our society and in his constituency are well looked after. The purpose of the managed migration pilot is to make sure that we get it right; constantly engaging with stakeholders will be part of that, and of course we will take any learnings from it.

Points of Order

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is: be accurate, and if you are not, acknowledge the fact and make amends. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her intention to raise that matter and for informing the Prime Minister. In responding to the hon. Lady’s point of order on 27 June, the Deputy Speaker encouraged her to pursue the matter by means of a written question. I note that the answer to her first question was disappointing to her, but that is, I regret to say, not an unusual experience for Members tabling questions to Ministers.

The best advice that I can give the hon. Lady in such circumstances is: persist, persist, persist—note my use of the word three times, its repetition twice. Quantity, persistence and, above all, repetition are at least as important as the quality of an hon. Member’s argument. The quality of the argument, of course, must pass muster, but it is a great mistake to think that if a point is made once and has the advantage of being true, it will be readily acknowledged as such by all colleagues or outside observers. Sadly, in my 22 years in the House, my experience has been that that is not unfailingly the case. It is therefore necessary to keep going—if necessary, on and on and on until satisfaction is achieved. The Table Office would be happy to advise the hon. Lady on further options available to her, and this process can potentially continue indefinitely until she has secured an outcome that suits.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

We have now arrived at this exciting moment—I call Sir John Hayes.

[Sir John Hayes]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I waited in vain during business questions to hear any mention of the plight of those who suffer from spinal muscular atrophy, such as my constituent, 12-year-old Rae White. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence approved a treatment for this condition in May, yet it now has become clear that the roll-out has been delayed and the allocation may be partial. Quite simply, those who suffer deserve better.

[Mr Speaker]

I had no advance notification of that point of order, but the right hon. Gentleman has brought to the attention of the House an extremely serious and pressing matter. I do not know whether he is suggesting that there is any mismatch between a public statement of what would happen and what is now happening. If so, that is a matter of real parliamentary concern.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that there is some analogy or parallel between what he has just raised and the matter that has been raised on a couple of occasions in recent months by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), in relation to a different but very acute and serious condition and the availability or non-availability of the appropriate drug treatment. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to raise that matter further in the Chamber before the summer recess, I think I can say with complete confidence that he will have the chance to do so.

I thank colleagues for what they have said and the Minister on the Front Bench for helpfully springing to his feet to assist us.

Supporting Disabled People to Work

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am happy to be here answering this urgent question, and I am passionate about this role. As I said, my work in this area, both as a former Minister for Disabled People and today, is particularly guided by meeting young disabled people and their families, and there is a passion and determination for them to have the same opportunities as others. In some cases that involves full-time work; other times it can be as little as one hour a month, but for some people that is life changing, and the Government are committed to that. It is right that the Secretary of State reviews our ambitious target of an extra 1 million disabled people in work, and it is the actual number that counts. Every one of those 930,000 disabled people involved with this scheme in the past five years now has the opportunities that so many others take for granted.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the sign-up rates of various different packages, but I gently remind him that they are voluntary—we do not want to mandate anything. That said, however, through the personalised support package there is the opportunity to look for local initiatives. All our constituencies have examples of best practice, and through the personalised support of the individual work coach, we can unlock access to those initiatives, linking them to local employers and giving people—particularly those who have been away from the jobs market for a long time—the very best chance. As I said, I have seen the joy of individuals who work for as little as one hour a month, and what a difference that makes to their life.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I know that you, Mr Speaker, regard the report by the all-party group on acquired brain injury, “Time for Change”, as required reading. I hope the Minister will, too. It sets out how hundreds of thousands of Britons across all our constituencies are affected by head injuries, with physiological and psychological effects. Neurorehabilitation can help those people to recover and lead purposeful, meaningful and fulfilled lives, but I have to say that that requires Government Departments working together to bring these hidden disabilities to light and to give people new chances and new lives.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank my right hon. Friend. This is a very, very important issue. I know that the former Minister met stakeholders, as have I. My right hon. Friend has been a real champion in raising, in particular, hidden disabilities and long-term health conditions. It is absolutely right that we have joined-up working, which is why we are working so closely with the Department of Health and Social Care through the joint Health and Work Unit. Many claimants need a combination of support to unlock their full potential.

