Women’s State Pension Age

John Penrose Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The example that the hon. Lady gives once again underlines in my mind the importance of proceeding with great diligence and looking at the findings of the report in great detail. As we all know, we received that report on Thursday; it is now Monday. Given its length, and the complexity of the issues under consideration, it is not unreasonable for us to take the time to look closely at its conclusions.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

I add my voice to those calling for an urgent announcement of a redress scheme in response to the report. The Secretary of State rightly pointed out that the actions between 2005 and 2007 did not happen on his watch, or under any Conservative Government, but if he delays, he will stop being part of the solution and start to become part of the problem. When he introduces his redress scheme, he will need all the understanding and good will on both sides of the House that he can muster to deal with the undoubted complexities of distinguishing between the different kinds and levels of indirect loss in the report, so speed is vital.

[Mel Stride]

As my hon. Friend points out, the timing is important. I have made the commitment that we will proceed without undue delay.

State Pension Changes: Women

John Penrose Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Member for that, and he is right: there is a real onus on Government to reach out and help.

The PHSO also found that the DWP had not given due regard to the impact of the changes on women’s lives and had not offered women adequate support or guidance. It recommended that the Government should apologise to the women and pay them compensation for all those things, including the maladministration. The Government should take positive steps following the PHSO’s findings and recommendations and issue that sincere and public apology to the WASPI women. That would be a significant gesture of respect and remorse and a first step towards repairing the relationship between Government and the women we all represent.

The second principle of compensation is restitution. The Government should restore the affected women to the position they would have been in had the changes to the state pension not occurred, or at least mitigate the negative effects of the changes. Restitution is important for compensating the women for the material and non-material losses they have incurred and for ensuring that they can enjoy a decent and dignified retirement. Wow! How much do we all want to see a decent and dignified retirement? Restitution is also a way to correct the imbalance and inequality caused by the changes and to ensure that the women are not penalised for their sex and their age.

The WASPI women will have different views and demands in terms of what constitutes fair and adequate restitution. Some want a bridging pension or a lump sum payment to cover the gap between their expected and actual state pension age. There really has to be something, and we need to see that coming forward. The restitution that each woman should receive may also depend on their individual circumstances, such as their income, health and caring responsibilities.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

I join the chorus of congratulations to the hon. Gentleman for organising this debate. Like many here, he will have constituents who are starting to receive draft reports from the ombudsman about the second report, which will trigger the payment of the restitution he just mentioned. Obviously, they are in draft and we cannot comment on them now, but does he agree that if there is a final conclusion of injustice, to go alongside that of maladministration, it is essential that there is a rapid reaction from the Government to deal with that and to respond promptly, with a proper programme of compensation? Does he also agree that this will be incredibly complicated because lots of WASPI women, depending on their age and conditions, will have faced a different level of injustice, and everything has to be adjusted to reflect that?

[Jim Shannon]

I do agree with that. The Minister is obviously taking copious notes, and the civil servants have not had their heads up since the debate started, so I suspect and hope that they will have the answers we need.

The Government must adopt a flexible and tailored approach to restitution, based on the needs and preferences of the WASPI women. They should consult the women and their representatives to design a system of recompense that is fair, transparent and accessible. I call on the Government and the Minister to consider the PHSO’s recommendations when it publicises its final report on the financial remedy for the women in due course. If they do that, we will have taken a step in the right direction. The PHSO has indicated that it will consider the impact of the changes on the women’s standard of living, health and wellbeing, as well as the availability and adequacy of alternative sources of income and support.

The Government should also ensure that the restitution is delivered promptly and efficiently—do both those things—and ensure that the women are given clear and accurate information and guidance on how to claim and receive their compensation. The Government should monitor and evaluate the implementation of the restitution scheme and its outcomes, and adjust the scheme if necessary to ensure its effectiveness and fairness.

