Women’s State Pension Age: Ombudsman Report
Justin Madders Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for describing his experiences in connection with this matter. We have a clear finding of maladministration, but Government acceptance of that does not automatically follow, so we are having a debate today about whether we accept the findings when, given the timescale, we ought surely to be thinking more about how we deal with issues relating to who is eligible and who is not.
Sir Stephen Timms
I agree, and I will come to that point when I talk about the Select Committee’s discussions last week. It is worth adding that the problems caused by that maladministration were exacerbated by the decision in 2011 to increase the state pension age not to 65, as provided by legislation in 1995, but to 66, with very little notice given of that change.
The ombudsman said that had it reported directly to the DWP, it would have recommended that the Department apologise for the maladministration and take steps to put things right. As we all now know, the ombudsman did not report directly to the
Department because of concern that no remedy would be forthcoming. The interim ombudsman, Rebecca Hilsenrath, told the Committee last week that her office had been
“given repeatedly to understand that the Department did not accept our findings.”
Perhaps, when he winds up the debate, the Minister can tell us whether the Department now recognises that there was maladministration in this case.
In laying its report before Parliament in March, the ombudsman asked us in the House to “identify an appropriate mechanism” for providing a remedy. It set out its thinking, namely that the DWP should first acknowledge the maladministration and apologise; secondly, pay financial compensation to the six sample complainants at level 4 of the severity of injustice scale; and, thirdly, identify a remedy for others who had suffered injustice because of the maladministration. As we have heard, the ombudsman estimated that this would involve a sum of between £3.5 billion and £10.5 billion.
We need to find a resolution to this issue, and to find it quite quickly, because it has dragged on for a very long time. Angela Madden, the chair of the WASPI campaign, told the Work and Pensions Committee last week that a woman from the affected cohort dies every 13 minutes, which is a powerful point to make.
Health and Disability Reform
Justin Madders Excerpts(6 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride
I thank my right hon. Friend for her very astute comments, which are built on her great experience of the exact issues that we are discussing, both as Secretary of State and, before that, as a very successful Minister for this area in the Department for Work and Pensions. She is absolutely right to recognise that society has changed a great deal in the 10 years since this benefit was fundamentally reviewed. I will, of course, continue to work very closely with my colleagues in the national health service and the Department of Health and Social Care. We collaborated on setting up WorkWell, which will be rolled out in 15 of the 42 health areas of England this autumn, bringing together the world of work and healthcare.
The White Paper specifically invites thoughts on how local authorities could be more involved in PIP or any successor. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention employers, and I have no doubt that she is aware of the two consultations we have run on increasing occupational health, in which employers have a particularly important role to play.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Secretary of State questions the need to reassess certain groups. After visiting my local Motor Neurone Disease Association support group, I can tell him that those with motor neurone disease are one group who absolutely do not need or deserve reassessment.
On the wider point about mental health conditions, I hope that the Secretary of State will talk to his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care. I have had many experiences of constituents waiting months, if not years, for the assessment of neurodivergent conditions or mental health support. We clearly cannot address the issues that he wants to address in the consultation if we do not fix the NHS workforce crisis.
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point about mental health, and I can reassure him, as I reassured my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), that we will continue to work very closely with the DHSC on the proposals as they emerge. In response to an earlier question, I mentioned that the Chancellor has brought forward funding for 400,000 additional NHS talking therapies, for example, which may be an important part of what we develop.
Women’s State Pension Age
Justin Madders Excerpts(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride
The hon. and learned Lady will know about legal matters. I do not think that I can accept that the litigation, particularly in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, is just not relevant, especially as it pertained to the matters under debate.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State rightly pointed out, this report has been five years in the offing. His Department has known that it was coming for an awful long time. It must also have known that it was possible that compensation would be recommended. I am sure that he runs his Department in a prudent fashion, and will have set aside contingency funding for that eventuality. Can he tell us how much?
Mel Stride
Once again, the hon. Gentleman is trying to draw me into forming conclusions prematurely about a complex report that needs a great deal of study and consideration. That is what we will give it.
State Pension Changes: Women
Justin Madders Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Maynard
I certainly do not believe that I am hiding behind anything. The ombudsman’s inquiry is going through the processes that the ombudsman itself has set out.
