Universal Credit Roll-out

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

What would the hon. Gentleman say to the nearly 7,000 families in his constituency who currently claim tax credit, and who, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, will be £2,500 a year worse off under universal credit?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am more than happy to allow interventions, but if Members who choose to intervene want to look a colleague in the eye when that colleague drops off the list of speakers, let them do so, because that is what is going to happen.

[Mr Clarke]

In answer to the question, I would tell them that—as I would defend to anybody—this Government are creating jobs and, through their changes to taxes and benefits, making life better.

The fact that I have been elected to serve my constituency shows that people in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland see through what the Opposition are trying to do. They talk of a pause, but instead they are in effect asking for indefinite delay and the slow death of this policy. That is the reality of what we are seeing here. They talk a good game about supporting the principle, but in reality they oppose it. They should be more open with us and their constituents about that, because the legacy of the last Labour Government was shameful. The real moral outrage was the thousands of people who ended up being trapped on out-of-work benefits for the entire course of the last decade of Labour’s time in office, and it did nothing about it.

We are offering the solutions. We are listening and learning, and making changes—consider the advance payments, consider the alternative payment methods, consider the landlord portal. Ministers are listening. This system is capable of reform. No system is perfect; given the challenge we are confronting here, I do not believe any system could be perfect. The point is whether this system is capable of improvement, and it is. The Government are listening, and we should get behind them, make this work and stop scaring our constituents with stories which will cause many of them to lose sleep tonight, not to look for work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

One of the advantages of having been elected to represent St Albans four times since 2005 is that I have a very long grievance and complaints database, as my husband keeps reminding me. I remember only too well the communications on working tax credit that came into my postbag when I first came to the House. People were getting requests for payback of £5,000 or £6,000, pushing their families into absolute misery. It made me realise that the system introduced by Labour was utterly broken. Since then, we have had to try to find a way to simplify the system.

The Secretary of State made an excellent speech. We need to say that universal credit is the way forward. Pausing it today—I understand that the Order Paper now reads “pause”, rather than “pause and fix” as it did yesterday—or halting it, as I notice the Scots nats say, would, in effect, be a wrecking proposal. If that is what the Opposition want to do, despite hearing all the pronouncements that this is a good system, they would be sending totally the wrong message.

The Government are in listening mode, and we are having a slow roll-out. It is excellent that there is autonomy over payments for housing rentals. There are 1,300 people on the housing list in St Albans, and people say to me, “I try to rent properties, but nobody will rent to me as soon as they know I’m in receipt of housing benefit.” At least this way they can take control of their own system. I am pleased that if people find themselves in difficulty, there is a way for universal credit to be paid directly to their landlord. As far as I am concerned, that is a belt and braces approach.

The Government need to listen to the concerns that have been raised, but—for goodness’ sake—we have had 10 years of trying to get away from Labour’s totally flawed system that left people multiple thousands of pounds in debt and squabbling in bureaucracies. Believe me, trying to get on those phone lines was a nightmare. There are teething issues, but—please, please—let us listen to them and learn from them, exactly as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) said we are doing. Let us have a slow, learning roll-out.

For whatever reason—and in a non-binding vote for the Government—Members should not side with this Opposition motion, when the Opposition flip-flopped overnight about what they actually wanted to do. They are showing that what they really want is to revert to the totally flawed system that caused misery to many of my constituents. That is what will happen if the universal credit roll-out is halted or paused.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The time limit for speeches is now down to two minutes.

Pensions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Even by the standards of the Labour party, its approach to the state pension age is reckless, short-sighted and irresponsible. When the evidence in front of us shows that life expectancy will continue to increase by a little over one year every eight years that pass, fixing the state pension age at 66, as advocated by the Labour party, demonstrates a complete failure to appreciate the situation in front of us. Compared with the timetable set out by this Government, Labour’s approach will add £250 billion to national debt. Let us put that in context: it is almost twice as much as was disbursed into the financial sector following the financial crisis. Let us put it another way: spending in 2040 on the state pension would be £20 billion a year higher under Labour’s plans than under the plans we are setting out—that is almost twice the Home Office budget. Where on earth is this money coming from? Even the—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. In fairness, I want to hear both sides so that we can make a judgment, and I am finding it very hard to hear the Minister. This is in a reply to the shadow Minister, so we all ought to be able to hear the answer.

[Mr Gauke]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Even the last Labour Government, who were not known for their fiscal rectitude, legislated to increase the state pension age to 68. Yet on top of a long list of unaffordable spending pledges, the Labour party now happily makes pledges on the state pension that it must know will cause unsustainable damage to the public finances.