Funeral Poverty

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The inevitability of death and the recognition that life is temporary grow with the passing years. Death begins as a distant destination, but as the years go by, it becomes a nearby place that one does not want to go to, and ultimately, a near neighbour that one does not like. That realisation is less and less prevalent in our society, however, as we have become more frightened of death. I suppose that is to do with the decline in belief in an afterlife, which has made death so petrifying for people. The lack of preparedness might reflect that—people just do not anticipate or prepare for death in the way they once did.

My ancestors took out insurance policies of a farthing, a ha’penny or tuppence a week—we are going back to years gone by, of course—to raise enough money to pay for a simple funeral. These days, however, it is a simple fact that people do that less, and funeral costs have risen, as we have heard repeatedly. People’s expectations of funerals have changed too. They want the send-off to be a more significant affair, and that is not unreasonable. Why would they not want that, when they have lost someone whom they love?

As several hon. Members have said already, that time of grief is horrible, frightening and bewildering, and while feeling bamboozled by all that has occurred, people are faced with the business of organising that last goodbye—the final passing. As has been said by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), whom I congratulate on bringing the matter to the attention of the Chamber, in those circumstances, it is unsurprising that sometimes people do not know where to turn. They are vulnerable.

I had an Adjournment debate in the main Chamber on the subject and raised it with the Prime Minister last week. The number of public health funerals has grown immensely, by about 200% since 1997, as has been said already—I do not want to repeat what other hon. Members have said, except to amplify points that need to be made. I have a simple request: the Government need to issue guidance to all local authorities that those funerals should be conducted with decency and dignity.

It is appalling that some local authorities forbid next of kin—the nearest and dearest—from attending those funerals. I was with representatives of the funeral industry yesterday, in anticipation of this debate, and they told me that several local authorities do the right thing, including my own in South Holland. You would expect that from a well-run Conservative local council, would you not, Mr Streeter? It is not actually a matter of party, and I do not mean to make light of it, but there are local authorities that refuse to return the remains of the departed to the family; refuse to notify the family of the time of the funeral, which is so extraordinary and shocking that it is almost beyond belief, yet it is true; and refuse to allow them to attend. That is intolerable and it should stop straightaway.

I do not expect the Minister to do anything about it today—let us give him reasonable notice, because I have been a Minister, as he knows—but he should do something about it by the end of October. By then, every local authority should have learned from Government that that practice cannot be allowed to continue. The local authority highlighted by the funeral director I met yesterday was Derby City Council—that is a start. I was told that that practice happens there. I would like that to be checked, and if it is true, for action to be taken immediately. Other councils have already been highlighted in the national press.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that people should be able to have any funeral they want with numerous cars and bells and whistles at an unlimited cost. That would not be responsible and I do not think people would expect it. I am told by the funeral industry that they can conduct a perfectly dignified funeral of the kind that we have all been to, and which we might expect for ourselves, at a reasonably limited cost, where people can be invited and there can be a minister or some other person to conduct the service in a decent and dignified way. Some councils will not allow them to do that, however, and will not even allow them to have a minister there. As I say, it is bizarre. Let us get it sorted by the end of October.

The funeral expenses payment scheme, which was frozen in 2003, represents a smaller and smaller proportion of the total cost of a funeral, as has been said, and has become less meaningful than it once was. I have suggested that fewer people prepare for funerals. Of course, some people are not given that luxury, because death might be unexpected. If someone dies suddenly or at an early age, how can they be expected to have prepared for that eventuality? Given that, it is right that we raise the payment to a reasonable amount. The Prime Minister generously invited me to write to the Chancellor to suggest that he did just that in the Budget, and he can expect a letter from me that makes exactly that case without delay—indeed, I am meeting a Treasury Minister later today to discuss it.

The challenge is actually a bit more complicated than that, however. It is not just about the size of the grant, but the business of applying for it. About 30% of people who apply get no money at all, because the system is complicated and there is a big problem with who can apply. Complicated family rules mean that only a nearest member of the family can apply, so there are all kinds of complications with stepchildren, second wives, first husbands and other things of that kind that need to be clarified. The process needs to be smoother and simpler, because people are bewildered, in grief and confused. That must be understood and the matter must be dealt with sensitively.