Paul Maynard
I have given way a number of times, and I have been very generous. I am conscious that I need to finish my contribution and allow the hon. Member for Strangford to comment. I am sorry, and if there is time towards the end I will try to give way, but I need to set out the factual information that Members have been asking me to deliver, so I will make some progress.
The announcement in 1993 of the decision to equalise the state pension age addressed a long-standing inequality between men and women. Changes to state pension age were made over a series of Acts by successive Governments, following public consultations and debates in both Houses of Parliament. All women after 5 April 1950 and all men born after 5 December 1953 are impacted by state pension age changes. The state pension age is currently 66, and is due to rise to the age of 67 between 2026 and 2028, as confirmed by the recent Government review of state pension age. The Government also committed in the last review to conduct a further review within two years of the next Government, to consider the age of 68. The further review will be able to consider the very latest evidence.
The reforms have focused on maintaining the right balance between the affordability and sustainability of the state pension, and fairness between generations. Women retiring today can still expect to receive the state pension, but over 21 years on average, which is over two years longer than men. If equalisation had not taken place, upon reaching the age of 60 women would be expected to spend on average over 40% of their adult lives in receipt of the state pension.
I will say a few words about the processes of the ombudsman’s investigation, for clarification and to place them on the record. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman published its stage 1 report on 20 July 2021. PHSO found maladministration in the steps that the Department took between 2005 and 2007 in relation to notifying the women affected. In December 2022, the PHSO submitted its stage 2 findings and the original stage 3 findings for comment, and published a high-level summary on its website, concluding that the maladministration had caused injustice.
Following the PHSO’s stage 2 findings in December 2022, the WASPI campaign initiated judicial review proceedings against the PHSO, arguing that the ombudsman’s approach to calculating when letters should have been sent ignored pauses in the DWP’s letter-writing campaign, which meant that women should have had notice far earlier than the ombudsman had assumed and could therefore have made different decisions to avoid some of the financial impact. Following an agreement between WASPI and the PHSO, the High Court granted a consent order quashing the PHSO’s final stage 2 report in May 2023. The consent order specifically requested that the PHSO revisited those sections of the stage 2 report dealing with the 28-month delay calculation. The stage 3 provisional view on remedy had not been finalised by the PHSO, so it did not require consideration by the court.
We responded to the provisional stage 3 report in early February 2023. The PHSO sent all parties to the complaint a revised provisional stage 2 report in November 2023. That is the report whose publication we await.
Disability Action Plan
Justin Madders Excerpts(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mims Davies
That sounds like a very concerning case. This action plan is part of a wider structural reform on health and disability. We know from our research that one in five people with a disability or health condition is not expected to engage in work preparation, but they might want to work. The hon. Lady’s constituent is seemingly very vulnerable, and this is a difficult process to navigate. We have our help to claim service and other support for vulnerable claimants, and I am happy to look at this issue for the hon. Lady. The White Paper transformations include a new potential passporting to UC health element through PIP, but I am conscious that every PIP delay or PIP challenge involves a person and a situation and is very concerning, and I am making that a priority in this role.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I want to follow up on the earlier questions about accessible play areas, which I am pleased are a part of the disability action plan. I do not think having a website will go far enough in delivering what we all want to see, which is far more accessible play areas. There needs to be a strategy backed with resources underneath this website to deliver on the aspiration that we all share. The Minister will know that local authorities are on their knees in terms of funding, so will the Department put in any money to make sure that all our children are able to access play areas?
Mims Davies
Sport England is undertaking work on best practice and that is precisely about opening up that portal and making this a reality for youngsters. We know that all children’s wellbeing is absolutely about their social activities and opportunities to learn through play, and this plan should not and will not be a talking shop resulting in no change. I will keenly make sure that this information on accessible playgrounds makes a difference, and that will be part of the reports we do at six and 12 months.
Defined-Benefit Pension Schemes
Justin Madders Excerpts(10 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that there are many Shell pensioners in my constituency. I have been in correspondence with Shell about its decision last year not to award an inflation-matching increase in the pension, and it told me that it did not have to do that. When it was pointed out that it had given a similar inflation-matching rise to Dutch pensioners, Shell’s response was that there are different rules and regulations for managing the Dutch schemes. That highlights the essence of the problem that we are trying to deal with.