The facts are, based on the most up-to-date evidence, and clearly set out in the Government Actuary’s report and John Cridland’s report, that life expectancy is going up. Healthy life expectancy at the age of 65 is also going up. The Government have to face up to this long-term challenge and not pretend that it does not exist. We should celebrate increased life expectancy, but it has consequences for fiscal sustainability that cannot be ignored. The Cridland review is a serious piece of work with a clear recommendation on the pension age. In contrast with the Labour party, we will act responsibly and accept that recommendation.

Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 29th March 2017 Commons Chamber

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Members will be aware that when the House previously considered the Bill on Wednesday last, the sitting was suspended, and subsequently the House adjourned, during a Division on the Question that new clause 1 be read a Second time. I shall begin proceedings on the Bill today by again putting that Question to the House.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.

Mining: Health and Safety

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Skinner]

No, because you won’t—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I will move on to the other points that the hon. Member for Livingston has raised. Quite rightly, she touched on what Departments can do through their policies to encourage good practice, and to encourage other countries to take health and safety as seriously as we do. In my Department, which is responsible for the Health and Safety Executive, considerable opportunities come with the HSE’s ambition to export its good practice, and that is important. I will certainly ask my counterparts at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to write to the hon. Lady about specifically how it is developing its energy strategy to take into account the very valid points that she raises.

On the matter of regeneration for affected communities, I may be in danger of agreeing with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner). One thing that was not done well in the past was securing the regeneration of areas where industries on which entire communities had depended were collapsing. Where that happens, swift intervention and investment are required.

One of the privileges of my first ministerial post in the Department for Communities and Local Government was working with local enterprise partnerships on getting particular investment into such areas. Part of the recipe for success in rebuilding those areas was mining heritage. Many projects, whether they were about creating business parks around energy or creating a tourist offer, would come back to an area’s mining heritage. That ties in very well with the important points that the hon. Lady has made about heritage. We need to remember that heritage and give it the status that it should have as part of our nation’s history. I will also ask the Department for Communities and Local Government to write to the hon. Lady to update her on the specifics of the growth funding that has gone into former coal mining areas.

Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mhairi Black]

Does my hon. Friend agree that by missing this opportunity the Government are wilfully ignoring it, much like they are ignoring the WASPI women themselves?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We do not discuss new clauses that have not been selected. We have to deal with what is before us and that is the new clauses on the selection list. I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to stay in order by dealing with those, not those that have been omitted.

[Ian Blackford]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I am happy to receive the guidance that you have given me. I simply wanted to put on record that we had missed the opportunity to debate the measures today. I know that we will have the opportunity to raise these two issues again, so I will skip on without making any further reference to them.

The SNP believes that we need to look holistically at the problems inherent in the system and build on opportunities such as auto-enrolment. Only by giving pensions thoughtful consideration can the Tories get this right. With alarm bells ringing about the injustices facing the WASPI women, and concerns that we could see another hike in the state pension age, even the idea that the Government are contemplating reviewing the triple lock post 2020 is deeply troubling. If I may say so, we know that only by delivering an independent Scotland can the SNP deliver dignity in retirement.

I turn to amendment 5, which would mean that the financial sustainability of the scheme funder had to be taken into account when assessing the financial sustainability of a master trust scheme. The Association of British Insurers has told us that insurance companies already hold a very significant amount of capital under the European regulatory framework for insurance, solvency II. In our view it would not be reasonable, nor is it necessary, for insurers to be required to hold separate or additional capital on top of that to meet their new obligations as master trust providers under the Bill. We would like to hear assurances from the Government that insurers will be exempt if they already adhere to FCA and PRA regulatory and financial sustainability requirements.

Amendment 6 allows for exceptions to the requirement that a scheme funder must only carry out activities directly relating to the master trust scheme for which it is a scheme funder. Amendment 7 makes provision for the Secretary of State to define “restricted activities” by regulation, including a list of specific activities restricted to minimise the risk of loss by master trust scheme funders. Through these amendments, we acknowledge that there may be circumstances in which the scheme funder requirements in the bill should not apply. The amendments state that the requirements need not apply to firms whose activities are already restricted by virtue of existing regulation.

The ABI has said that, in particular, the Prudential Regulation Authority rules mean that insurance activities of the scheme funder that are not directly related to the master trust scheme are transparent and do not threaten the solvency or sustainability of the master trust. The ABI says:

“This is a sensible and pragmatic approach”.