I accept that not all of what I request is within the Minister’s purview, so I hope he will forgive me. One of the problems is that this matter crosses several Departments, which is always a difficult business in Government. We need to act on the recommendations of the 2016 Work and Pensions Committee report, which called for a simpler and more streamlined process, for the reasons that I have suggested. Let us do what the Select Committee asked to make it a straightforward affair and make the grant meaningful.

I want others to be able to contribute, so I will finish now by saying this. It is sometimes said that there are no noble causes left—nothing worth fighting for; no wrongs to be put right—but there is no more noble, virtuous battle than this one, and I will fight for those cruelly dubbed “paupers”, as they have been described as in the press. “Paupers’ funerals” is a cruel description. People who are poor and are looking to bury those they have lost and loved deserve to be treated with dignity, decency and discretion. The Minister can make sure that happens. In his response today, he can see to that. If he does not, and if the Government fail to act, I will make sure they do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate with you in the Chair, Mr Streeter. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) on securing this important debate, and on the way she presented her argument. I pay tribute to her for the work that she has being doing on the issue for a number of years. She mentioned a review of funeral affordability, and what she said is right. I will touch on the Scottish Government’s action with reference to that. She also said that, alarmingly, 81% of people are unable to save for a funeral. That is why I hope we shall soon get to a place where funeral plans become more attractive to consumers. She criticised UK Ministers in relation to social fund funeral payments, and other Members made similar calls to the Minister. Perhaps that will form part of his Budget submission in the negotiations that will no doubt take place between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury in the coming months.

The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) intervened to raise the issue of council-based costs for funerals—burial and cremation fees—and she was right to do so. Without doubt some local authorities, including the one covering my constituency, North Lanarkshire Council, have used burial and cremation fees as a cash cow, to mask cuts in other areas. It is extremely worrying. The hon. Lady was right to pay tribute to the Fair Funerals campaign for exposing some of that behaviour and campaigning for greater transparency from funeral directors. I am sorry that that campaign no longer exists.

[Mr Hayes]

Part of the problem, which I did not highlight in my speech as I did not want to go on for too long, is that currently there is a separation between what is known in the industry as the disbursements—the cost of the cremation, burial and so on—and other costs. The current statute refers to necessary funeral costs, and that needs to be revisited. A minor amendment, through secondary legislation, would enable us to make it much clearer what the funeral grant pays for. Simplification is required.

[Neil Gray]

I appreciate that intervention. Clarification is also required in the context of the funeral plan market. The criticism and the furore about consumer rights issues in relation to funeral plans has in part been about that very issue—what people should expect the plan to pay for. Many people have redeemed a product but found that they were still liable for burial and cremation fees that were substantially more than anyone would expect to budget for.

The hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) made a very good speech. I have had the pleasure of working with him on the issue and, as ever, he was constructive and helpful. He was right to draw attention to the fact that the £700 additional expenses have been frozen for so long. I hope that his intervention, and that of the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), will influence the Minister to strengthen negotiations with the Treasury about the upcoming Budget. I do not think that dealing with that would cost an awful lot of money, but it could make a major difference to people’s lives. On that issue, and the regulation of funeral directors, which the hon. Member for Southend West also touched on, we are doing something different in Scotland. I know he is aware of that, and I hope that the Minister’s attention can be drawn to it.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) made a good speech, having also campaigned on the issue since her election to Parliament in 2015. She is known for being consensual, so it was to be expected that she would draw attention to the rare consensus in the Chamber today—and she was right, as there has been a great degree of consensus. My hon. Friends and Labour colleagues were nodding along sagely to the speeches of the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings and the hon. Member for Southend West. I hope that Ministers will take that consensus into account. My hon. Friend also raised the matter of people’s overwhelming, understandable and natural desire to give their loved ones the best possible send-off, and the reality of the debt that sadly results from that natural desire. She spoke of several areas in which a greater amount of action could be taken—and is being taken, north of the border—to alleviate some of the pressures felt at the sad time of a death in a family.