Mr Carmichael
It absolutely does. Representing a constituency that had the Sullom Voe oil terminal managed by BP for many years, I suspect that the reasons why the hon. Gentleman has Shell pensioners in his constituency and I have BP pensioners in mine are very similar.
Paul Maynard
I note the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I am also conscious of time, so I do not think that I will be able to make my entire legal presentation. He very kindly said in his speech that I was alive to the issues, which I hope I can demonstrate towards the end of my speech by setting out where my thinking is moving to.
As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, the Government’s role is to ensure that the fundamental promise of a DB scheme, as set out in its rules, is met. Whether discretionary payments are made must be a matter for the trustees and the sponsoring employer. The Government have no power to intervene to require a scheme to pay an annual increase above that required by the law or to go beyond the rules of the scheme.
It is up to trustees and sponsors to agree how their specific scheme should be run in the best long-term interests of all parties. It would not be appropriate for the Government to interfere in decisions made by individual schemes, beyond setting clear and reasonable minimum standards that apply to all schemes, including through regulation.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; I will just pick up on the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). This issue is about good faith and promises being kept. If we look not just at the schemes that have been mentioned today but at others—I am thinking of the FOSPEN, the Midland Bank clawback issue, and of course the WASPI women—we see that there is a whole generation of pensioners out there who feel that they have not been delivered what they were entitled to. What kind of message does that send to the pensioners of tomorrow? We really need to toughen up on this, don’t we?
Paul Maynard
I agree entirely. Since coming into this job, I met representatives of the Pensions Action Group— an organisation that covers employees of a number of companies that went into liquidation many years ago. Differing rules around indexation have caused very different outcomes for those individuals, so I am very conscious of the issue. I made a point of meeting them because I believe predecessors have not met them; I wanted to make sure that I heard their case and could reflect on it, and I have commissioned further work from officials. They are aware that that is ongoing, and I look forward to hearing what my officials have to say.
Key to the points I have heard in this debate is the role of trustees. No matter whether they are employer-nominated or member-nominated, they have first to comply with the rules of the scheme and, secondly and crucially, to act in what they regard as the best interests of their members now and in the future. That includes investment decisions that they may choose to make. It also includes decisions on indexation. The trustees will sometimes need to make difficult decisions; that is the nature of trusteeship. The needs of different parties, today and in the future, have to be balanced. They have to ensure that funding problems do not emerge in the future. Trustees and sponsors must work together to seek the best way forward, taking account of a whole range of issues including the long-term health of the scheme.
Depending on the circumstances of the scheme, different models of trusteeship may be more or less appropriate. The type of trustee best for appointment to a scheme will depend upon the characteristics of the scheme. The governance and trusteeship of a scheme is best handled by the scheme and its sponsors. They will know better than anyone else what the scheme’s long-term future looks like and how best to get there, but trustees, regardless of whether they are appointed by members or by sponsors, do not and cannot act to represent any particular group. There are safeguards, however. The Pensions Regulator has powers to remove and replace trustees with an independent trustee or add an independent trustee to a trustee board should it have concerns about the capability or behaviour of a trustee.
A defined-benefit pension is a promise to pay the person concerned a certain amount of pension income every month in retirement for the rest of their life. That means that while the sponsor remains solvent, a person’s retirement income cannot decline below a set amount, regardless of the value of the pension fund or the wider economic situation. In addition, a proportion of the DB pension may also be inherited by a spouse after the pension holder’s death—again, guaranteed in value for life.
Rights in a defined-benefit pension scheme are extremely valuable and we should be rightly proud that such schemes exist for the bulk of today’s pensioners, but ensuring that these rights are protected for all scheme members involves many different parties: trustees, employers, and current and future individual scheme members. The governance of defined-benefit pension schemes must therefore balance the needs of all those different parties. It has to work for today, and in the short and long term. Our priority is to ensure that schemes pay out the full value of the promised pension to each member when it falls due, as set out in the scheme and in line with the relevant legislation. When it comes to indexation, legislation sets out the minimum standard that tries to ensure there is a measure of protection against inflation.