The third principle of compensation is reconciliation. It is a word often used in society, but reconciliation is what we want here. That means the Government should foster a positive and constructive relationship with the WASPI women and their representatives, and address the underlying causes and consequences of the changes to the state pension age. Reconciliation is important for healing the wounds and divisions caused by the changes and for building trust and co-operation between the Government and the women. Reconciliation is also a way of preventing similar injustices from happening in the future, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) referred to. If we do it right now, it will be in place for the future and will ensure that the pensions system is sustainable and equitable for all.

The Government should engage in a dialogue and partnership with the women and listen to their views and concerns. They should involve the women in the decision-making and policymaking processes related to the pensions system and ensure that their voices and interests are represented and respected. The Government should recognise and celebrate the contribution and achievements of the WASPI women, and support their empowerment and participation in society. They have done so much, and we salute and thank them for that.

The Government should address the broader issues and challenges that affect the pensions system and the ageing population, such as the adequacy and security of pension income, the availability and affordability of social care, the quality and accessibility of health services, the diversity and inclusivity of the labour market, and the promotion and protection of human rights. The Government should adopt a holistic and long-term approach to those issues, and seek the input and collaboration of the WASPI women and various stakeholders, including other pensioners, workers, employers, civil society and the public.

Compensating 3.8 million WASPI women is not only a matter of rectifying past injustices, but a recognition of the hardships they have endured due to the sudden and unexpected changes to their pension entitlements. Importantly, it is a recognition of the place in history held by this wonderful post-war generation of women from all communities across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Work and Pensions

John Penrose Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from Work and Pensions questions on 18 December 2023.

[John Penrose]

Does the Minister agree that the difference between insecure or exploitative work and going plural with a portfolio of well-paid freelance or part-time roles depends on how valuable someone’s skills are? Ministers are rightly offering fresh opportunities for jobseekers to improve their skills, but in a post-pandemic world that is very different from what went before, what plans does she have to revisit and update the recommendations of the Taylor review to protect people whose skills have not yet been upgraded?

[Mims Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. As someone who was self-employed for not far off 15 years, I understand where he is coming from. Our work coaches at Jobcentre Plus offices engage with claimants to support access to skills provision. They get a comprehensive range of support, which includes apprenticeships, skills bootcamps, vocational and basic training skills, and careers advice, so that they can work in a way that suits them. Less than 1% of workers on zero-hours contracts want more hours—it is more about caring or other flexibilities—but I am happy to look at the points he has raised in the Chamber today.

[Official Report, 18 December 2023, Vol. 742, c. 1111.]

Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies).

An error has been identified in the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose).

The correct response should have been:

Oral Answers to Questions

John Penrose Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

This is a long-standing issue that crops up every few years. It is not something on which the Government intend to take specific action. We trust people to manage their finances, such that they can cope with the occasional eventuality where there is an additional year within any one calendar year.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

6. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of insecure employment on people in poverty.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)]

This Government have made it clear that we believe that work is the best route out of poverty. It is important for different types of work to exist, as each individual worker’s circumstances are personal to them, and DWP has an in-work progression offer to support low-paid claimants to progress into better-paid and more secure employment.

[John Penrose]

Does the Minister agree that the difference between insecure or exploitative work and going plural with a portfolio of well-paid freelance or part-time roles depends on how valuable someone’s skills are? Ministers are rightly offering fresh opportunities for jobseekers to improve their skills, but in a post-pandemic world that is very different from what went before, what plans does she have to revisit and update the recommendations of the Taylor review to protect people whose skills have not yet been upgraded?