The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings spoke about some people’s lack of preparedness for death and the understandable reasons for that, which were well documented in his speech. He touched on something I have already spoken about, which could solve that problem: funeral planning. I think that we have the answer there, if we can get the regulation right. I reiterate the call that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made for more dignity in what have been termed “paupers’ funerals” —social or council-run funerals—and that is right. There have been examples of what they mentioned in Scotland, too. Having a dignified funeral for a loved one should not be the preserve only of people who can find thousands of pounds at the drop of a hat. We should all expect that for our loved ones, and for ourselves. We never know what circumstances we shall find ourselves in. It was right to draw attention to that matter, and to the fact that we should honour our loved ones with dignity.

It would not be a Westminster Hall debate if I were not, in summing up, reflecting on a speech by the hon. Member for Strangford. As always, he made a constructive and considered speech. It was disturbing to hear the personal example he gave of a pauper’s funeral in his constituency. There are no two ways about it; we need to do much better for people in that regard.

Having heard the speeches made across the Chamber today, we can be in no doubt that there is a considerable problem. According to a 2018 report on national funeral costs, one in eight people who had to pay for any type of funeral expense had to take on debt to do so. I suspect that in many areas, including Airdrie and Shotts, that figure will be far higher. As has been touched on, many funeral directors go above and beyond to do what they can to help people who are clearly struggling, but we need to do more on a structural basis.

The hon. Member for South Shields called for changes, and she could look north of the border for a Government who are making strides in some of the areas she described. The Scottish Government have set out a 10-point action plan to help tackle funeral poverty. Their funeral costs plan, published in 2017, included launching a new funeral expense assistance benefit by next year, publishing guidance on funeral costs by the end of this year, strengthening consumer protection in relation to funeral plans, delivering a social innovation fund to help tackle disadvantage such as funeral poverty, and giving more options for saving for a funeral, including a funeral bond pilot. That is not the entirety of the Scottish Government’s action on the matter, but it is something that I hope Ministers will reflect on.

Another area is planning. In December 2016 I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill that considered the regulation of funeral plans, and Ministers have now—very helpfully—issued a call for evidence. I welcome that and look forward to hearing the outcome. We can also debate whether it would be best to strengthen the Funeral Planning Authority, or merely to move regulation to the Financial Conduct Authority. There is no doubt that since my Bill the FPA has made welcome changes to many of its practices, and it has done a lot to bring about greater confidence in the industry and strengthened its regulation. I welcome that and congratulate the FPA. My only caution about moving to FCA regulation would be whether we have too big an umbrella trying to cover the problem, and whether the problems with funeral plans would get lost among the myriad issues that the FCA has to consider. That is my only caution—we must ensure that the regulatory model that comes forward is right. We obviously cannot move from a model that has not been working well or encouraged consumer confidence to one that is no better.

In conclusion, this is my first opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his return to office. I have always enjoyed debates with him—some have been constructive and some not so much, but he is always helpful in his response. I hope that today he has heard the agreement among all parties about the need for change and for greater action by his Department and others, and I hope that he will take that message away in the spirit of consensus mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. The Minister has allies in the SNP to help drive that change, and not just for funeral payment assistance but for the regulation of funeral plans. Let us get it right and allow people to give dignity to their loved ones at times of bereavement.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Justin Tomlinson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, in today’s very important and very timely debate.

First of all, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), who has been a long-standing campaigner on, and is highly respected in, this incredibly important area. Honestly, I am new as a Minister and I must stress that despite the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) that I should be allowed a power grab, this is an area of responsibility that is split across the Department for Work and Pensions, where I am a Minister; the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government; the Ministry of Justice; and the Department of Health and Social Care. So I am afraid that I personally cannot commit to all of the asks today.

Nevertheless, I will set out and make very clear—I do not have a pre-written speech; I have been listening very carefully to what has been said—some of the things that are being done, some of the things that are in train, where I think we can go further, and what we need to do as we work together on this incredibly important issue.