Having listened to the debate today, as well as to other individuals I have met in recent days, it is difficult not to have sympathy with pensioners who have planned on the assumption of receiving certain increases, no matter how discretionary they may be, but then find that their income is not increasing as they had expected or planned on. As much as I can do, I will look closely again at the situation regarding the scheme that I have heard about in this debate—and others that I am sure other Members might have covered had they been able to attend—and try to understand fully what has happened and whether the arrangements currently in place in regulation are working as intended. I will do this by discussing it with the Pensions Regulator in particular.
I will also look at the proposals we made in the autumn statement on improving the quality of trustees. I am not saying that all trustees are awful or anything like that; we have excellent trustees in many pension schemes, but we also have to bear in mind that, as I and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) said, many large and monolithic employers have a different ability to absorb rapid changes in the pensions landscape compared with much smaller schemes. I do not want smaller schemes pushed into administration under the Pension Protection Fund, which would then lead to reduced pensions for those scheme members. Both must be kept in balance.
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
Cost of Living: Parental Leave and Pay
Justin Madders Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr McCabe, and I thank everyone who has spoken in today’s debate. Despite the attendance, this is a matter of great importance to millions of people up and down the country. I am sorry to Nicola, the organiser of the petition, that more Members were not here to speak. I am sure we are all aware that other business is catching people’s attention today, but I hope that those who have heard the debate will see that there is a lot of interest and well-informed opinion about the challenges that new parents face.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for her introduction to the debate, which gave a comprehensive overview of the challenges that new parents face. She mentioned—I will discuss this in a little while—the huge costs that new parents face, which have increased in recent times. There is a chasm between those costs and the rates of statutory maternity pay, which have also been discussed. She gave us a whole range of facts and figures to demonstrate that, and the personal testimonies from mothers she has spoken to illustrate the real difficulties that many people are facing. She mentioned the Government line that maternity pay is in line with other out-of-work benefits, which shows how completely out of touch they are and demonstrates the lack of understanding about the huge workload that any new parent will face.
My hon. Friend rightly identified loopholes in relation to self-employment for adopted parents. Obviously that needs to be addressed, because we know that formally adopting a child is a huge financial commitment, and those financial barriers need to be removed. Her wide-ranging speech touched on childcare costs, the impact that maternity leave can have on a woman’s pay for the rest of her life—something that still exists, 50-odd years after the Equal Pay Act 1970 was introduced—and maternal mental health, which is grossly overlooked at times. Her conclusion that having a child is a calculation made on a spreadsheet really hit home. All parents look at that when planning a family, but when we look at the costs households face—huge increases in housing cost, student loan payments, an increased tax burden, pension contributions and childcare costs—we can see how, for many, the sums do not add up, and that brings home what a challenge this is.
It was a pleasure, as always, to hear from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It would not be a Westminster Hall debate without a contribution from him. Like him, I have three boys. I wonder how similar they are—it would be interesting to compare notes at some point. He made some valuable points about the cost of raising a family, with the cost of the first year being £6,000. It probably feels like more for many because babies grow out of their clothes so quickly and there are all the set-up costs.
We are fortunate in my part of the world that the charity KidsBank, which is based in Chester but operates in Ellesmere Port and Neston, provides new parents with a lot of those essentials. They are all recycled and donated goods, but it is a critical thing for those families who are on the breadline and who need that support. It shows how difficult it is to raise a family.
David Linden
The hon. Member makes the powerful point that more often than not it falls to the third sector to step in and support people. Does he agree that it is not a sign of the big society that these groups, however great the work they are doing is, fulfil that need, but a sign of a broken welfare state that is fundamentally beyond repair?
Justin Madders
I hope our welfare state is not beyond repair. I sincerely hope that we are able to build back the blocks of society that have been dismantled over the past 13 years, but wherever we turn in society now, we see the third sector stepping in because the state has not been able to meet the demand, and that is a signal that something has gone fundamentally wrong in this country.
Let me return to the contribution of the hon. Member for Strangford, who mentioned mortgage costs. As other Members have mentioned, that will become a huge issue over the next 12 months. As the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said, it is a live issue, and the Government are still grappling with the implications. The hon. Member for Strangford raised the example of Scandinavian countries. Of course, they are always held up as the most progressive examples of welfare support and progressive societies, and I am sure there is something to learn from them.