It would be useful to understand what additional requirements will need to be met for firms to be exempt from the scheme funder requirements. It would also be helpful to gain an assurance that the Government are committed to working with the industry throughout the development and consultation process for the regulations.

Amendments 8 and 9 provide the Pensions Regulator with an alternative to stopping payments to the schemes under section 5(b) of a pause order. Amendment 9 is consequential on amendment 8. The Bill creates a new power enabling the Pensions Regulator to make a pause order requiring certain activities to be paused once a trust has experienced a triggering event. That includes accepting new members, making payments, accepting contributions and discharging benefits. The TUC is concerned about the impact of a pause order on a member’s savings because there are no mechanisms in place to allow ongoing contributions to be collected and held on behalf of a saver. We contend that it is unacceptable for a member to be penalised, and in effect to lose wages in the form of employer contributions, because of events out of their control. The Society of Pension Professionals has said that it will be necessary to ensure that the period of effect of a pause order cannot start before the trustees actually receive notification of the pause order. That would mean that any contravention could occur only after the trustees are were receipt of the order. Without this, they argue the trustees could be in breach of a pause order, through no fault of their own, if a direction is not complied with during the period between the date on which the regulator makes the order and the date on which the regulator notifies the trustees of it—for example, if new members joined the scheme in that period contrary to a direction under clause 32(5)(a).

The Government should clarify whether they intend to take action to protect savers now, as we are disappointed that our amendments were defeated at earlier stages. I look forward to hearing the Minister respond. We have sought to work constructively with the Government to enhance the Bill, which we broadly welcome. We affirm our position of wishing to work with the Government where we can to create an environment in which workers can have faith and trust in pension savings.

We should all desire to develop a landscape in which pension saving is encouraged, allowing us to ensure that all our pensioners—from both their own provision and the state pension—have dignity and security in retirement. The Bill helps us along that road, as far as the regulation of master trusts is concerned. There is more to do to enhance auto-enrolment, and I look forward to working with the Government to take steps to include those who are currently excluded from pension savings, particularly the self-employed and many part time workers, especially women.

In closing, although I welcome the Bill, I reflect on the fact that it was necessary for me to put down a prayer last night on frozen pensions after the Government again brought forward a statutory instrument to freeze the pensions of hundreds of thousands of British pensioners who are being denied their full rights. In pushing the measure through, the Government have denied Members of this House the right to debate the matter. I encourage all hon. and right hon. Members to sign early-day motion 1097. I hope that if we can, as I believe we can, demonstrate broad cross-party support against this measure, the Government will have the grace to bring forward a debate on this matter before recess. This early-day motion has already been signed by Members from six parties, including the Government party. I encourage them to listen to us on this matter, as part of proceedings on the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I thank you for that clarification. No, I do not thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I thank the hon. Member for Stockton North. The trustees can decide—they have to decide—when they wish to notify members of the pause order; it is not like it does not exist. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Pensions Regulator can direct the trustees to notify the members at any time if they deem it necessary. That is a really important point. The power is already there; it is not as if it is going away.

With all that said, I hope that I have considered the amendments carefully. I hope that I have made effective arguments and that the hon. Member for Stockton North will not press his amendments.

I am satisfied that the Bill has been improved by amendments made in Committee—largely, I would like to say, in response to Opposition arguments. Once the Bill becomes an Act, I believe it will provide effective protection for the millions now saving in master trusts, largely as a result of the success of automatic enrolment. I hope that this House will be content to leave it unamended today.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am now going to suspend the sitting. The House is now suspended, but please wait here.

--- Later in debate ---

[The following remarks were made for the information of the House during its suspension.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

We remain under suspension, but I call on the Leader of the House to make a statement.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Lidington)]

Colleagues will have appreciated that events have been moving rapidly, and I want to emphasise that the knowledge I have that is definite is so far very limited. What I am able to say to the House is that there has been a serious incident within the Estate. It seems that a police officer has been stabbed and that the alleged assailant was shot by armed police, and an air ambulance is currently attending the scene to remove the casualties. There are also reports of further violent incidents in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster, but I hope that colleagues on both sides of the House will appreciate that it would be wrong of me to go into further details until we have confirmation from the police and the House security authorities about what is going on.