In her very measured speech, the hon. Member for South Shields made a number of key points, which were also made by many others, particularly on the lack of clarity in discussions around eligibility, the whole stress of the process and the actual value of support that is available.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), who has been another tireless campaigner in this area, also highlighted the stress involved in the process, particularly around the eligibility criteria, and then the potential gap between the support that is available and the costs for things that many people feel are required. He also expressed some concerns about the pre-plans and the scrutiny of the industry. Again, I will cover those issues later.

As for the hon. Members for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), I am genuinely very interested in the changes that the Scottish Government will potentially make. I will look very carefully to see whether lessons can be learned there and again they made valuable points about funeral plans and scrutiny, which I will cover when I am further along in my speech. Also, the Scottish National party’s spokesman—the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts—highlighted the fact that we have worked together and we are in mutual agreement in many areas, and I hope that this issue will be one that we can continue to work on.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings for the question he put at Prime Minister’s questions last week; that was advance lobbying, even before we begin our lobbying in particular areas. He was right to highlight that expectations have changed; I spent much of the summer making visits, including to funeral directors, and that message very much came through. Actually, as part of some of our long-term solutions, that also presents an opportunity, because there has been a change in expectations and there is now much wider scope for people to pay their respects as they wish to. He was also absolutely right to highlight concerns to do with funerals and public health; again, I will come on to that point later.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his very kind words. As ever, he contributed by giving a measured and sensible summary of the situation, which shows what a proactive campaigner he is here in Parliament in reflecting the views of his constituents. However, he made a mistake by saying that two things are certain in life—death and taxes. In fact, three things are certain: death; taxes; and his contributing to a debate. [Laughter.]

[Mr Hayes]

By the way, Mr Streeter, I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship as I contribute to this debate, and I should have said so earlier.

I will forgive my hon. Friend the Minister for not calling me “right hon.” if he will agree to meet me to discuss this issue further. Would that be a fair deal?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that request, in response to which I say, “Fear not. Hang on”; I will be covering it as part of the things that I will address going forward.

We have discussed the three elements of support that are available. First, and predominantly, there are the funeral expense payments for the necessary costs, which can be accessed by those who qualify for benefits such as income support, state pension credit, income-based jobseeker’s allowance, the disability or severe disability element of housing benefit, income-related employment support allowance, the element of working tax credit, universal credit and support for mortgage interest. As I had to read out that list, I absolutely accept the point about what is often the confusion over eligibility; again, I will come on to that.

Secondly, there are the funds available for the additional expenses. However, it has been highlighted that the figure involved has not changed since 2003, so a number of Governments have had to wrestle with that decision. Nevertheless, I understand that that is an issue that has been raised by all those who contributed today. Thirdly, there are the social budget loans. Support is also available to working-age people through the bereaved payment support, a new benefit whereby we increase the initial payment with the potential for that money to be used for funerals, if claimants needed or wished to use it in that way.

As I have said, this issue is cross-departmental, but work is already going on. In June, the Competition and Markets Authority announced its investigation of this industry. I think we all welcome that. The CMA will look at the whole process, including its transparency—or lack of it—and fairness. Actually, I learned through my visits this summer that there is no regulation at all in this area—any one of us could set up as a funeral director tomorrow. I am not sure that that is a great thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

I can tell from the Minister’s tone that he really appreciates the issue and is determined to do something about it, and I thank him for that. I probably complicated my question earlier. Will he meet a small delegation of colleagues—he clearly knows the people concerned—perhaps following the interim report, to look at how we take this further?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I am absolutely committed to doing that and am happy to do so. The Treasury is investigating pre-planned funerals. The matter is not in my area, but we welcome the work and will carefully consider the outcomes. We absolutely need to continue to make the forms simpler—we have done a lot on that but there is more to do—and the whole process quicker.

Youth Unemployment

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Byrne]

I will give way in a moment, because I want to turn to apprenticeships, which the Minister has mentioned. Apprenticeships have sometimes been seen in this debate as the Department’s silver bullet, so let us be clear: ours was the party that rescued apprenticeships. We inherited 65,000 apprenticeships; the figure was over 260,000 when we left office. This year, 85% of new apprentices will not be young people, but people over 25. Leaked documents seen by The Guardian show that Ministers have been warned that apprenticeships are actually a re-badging of existing jobs. It turns out that about 11,000 of this year’s new places have gone to 16 to 18-year-olds. I should point out for the House that 205,000 of those aged 16 to 17 are now on the dole. If they all applied for one of those apprenticeships, they would have a 5% success rate. Getting into Oxford university is less competitive than that. Given those figures, an ally of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the Chancellor thought that apprenticeships were

“a rare piece of good news, but it’s turning out to be a con”.