It is important that we do not see the debate as something that has only happened recently because of the cost of living crisis. Many of the extra pressures are ones that new parents have faced since time began, but they are particularly acute at the moment. In that context, it is important to look at the issue raised in the petition, which is the level of statutory maternity pay. As we know, inflation has skyrocketed in the past two years. Although this year’s increase in statutory maternity pay more accurately reflects the economic situation, last year there was an increase in statutory maternity pay of only 3.1% when inflation was running at about 9%. The figures do not capture the full picture, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North mentioned. Inflationary increases in the essentials for parents have been particularly acute. She traded some figures about the costs, and I have a few of my own. We can pick whichever ones we want, but they go far beyond the headline rate of inflation for new parents.
The Mirror showed an increase in costs of 38% in a year. The Guardian found that the cheapest baby formula had gone up by 22% in a year. First Steps Nutrition Trust showed that the cheapest brands had gone up by 45% in the past two years and other brands had gone up between 17% and 31%. There is a range of percentages that shows how the issue goes way beyond the headline rate of inflation, which statutory maternity pay is based on.
As the recent Sky News report highlighted, theft of formula milk is becoming more prevalent. Is there anything that symbolises more the current crisis in our country than images of formula baby milk stacked on supermarket shelves with security tags around them? That sends a very clear message about what kind of country we are and the crisis we face. As my hon. Friend mentioned, we know how important it is for children to have a healthy start in life and how their formative years can shape the ones that follow. I worry that the fallout from the issues we are talking about now will be with us for many years to come.
On a more positive note, I pay tribute to all the charities and volunteers who do their bit to ensure that everyone has access to food and support when they need it. As the hon. Member for Glasgow East said, that is not something we should accept as the norm. That should not be substituted as a safety net for the state, but, sadly, that is where we are. In my constituency we have great groups that help out, such as West Cheshire food bank, the Whitby Community Cupboard and the People’s Pantry at Stanney Grange, which I recall visiting recently and being told how much demand there was for formula milk and help and how important it was to get donations, which shows how out of reach all that is for many people.
Of course, the issue is not just about formula milk; it is about the general increase in essentials. Food inflation is just under 20% at the moment. Gas and electricity inflation has reached 129% and 67% at various points in the year, and, as we have already discussed, mortgage rates are shooting up for many people, resulting in instant requests for hundreds of pounds extra a month that people simply do not have.
Looking at inflation in a year in isolation does not tell us the full story. If we go back to 2012, the basic rate of statutory maternity pay equated to 62.5% of a 35-hour week on the national minimum wage, but today it equates to 47.3% of a 35-hour week on the same rate of pay. We are towards the bottom of the league table of decent maternity pay in Europe. Women receive only around 25% of average earnings. As the hon. Member for Strangford suggested, countries such as those in Scandinavia do far better on those metrics.
Research conducted by Maternity Action shows that most women have concerns about money, with the number who are worried increasing at an alarming rate as the cost of living crisis bites in very real terms. In 2022, 64% of women who responded to the survey reported being worried about money when pregnant or on maternity leave. That increased to 71% this year. Widespread concerns about money are all-encompassing. Only 2% of those surveyed claimed that they did not worry about money at all. Some 73% of women told Maternity Action that they struggled to buy the things they needed while pregnant or on maternity leave, of whom 18% reported struggling “a lot”. That has practical consequences.
Some 76% of women surveyed reported that they reduced the number of hours their heating was on; 70% turned down their thermostat; and 55% stopped heating whole rooms altogether. As we know, those choices are made reluctantly and have significant consequences, particularly for newborns, who can pick up infections as a result of the cold, damp and mould. Equally, some parents have reported that they have reduced the amount that they spent on food. Half did that by buying less healthy food, more than one third reduced portions or skipped meals, and one quarter prioritised giving food to their children over themselves.
Just listening to the testimony collected shows the stark reality and human cost of this situation. One respondent talked about the impact of cutting back on heating and said:
“We did use the heating less at first but my…baby ended up with pneumonia and a lower left lung infection…so now we have reduced the thermostat instead.”
Another stated:
“I have had days when the only thing I have eaten is the kids’ leftovers. Some days my only meal is toast.”
We know how hard it is to be a parent at the best of times, but being forced to make those kinds of decision can only add to the burden.