I shall endeavour to do the very best I can, both at the Dispatch Box and by communicating with my opposite numbers in other political parties, to ensure that Members are kept aware of what is happening, but at the moment the very clear advice from the police and the director of security in the House is that we should remain under suspension and that the Chamber should remain in lockdown until we receive advice that it is safe to go back to normal procedures.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am not going to enter into debate at this stage. I just wanted to make sure that people were informed as to why we are in here and in lockdown.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

May I just thank you for that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thank the Leader of the House for his statement? Our thoughts and prayers are with the police officer. I thank the police, all the security services and all the staff for looking after us so well.

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I think that those sentiments will be shared without reservation in all parts of the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

We remain suspended until further notice.

Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

We have had a good, almost conciliatory debate, but we have also rightly focused on the opportunity that the Government have missed to bring forward an appropriate Bill that addresses the issues surrounding pensions. The Chamber again heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on the plight of the thousands of WASPI women left stranded by this Tory Government, who selfishly and needlessly accelerated the state pension age, leaving many women no time to make alternative provision for themselves in their 60s. If one line was added to the Bill to extend pension credit to the WASPI women—that is our policy—it would have gone a long way to pacifying us this evening.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The hon. Gentleman has got his mention in; let’s stick to the Bill.

[Alex Cunningham]

So I suppose, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you do not want me to mention the fact that we do not have clarity on the state pension age, either. The Government have already said that they do not have a long-term commitment to the triple lock; we would like to know what their plans are, both on that and, more importantly, for many of our people who work in the most demanding physical jobs, and suffer ill health much earlier in life than those who spend their life behind a desk.

I will not test your patience any further, Mr Deputy Speaker, but we have drifted away from the principles of an effective pension scheme to a muddled view of saving for retirement. Indeed, such is the political hostility towards pensions that they do not get a mention in the latest leaflet produced by the Treasury, “Ways to save in 2017”. There are lots of mentions of different types of individual savings account—cash, junior, help to buy, lifetime and stocks and shares—but not one mention of the word “pension”, or of auto-enrolment.

Although this narrow Bill needs improvement, it is much needed, and we will work with the Government in Committee to help make it fully fit for purpose. Labour is proud of its achievements with auto-enrolment, but we are a long way from finishing the job. The sluggish response of this Government and the last to the development of a regulatory framework for auto-enrolment has left people’s savings at risk for too long. Given what the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), said, our priorities for improving the Bill should be fairly obvious. There should be transparency: members must know what choices they are making, and how much those choices cost—and I mean all the costs in the investment chain. There seem to be conciliatory thoughts on that on both sides of the Chamber.

We also need improved governance and a pension system in which members are more engaged. I am glad to read in the media and published reports that in many cases the regulators and the Government agree with the Opposition. As I said on 9 January, I welcome the one-word commitment from the Under-Secretary of State for Pensions to implement the FCA recommendations to improve transparency in the pensions industry. We will hold them to account for that.

I repeat that members must know how much things cost—they must know how much each investment costs and how much transactions cost. It is not good enough simply to say that a default fund is capped at 0.75% and that people should be content. The industry tells us that it is moving towards greater transparency across all its platforms. We will be pleased to see what it comes up with. I have no doubt that we need to help the industry with appropriate legislation.

In the past, pension fund providers and others involved in fund management have often tried to dodge the issues when asked direct questions about costs, including by saying, “You should be happy to reward performance,” when we know that lower costs give a better net performance. Other hon. Members have spoken about that in the debate. They also say, “We are incentivised to manage costs, so when your funds do well, we get a bigger pay-off,” but we know that 80% of asset manager fees are based on just holding members’ money rather than making it perform well. When people realise that the average compensation of an asset manager, from the most junior to the most senior employee, is £225,000, people have the right to know how they are using the scheme’s money.

The Opposition favour a change in reporting to ensure that pension schemes must report to members on the three headings: administration, investment costs and transaction costs.

I know that the Minister values the cost-collection template, which has been negotiated with the Investment Association by the Local Government Pension Scheme Advisory Board. We must encourage its use by all pension providers. I hope the Minister will confirm his support for such an approach for master trusts.

On member governance, all the investment risk lies with the member and not with the sponsor or the provider. There is an argument to be made that, since the pot belongs to the member and the scheme-sponsoring employer bears no investment risk, governance by scheme members should prevail in number over employers. Some companies choose to operate a trust-based defined-contribution scheme, but most newer auto-enrolled members will not find themselves saving into one. Instead, the vast majority of people will find themselves saving into a master trust or a group personal pension arrangement. In such schemes, member representation on governance boards is far more rare.