The unnamed ally is right: it is a con. We have a Work programme that is all programme and no work, a youth jobs scheme that costs less than the stationery budget and an apprenticeship scheme that is harder to get into than Oxford university. No wonder overall long-term youth unemployment is going through the roof. Let us hear an answer from the Minister.

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

I am very happy to tell the right hon. Gentleman all about it, but I wonder whether he will acknowledge that today there are more apprentices under 25 than the total number of apprentices when his Government left office and that the two-year growth in apprenticeships for 16 to 24-year-olds over the last two years is bigger than at any time when his party was in office.

[Mr Byrne]

Will the Minister intervene again and say whether it is more competitive to get into Oxford university or to get on one of his apprenticeships? Just tell us: which is easier?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

I am not sure that that is particularly relevant to the question that I asked, but I will ask the right hon. Gentleman another question. His Government commissioned the Leitch report—[Interruption.] It was probably the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) who commissioned it—he was running the show in the Treasury then, or so he now pretends. What does the Leitch report say? It says that we need to upskill and reskill the work force and that apprentices are a critical way of doing that. Is the right hon. Gentleman now denying that? Has he changed his mind, or does he in fact think that we need to use apprenticeships for that purpose?

[Mr Byrne]

I want apprenticeships for young people, and it is this Government who are not delivering them. That is why, all over the country, we now see long-term youth unemployment rocketing up. Some 233 Members of this House now represent constituencies where long-term youth unemployment has risen by over 100% this year. Overall, long-term youth unemployment is up by 64% since the start of the year. All over Britain, scars that we thought were gone for ever are reappearing, and not just in Labour constituencies, but in places such as North Dorset, Aylesbury and Stevenage. Some 238 of us now speak for constituencies where, since the election, youth unemployment is up by 20%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

We are having a debate about the economic situation and its impacts on young people. My constituency has felt the chill winds disproportionately, as has the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne). My local authority, Sandwell, has the third highest rate of youth unemployment in the country. We also endured high youth unemployment under the previous Conservative Government. The Labour Government made substantial inroads, but the problem is now back with a vengeance.

On the general economic situation, some of the Government’s measures are aggravating the problems, which are a by-product of our poor economic performance. The higher education proposals, for instance, will disincentivise young people from low-income, low-aspiration backgrounds from entering higher education, and there is a great danger that young people from areas such as mine will look to take an alternative route, such as vocational training and apprenticeships. That is not in itself bad, and it may well be of great benefit to the economy, but the cohort of young people who previously would have gone into apprenticeships and training will find that they have nowhere to go. That is already being reflected in the increase in the number of NEETs in the country as a whole, and certainly in my area.

The Government trumpet the progress made on apprenticeships, and I welcome apprenticeships, as they are potentially of enormous benefit. However, the fact remains that the greatest increase in apprenticeships, as of this moment, is in the post-24 age group, and there is a suspicion that this is just a rebadging of the old Train to Gain scheme. In addition, the headline figures do not take into account the number of short apprenticeships—these are not the two or three-year courses that we commonly think of as apprenticeships which will enable people to go into work. My Committee will be undertaking an inquiry into this in the new year, and I hope to be able to drill down to find out exactly what the situation is.

[Mr Hayes]

I am sorry to have to intervene, because I know that time is short. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that I take his work seriously in that regard and that we, like him, are determined to see apprenticeships of the right quality and to see bureaucracy cut so that more firms can be involved. He is right to say that apprenticeships matter, but the brand matters too and we are as committed to quality as he is.

[Mr Bailey]

I welcome the words of the Minister, whose commitment to this cause I would not doubt for a moment. I am sure that we will have an extremely enlightening inquiry in the new year.