Financial insecurity is one huge aspect of motherhood, but job insecurity is another. Research has consistently found massive discrimination at work due to pregnancy. The Equality and Human Rights Commission estimated in 2015 that
“around 54,000 new mothers may be forced out of their jobs”
in some way due to their pregnancies. Pregnant Then Screwed made similar findings in 2020, which were actually based on a larger sample. In between those surveys, the Taylor review also reported that at least one in 10 employers—perhaps as many as one in five—were not willing to support pregnant women and new mothers, and that one third believed that women should have to disclose family plans at an interview and be at the company for at least a year before being able to have children. Such views really belong in the dark ages.
What has the Government’s response been to those shocking revelations? Despite their being a manifesto commitment and being in the 2019 Queen’s Speech, we have seen no expanded protections for pregnant workers and new mothers until this parliamentary Session. Three times in the previous three Sessions, private Members’ Bills were left to flounder, with none receiving a Second Reading. However, thanks to the tireless campaigning and work by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), such legislation has finally received Royal Assent.
It is clear that the Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Act 2023 has the potential to better protect pregnant workers and new mothers, although the Act only gives enabling powers to the Secretary of State to pass new regulations; it does not, of itself, introduce new protections. Although the Act received Royal Assent only recently, we see no sign of those regulations. I know that that is not within the Minister’s brief, but could she update us on when those regulations can be expected? If she also told us by how long the protected period will be increased, or at least who will be consulted before such judgments are made, that would be warmly received. Given that the Act gave no indication of the length of the protected period or the requirements there would be for consultations before regulations were issued, there is a concern that we might end up, at the end of the day, with a bit of a damp squib.
Of course, extending a period of protection is only as good as the protection in the first place, and, as we have heard, tens of thousands of women face discrimination under the existing law. A single enforcement body might help to address that. Again, that was being promised in that same Queen’s Speech, but since the employment Bill has not surfaced, it seems that we have little hope of seeing that body in place before the next general election.
I turn briefly to the issue of shared parental leave, which a couple of Members have mentioned. It is clear that it is not working and it needs to be urgently reviewed. The Women’s Budget Group, an independent organisation that monitors the effect of Government policies on men and women, has called the scheme “complicated” and said that, because leave was shared, the onus on taking parental leave still often fell on the women—men tended to earn more, so they would be less likely to want to sacrifice that salary as part of the arrangement. Ros Bragg, the director of Maternity Action, said:
“Shared parental leave was brought in seven years ago now and it’s clear that it’s not working—take up is woeful. Our advice lines are full of parents who want to share parental leave, but confusion around the rules means that they are completely baffled. Add that to the low level of pay on offer, and the system seems almost designed to put parents off sharing leave, rather than encourage it.”
The common view is that the shared parental leave system is too complicated. It is poorly understood by employers and parents; there are low rates of pay; and the fact that not all workers qualify, including agency workers, those on zero-hours contracts and the self-employed, means that it needs urgent review. A Government consultation on high-level options for reforming family-related leave and pay, including a right to neonatal leave and pay for parents with premature or sick babies, and proposals to encourage transparency on flexible working and parental leave policies, was launched in July 2019, but the Government have still not published their full response to the consultation. They have addressed some of the proposals, but not all; we are still waiting for the rest.
It seems, as always, that a Labour Government will be needed to come in and address these issues. We will eliminate the restrictive time limits attached to statutory maternity pay, making it a day one right. That will allow women to take control of their family planning. No longer will they be forced to plan one of the most important life decisions around the needs of their employer. We will also extend statutory maternity and paternity leave, as well as urgently review the failed parental leave system. Buttressing those reforms—as well as many others in the new deal for workers, which I encourage hon. Members to review—will be a single enforcement body, which will possess extensive powers enabling it to stand up for workers.
We understand that reforms to employment rights and protections require a multifaceted approach—one that really cannot work through the piecemeal approach we have seen from the Government. After more than a decade in government, the Conservatives are holding back women at work, meaning that a Labour Government, as the last Labour Government did, will stand up for women and bring true equality into the workplace and beyond.
Oral Answers to Questions
Justin Madders Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)
You will notice, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am not the Secretary of State. He sends his apologies as he is currently travelling back from the G7 in Japan, but we will endeavour to do a reasonable job in his absence.