[Mims Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. As someone who was self-employed for not far off 15 years, I understand where he is coming from. Our work coaches at Jobcentre Plus offices engage with claimants to support access to skills provision. They get a comprehensive range of support, which includes apprenticeships, skills bootcamps, vocational and basic training skills, and careers advice, so that they can work in a way that suits them. Less than 1% of workers on zero-hours contracts want more hours—it is more about caring or other flexibilities—but I am happy to look at the points he has raised in the Chamber today.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Paul Maynard)]

The advice to anyone seeking to top up their pension or buy extra national insurance credits would be to ring the Future Pension Centre in advance of making any payments, to determine whether they would actually enhance their pension by making them. It is always best for people to check before they make those payments, to make sure that they will improve their pension.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

T5. Ministers are rightly putting a great deal of money and focus behind back to work programmes across the country. What progress have they made towards transparently publishing the outcomes so that we can see which programmes perform better or worse in different parts of the country and why?

[Jo Churchill]

The DWP regularly publishes statistics on its employment programmes, and the latest statistical release of the restart programme was published on 7 December. The back to work plan announced further measures to tackle long-term unemployment, such as mandatory placements for those who complete restart without securing a job. The policy detail, including the reporting, is yet to be worked through.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Penrose Excerpts

Monday 4th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

I would obviously want to see the details of the case in question before commenting on it, so perhaps the hon. Member could kindly share those details with me. One of the things we are focused on is getting to a place where people with conditions or disabilities that are unlikely to improve or are only likely to deteriorate are not having to go through repeat assessments. That is the objective we are working towards through the White Paper reforms. [Interruption.] I hear a lot of chuntering from the Opposition. I would be absolutely delighted if they would get on and support our reforms so we can make those improvements.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

T8. Universal credit has been hugely effective in making sure it always pays to work, but for jobseekers with no savings who used to be paid daily or weekly the five-week wait for their first payment can plunge them into debt, whether it is a DWP advance or other loans. Will Ministers consider the proposals in “Poverty Trapped” for initial payments to be made at the same daily or weekly frequency as a jobseeker was previously paid, so they can focus on finding a job rather than juggling their debts?

[The Minister for Employment (Guy Opperman)]

I can tell my hon. Friend that there are no plans to change the assessment period and payment structure of universal credit, but I am very happy for him to sit down with officials and discuss his paper.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Penrose Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

14. If she will take steps with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to implement the recommendations of the Taylor review of modern working practices, published in July 2017.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)]

The Government have made significant progress in implementing those recommendations, improving the working conditions for agency workers and more harshly penalising employers who treat their workers badly. I will continue to work with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to make sure that we fulfil our commitment to ensuring that everyone, no matter what their background, has the opportunity to start, stay and progress in work.

[John Penrose]

Ministers from both Departments originally promised to implement the full set of the Taylor review recommendations back in 2018, but four years later, we still have gaps and missing dates for legislation. The conditions faced by many lower-skilled and insecure workers create huge barriers to opportunity, career progression and social mobility. Is it not past time for us to smash these glass ceilings as a key part of levelling up?

[Mims Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter, and I am sure that BEIS Ministers will have heard him loudly as well. It is absolutely right that we have boosted the secondary legislation, which boosts the rights of workers by quadrupling the available aggravated breach penalty used in employment tribunals, but it is right too that he and I work with my colleagues to make sure that employers—and the experience at work—are better, because they need to be.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Penrose Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

11. What steps she is taking to (a) measure, (b) improve and (c) publish the performance of work coaches in jobcentres.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

We often hear in this House about honourable colleagues going into their jobcentres and seeing the marvellous work of work coaches, and we see that by the number of people getting back into work. However, we want to constantly improve the performance of our work coaches in terms of outcomes for people and we will continue to do that.

[John Penrose]

I completely agree that good work coaches can level up opportunities by breaking glass ceilings that hold people back, but inevitably some will be better than others, as we have seen in schools and other public services. If we publish those findings, every jobseeker and their MP will want to know how their local service compares and how it might be improved, so will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss this as outlined in my recently published work, “Poverty Trapped”?

[Dr Coffey]

I do not agree with my hon. Friend’s suggestion about the external assessment. I have asked one of my team to look into his report and I am sure we can arrange a suitable meeting, but I want to assure him that all new work coaches are undertaking a level 4 City & Guilds qualification in service delivery.