I shall highlight two measures that would cost the Government very little but would help. First, they should continue the funding for the graduate internship scheme—these are funded internships for graduates in small businesses. This has proved to be of enormous benefit to small businesses and to the graduates, and the total cost to the Government would be about £8 million. Given that this is a win-win situation—it helps the small businesses and graduates, and the cost would be lower than that of keeping them unemployed—I would have thought it was an obvious thing to continue. Also it sends messages to young people thinking of going to university that there is career progression after graduation. In the context of the highest level of graduate unemployment since 1992, that is a very important thing for the Government to do.

Secondly, small businesses are crying out for a financial incentive to encourage them to employ young people. The Government have introduced national insurance breaks. The existing scheme has not been very successful, and there is £850 million allocated for it. It should be broadened to existing businesses or, as the CBI says, a possible cash payment should be established for companies that take on young people and give them meaningful employment. These are not the words of tax-and-spend merchants; they are coming from the Federation of Small Businesses and the CBI—the authentic voice of the business community. If the Government do that, without great cost, it could make an impact on youth unemployment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I had prepared something long and detailed, but I will keep my remarks brief because I want to let other Members speak.

When I made my maiden speech in May 2010, I spoke about unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, in my constituency; and when I checked my predecessor’s maiden speech, made in 1987, I discovered that she, too, spoke about unemployment in the north-east and North West Durham.

[Mr Hayes]

I remember that.

[Pat Glass]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. Anyone looking at those two speeches could be forgiven for thinking that this is a deeply entrenched problem that cannot be dealt with, but actually, that is not true. Between 1997 and 2010, North West Durham, like most of the post-industrial north, underwent an economic and social revolution, with the support of the previous Government, but it is amazing how quickly the clock has turned back to the 1980s. Under a previous Conservative Government, male unemployment in Consett, in my constituency, reached 100%. Can people now imagine what it is like to live in a place with 100% male unemployment?

Youth unemployment in my constituency has doubled in the last 12 months and now stands at 35%. Unemployment generally has increased by 20%, and it is a direct result of Government policies. The Prime Minister tells us that we need to rebalance the economy from the south to the north and from the public sector to the private sector, so that, as public sector jobs disappear, they are replaced by private sector jobs. We would all agree with that, but in my constituency, full-time relatively well-paid public sector jobs are disappearing at a rate of knots and are being replaced by very few part-time, poorly paid jobs.

If the Government are serious about delivering on unemployment in places such as the north-east, they need to be serious about a growth strategy. We do not need enterprise zones and short-term grants. We have had those before and they do not stay: as soon as the grants run out, the jobs disappear and everybody runs back to the south-east. We need instead proper infrastructure investment, so that private companies are attracted to the area and stay. That means investment in roads and rail, airports and broadband. Some 46% of my constituency is a broadband blackspot.

We need investment in skills. Nissan came to the north-east not because of the grants but because of the skills that were there when the shipyards and the steelworks closed down. We need investment in a growth strategy for the regions. But what have the Government done? They have cut public expenditure for infrastructure and jobs, and cut investment in skills. The abolition of the EMA has led directly to falls in participation rates at 16 to levels that we have not seen since the 1990s, and the tripling of tuition fees has led to a 12% reduction in university applications this year.

Young people are having a hard time from this Government and it is due not only to the abolition of the EMA and the rise in tuition fees, but to the cuts in home-to-school transport, home-to-college transport, careers services, youth services and local bus services. Young people are becoming more cynical now than they have ever been about politics and the role of the Government. I am pleading with the Government now to listen to the suffering out there and start putting in place a proper plan for growth and jobs for young people.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

How could we not be moved by what the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) and for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), and the hon. Members for North West Durham (Pat Glass) and for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said about the plight of young people in their constituencies? Let there be no dispute about this: there is no denial and there is no complacency. [Interruption.] Of course this matters to all hon. Members in this House, and it ill befits Opposition Members to suggest that they have a monopoly on care.

[Ian Austin]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hayes]

I will not give way.

Hearing Labour Members talk about generational joblessness reminded me of the plight that my father and my grandfather suffered in the ’30s when they were jobless. The story now, as we have heard from Members across the House, is no less tragic than it was then. That is why the Government are doing something about it.