Pre-1997, as the hon. Gentleman knows, occupational pension defined-benefit schemes were not required to be indexed. I emphasise that defined-contribution schemes, which most people are on today, are also, obviously, not required to be indexed.
Justin Madders
As we know, inflation is racing ahead at the moment, and more and more pensioners who are members of occupational pension schemes with pre-1997 service that has not been index linked, and those who are part of the Pension Protection Fund, are noticing the difference. Will the Department carry out an audit of how many people are being affected by those rules, and by how much?
Laura Trott
Those rules were in place for a large period of the last Labour Government, and if Labour Members were interested in changing them, I suggest they should have done so at the time.
Social Mobility
Justin Madders Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Social mobility ought to concern us all. I am not comfortable living in a country where the chances of success are heavily influenced by where someone is born and who they are to. The Sutton Trust’s report “Elites in the UK: Pulling Away?” found that one in five men in professional occupations who were born between 1955 and 1961 became socially mobile, but the figure drops to one in eight for those born between 1975 and 1981. In other words, as generations go by, we are becoming a less mobile nation.
When I was chair of the all-party parliamentary group on social mobility, we did a report on access to professions, including medicine, law, politics, media and art. Those are the areas where the lack of opportunity is most prevalent. Three quarters of senior judges, more than half the top 100 news journalists, more than half the Cabinet and two thirds of British Oscar winners are privately educated. We have already heard the statistic that someone is 24 times more likely to be in medicine if their parents are already in it.
Our report is six years old but just as relevant today. I would really like to see some of the practical recommendations in it implemented, such as a ban on unpaid internships, which really take the ladder away from many who are trying to get on the first rung. Exploitation is taking place at entry level.
Drama is one area where opportunities are limited. I should point out, for the record, that my son is an aspiring actor and uses some of the services I am about to mention. I mention them because they are a new way of exploiting young people’s ambitions. Most acting jobs now are hidden behind paywalls, costing anywhere from £15 and £19 a month to access. What kind of world do we live in where someone has to pay a subscription just to see whether there are any jobs they might want to apply for?
There are three companies that seem to operate in this way: Spotlight, Mandy and StarNow, which I see regularly advertising on social media. I say three companies advisedly, because Backstage and StarNow seem to have almost identical websites, and Mandy and StarNow have the same registered office and similar directors. Perhaps I am missing something about why I need to have three separate subscriptions. In their defence, they say:
“Having memberships to the multiple platforms will give you access to the most job opportunities and increase your visibility to casting”.
That sounds reasonable enough, but I suggest it would also be reasonable to put all the jobs on one site and not charge at all. We can debate the morality of this business model another time, but I wonder whether the Minister thinks it is right for a profession that is notoriously difficult to access to be exploiting people and charging them just to look at what jobs are available.
I conclude by asking the Minister another question about where social mobility lies in the Government’s list of priorities. As we have heard, if social mobility is to be tackled properly, we need to tackle more than just access to work. It is about tax, welfare, housing, transport and health. At the very least, it should not be the remit of just one Minister in one Department; it should be a central mission across all Departments. If the Government are serious about tackling injustice and widening opportunity, it must be driven from the very top.
Health and Disability White Paper
Justin Madders Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tom Pursglove
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the work of Community ConneX, which makes a huge difference in his community. I see that replicated in many of the visits that I undertake in this role. I was in Bristol just before Christmas and it was inspiring to see the work experience placement opportunities that are being provided, often by charitable organisations. I want to work with them to translate those early steps towards employment into roles in other workplaces—full-time work if that is appropriate for someone, or part-time work if that is appropriate in other circumstances.
There is so much that we can do, and I want to place on record my thanks to everyone who works in those initiatives—they are often charitable endeavours, as I say—for everything that they to do help to facilitate this. Working with them will be a key part of how we move this forward.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
May I suggest to the Minister that, as part of this, he looks at reforming statutory sick pay? The pandemic laid bare the inadequacies of that system. Millions of people do not qualify at all, and the rate is one of the lowest in Europe. If we are genuine about getting people with long-term health conditions into the workplace, we need a proper safety net for when they fall ill.
Tom Pursglove
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s thoughts on statutory sick pay. If there are particular ideas or suggestions that he would like me to consider, I would be very happy to do so.