Pension Equality for Women

John Penrose Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris]

I think there are things that the Government and the Minister could do immediately, and I will come to those a little later—I have set out my suggestions in a sequential way, and they include immediately extending pensions credit to the group. I do not have the costings for that—[Interruption.] My colleagues on the Front Bench inform me that it is £800 million. We could do things with the winter fuel allowance or bus passes, which would offer immediate help to these women.

I alluded to the fundamental point made by the former Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, who said:

“The 2011 Act, which I was responsible for, did not add any more than 18 months to people’s pension age, typically 12 months. But when we did write to people—and we did write to them to tell them what changes we have made—this was the first time they had heard about the first changes. So instead of me writing to them to tell them there was an extra year on the pension age, we were effectively telling them they had six extra years added to their pension age, which is of course why they were outraged”.

Hopefully, we are having a sensible, constructive and meaningful debate, but we should make no mistake—there is real hardship and outrage out there.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is setting out his case beautifully and I congratulate him on securing this debate. As someone who represents a retirement town, many local constituents have raised this issue with me. Most of them have a slightly different point of view and do not object to the principle of the equalisation of pension age at all—indeed, they think it is just and right. They are upset because they say they were not properly advised and did not have time to plan for the changes early enough in their working careers. That is the injustice that those who speak to me feel most strongly.

[Grahame Morris]

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman, with typical alacrity, has hit the nail on the head. Nevertheless, there is an injustice that must be rectified, and the Government need to do that.

Intergenerational Fairness

John Penrose Excerpts

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

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

The Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), in a typically assured and authoritative speech, began by saying, absolutely rightly, that intergenerational fairness is a huge issue. He said that the Select Committee, of necessity, had to focus on the particular area of the triple lock—it is a pretty big and important area—but that the issue is much broader than that.

Intergenerational fairness, or generational justice if we want to call it that, is not a brand-new concept, but it is gaining in political salience. It is an idea whose time is coming, if it has not already come. That is partly because of the changing demographics of this country, which underlie the Select Committee’s decision to consider the triple lock. We have had what some people call a “demographic time bomb” ticking away, and successive Governments of every stripe have had to deal with the arithmetic logic that that means for our fiscal future. There is an impact on the state pension, other state benefits and many other facets of our Government finances.

The concept of generational justice therefore provides us with an incredibly useful new moral prism through which to view our spending decisions today. My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) rightly said that it is extremely rare for Governments since the second world war to run a budget surplus. By and large, we have outspent ourselves as a nation—it does not matter who has been in government. We have overspent. We have been Mr Micawber, spending today and hoping that something will turn up tomorrow. That cannot go on because the notion of generational justice is increasingly in people’s minds, and rightly so.

We need to ask ourselves the moral question: if we are spending on things today that just help our lifestyle, how can it be fair on our children and grandchildren? If we borrow to support that spending, they are the ones who will have to pay for our lifestyle today, which cannot be right or fair. We will have to justify that to them when we, in turn, come to claim our state pension or state benefits.

I am a little more generous than my hon. Friend, because I would say that there are a few occasions when it is justified to borrow more than we receive in tax revenue, particularly where we are borrowing to spend on things that are then going to be enjoyed by our children and grandchildren, as they are going to be able to use them. People in this country today benefit from the investments our predecessors made in railways and roads. We, in turn, are investing in digital infrastructure, which our children and grandchildren will be able to use. Those things last and will yield a benefit to not only us, but future generations. The moral prism that this new concept brings means that we can then start to distinguish between things that our children and grandchildren will be able to use for their own benefit, as well as for ours, and things that only we benefit from—things that subsidise our lifestyle today. That is the new moral prism, and we would not have heard many people in this Chamber or elsewhere in our national debate talking about it even five or 10 years ago—they certainly would not have been talking about it 20 years ago.