All hon. Members who have spoken in the debate must be disappointed by the motion. Like worn-out conjuror’s paraphernalia, it is all smoke and mirrors. It resembles the economic policy that the last Government practised when the shadow Chancellor was their senior economic adviser, and we all know where that led. It led to the point at which the shadow Secretary of State, who introduced this debate, left his famous letter saying “There’s no money left”. We can see the shadow Chancellor’s footprints and fingerprints all over the motion.

[Mr Byrne]

I am genuinely grateful for the tone that the Minister is trying to strike, but does he understand the signal that it sends, in a debate on youth unemployment, when the Department for Work and Pensions Minister cannot be bothered to turn up for more than half the debate and the Secretary of State is nowhere to be seen?

[Mr Hayes]

The right hon. Gentleman obviously wants to make party political and partisan points. However, I was suggesting, perhaps unfashionably—perhaps this is not typical for the Opposition—that this matter goes beyond party divides, and that we should be united in our concern and in a call for action.

The shadow Chancellor is not without redeeming skills. I understand that, when he was at public school, he was good at playing the violin. So Balls fiddles while Byrne roams around talking down Britain’s chance to succeed.

Let me deal with the three principal points that have emerged from the debate—first, the future jobs fund. It was by far the most expensive part of the September guarantee package, at £6,500 for each individual, and 50% of the people who were under the influence of the fund found themselves unemployed eight months later. That is why we questioned its value—not because it did no good, but because it did not do enough good and was simply not cost-effective.

The second big issue that has been raised today is that of NEETS. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) and the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) must know that the NEETS figures are part of a deep, long-term structural issue. Throughout the good years, the NEETs figures were at an unacceptable level. The right hon. Gentleman will see from the figures that in 2009, on Labour’s watch, the number of NEETs rose to 925,000. The truth is that youth unemployment involves long-term structural and systemic issues, and this debate was a chance for us to consider them seriously. Instead, what we have heard from the Opposition was little more than party political knockabout.

The third point to emerge from the debate relates to apprenticeships. Let us deal with them head on. I shall leave aside the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has rubbished all those in his constituency doing apprenticeships in their 20s—people like those at Jaguar Land Rover or at BT.

[Mr Byrne]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hayes]

No, you had your chance.

The right hon. Gentleman rubbished people at BT, Honda and British Gas—[Hon. Members: “Give way.”] I give way to him.

[Mr Byrne]

Will the Minister tell the House by how much youth unemployment will fall as a result of his apprenticeship programme?

[Mr Hayes]

The right hon. Gentleman knows the answer: over two years, the growth in apprenticeships for people under the age of 19 has been 29% and for people aged between 19 and 24 it has been 64%. Labour could only dream of those figures, and would have died for them in government. The number of apprenticeships for young people is growing. There are new opportunities, and while Labour is deliberating, the Conservatives and Liberals are delivering. That is the difference.

[Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does it not tell us everything we need to know that when there is a debate in the House on tax support to create jobs for young people, there is not one Treasury Minister on the Front Bench for the opening and closing speeches? Is that not a matter of great shame for the Government and an embarrassment for the Department for Work and Pensions?

[Mr Hayes]

I offer the shadow Chancellor this, and I do so fraternally: if just occasionally he would temper his belligerent bombast with a degree of humility about the advice he gave the previous Prime Minister and Chancellor, he might manage to stop his reputation flatlining.

The motion shows that the old conjuror has learned no new tricks. Once again, we have profligacy dressed up as prudence. It is public policy transvestism: from a distance, the promise of tax breaks may look alluring; only up close can we make out the underlying 5 o’clock shadow of debt and downturn. That is all the 5 o’clock shadow Cabinet can offer.

Some people think that many of the Opposition Front Benchers have been over-promoted, but I give them a second chance. I have a very small bet at very long odds that there is an outside chance that some of them may make a half-decent job of it.

This Government are acting on apprenticeships. We are acting on the Work programme. We are acting on work experience. We are working on getting people into jobs. That is the difference between this Government and the previous Government. We care too, but we act as well.

[Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question accordingly put.