That is the new concept, and it is extremely powerful and important for us. Let us suppose we start to view things through that lens and start to apply the same kinds of fiscal and financial discipline that an independent pension fund would apply to its liabilities. Let us suppose we try to value the financial liabilities inherent and embedded in the state pension and the state benefits system, just as the trustees of the Rolls-Royce pension scheme or any other private or occupational pension scheme would. What happens if we then apply those actuarial calculations to the liabilities—to the cheques we are all collectively in this place writing on our own behalf and the costs that we are therefore imposing on future generations? We find that those actuarial liabilities look, feel, sound and are economically the same as a gilt, a Government bond, a long-term liability—and I suggest strongly that it is only generationally just that we should also treat them the same. If we apply those calculations, the Government’s balance sheet—the public’s balance sheet—and the Government’s overall commitments start to look very difficult indeed.

That is not a comment on the current Government or on the previous couple of Governments, either the coalition or Labour. This is a comment on the way this country has been thinking and behaving since the second world war—since we founded the welfare state. If we add those actuarially calculated liabilities on to what we normally call the national debt—the stock of gilts; the stock of Government bonds in issue—we do not just get the figure of about 90% of GDP that is projected for the national debt. That level already gives people like me a nosebleed, thinking about the altitude we are going to be operating at in due course. The strain on our Government balance sheet is already high, but we do not just get a figure of about 90% of GDP as Government debt; depending on which external valuations and assessments we choose to believe, we get a figure that is somewhere between 350% and 400% of GDP.

It is time we started being honest with ourselves, not just across the aisle here in this Chamber, but as a society and as a nation, about the scale of the cheque that we are asking our children and our grandchildren to cash on our behalf. It means that the Government’s finances are a great deal more brittle, fragile and exposed to external shocks of the kind we suffered in the 2008 banking crisis than we have been willing to admit to ourselves. We have been a high-rolling economy of that kind since we first invented the welfare state.

The Select Committee Chair rightly pointed out that we could react in a number of different ways to this inconvenient truth—for example, by raising taxes or by ignoring the problem; he mentioned that, but I think his tongue was firmly in his cheek when he did so. I would like to offer for consideration one alternative that he did not mention. The only way we can deal with the generational injustice of charging our children and grandchildren for the liabilities we are building up under the state pension and state benefits system is to switch from the current pay-as-you-go system. That is a gulpingly large financial commitment, but it is also I am afraid unavoidable and inescapable once we have accepted that we have been kidding ourselves about the scale of the public liabilities that this country has been writing for itself for the past 50 years or more.

The only way to move from a pay-as-you-go system to a fully paid up system, which is what we already demand from the occupational schemes that we look at with some degree of envy and approval—the occupational schemes are held up by many as the apple of the pensions eye—is through a very slow and steady process. It would clearly be generationally unjust the other way around not only to charge the current generation of taxpayers the cost of supporting the pay-as-you-go system, in which we all pay for the current pensions liabilities, but to ask us to build up a fund to afford the future pensions liabilities so that we can wipe out the generational injustice. We would end up paying twice, which would be a generational injustice of a different kind and scale.

I make this point, then, to all those present and to everyone listening more widely: if we are serious about generational justice and about trying to make sure that we do not expect our children and grandchildren to fund our pensions and benefits, whatever we may need if we get sick or are out of work—those vital parts of our lifestyle—we need to make a long-term commitment to deal with their inheritance as well. Families do this all the time—they make commitments on behalf of their children and grandchildren. As a nation and as a society we need to start to be honest with ourselves about the size of the burden we have been and are placing on future generations, and about the fact that the generational time bomb is starting to impose ever heavier burdens. The only solution—to be approached slowly, carefully and over a very, very long timescale—is to make the commitment to switch from a pay-as-you-go system to a fully funded system, so that we can look our children and grandchildren in the eye and say, “We did not ask you to pay any more for our lifestyles.”

[Several hon. Members rose—]