We are in a new landscape—we have lost member-nominated trustees, which we had believed to be a clear fiduciary principle. A member perspective adds diversity, which prevents the risk of group-think within boards. Ian Pittaway, chair of the Association of Professional Pension Trustees, has said:

“They’re brilliant in so many areas, they ask difficult questions that other people might be frightened to ask, they’re great on member issues, whether it’s changing benefits of a death-in-service case or something like that.”

In the defined-benefit world, as long as the scheme was well governed and well administered, the member would end up with a reasonable replacement ratio, but in the defined-contribution world, a member’s outcome depends on a host of factors that are currently beyond their control.

There may be resistance to member representation from master trusts, with tens of thousands of schemes and hundreds of thousands or even millions of members, but the industry has proved that it is possible. We will address that more in Committee. Whatever the route to better representation, most in the sector agree that it can only be beneficial for the defined-contribution landscape. There is a clear argument and there are clear demands that the Bill is the best place to start. We look forward to working with the Minister to make it happen.

Yes, we could have debated equally if not more important measures in the Bill, but sadly we are not. It could be many years before we get a chance to pass legislation in those areas. The Bill can both protect and empower the people whose money is being invested on their behalf. The Opposition are therefore happy to see the Bill progress to Committee, where we hope the Minister will be open to the improvements I am sure we can make to the Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Pensions (Richard Harrington)]

I should point out to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that your predecessor in the Chair, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), was very robust in her attempts to reduce the content of Members’ speeches to that which is relevant to the Bill. I will do my best to continue with that tradition.

I was expecting some excellent contributions to this debate and I have not been disappointed. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for the general spirit of consensus on the basics of the Bill. A number of hon. Members raised issues that go beyond the authorisation of master trust pension schemes and administration charges, the two issues covered in the Bill, and I am itching to rebut them. However, I realise, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I would be deemed to be out of order as they are out of the scope of the Bill, so I shall not do that. The Government were criticised by Opposition Members on the grounds that the Bill’s scope was not wide enough. I will address two points in particular.

On the scope of auto-enrolment, we will announce shortly a statutory review in 2017. It is my intention to make that review wider than the limited definition within the Bill. That will report by the end of the year. It is not in the Bill, which regulates master trusts, but it has not been ignored by the Government and it will not be.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I think I do need to help you, Mr Harrington. We all said Members would get one hit and then they would have to get to the Bill. Both Front Benchers have had one hit. Now we can really get into the meat of the Bill.

[Richard Harrington]

I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on continuing so well the leadership and robustness started by your predecessor in the Chair. I apologise for any offence caused to the Chair. I actually thought I was speaking within the scope of the Bill, but I will of course be led by the Chair and move on to the substance of the Bill.

As I said, the points raised in the debate by Members on both sides of the House have been broadly complimentary. The whole purpose of the Bill is for the Government to be able to respond very quickly to the phenomenal and exponential growth in master trusts over the past two years. That growth was not predicted by the Opposition, who take credit for auto-enrolment—in fact, there was cross-party consensus—and it was not predicted by either the coalition Government or this Government. It happened very quickly and I believe the Government are doing the right thing by responding quickly. I do not accept that the Government have acted too slowly.

I was very glad to receive the support of the shadow Secretary of State, and she made a very relevant point when she explained her view about the expansion of master trusts. We are not allowed to mention the “w” word, as the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) calls it from a sedentary position, because that would be outside the scope of the Bill. The regulation has been very considered. Both Labour Front-Bench spokesmen and the SNP spokesman commented on the large amount of secondary legislation. The reason is very clear: we want to consult very quickly with industry and responsible parties on the detail, but this process will not take a long time. We have to get the detail absolutely right, because this is a one-off chance to regulate. There will be a chance for scrutiny by both Houses, because in the first instance the regulations will be subject to affirmative procedure.

Many Government Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), spoke about transparency. We take this very seriously and we are consulting on it. It is not in the Bill, but it is in the spirit of the Bill, because the regulator will be provided with many powers that will help to enforce transparency and members’ rights, which have been discussed.

State Pension Age: Women

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are being traduced by the hon. Gentleman. For clarification, this matter was in our manifesto, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will correct what he has said.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I think we all know that that is not a point of order, but, not to worry, it has been put on the record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The good news is that I must reduce the speaking time to four minutes so that everyone can speak for the same amount of time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Evans]

I do not agree, because, to be fair to the DWP, it has communicated with people. I think it could communicate better, as I have just described, but following the 1995 Act the Department issued a leaflet, among other press and publicity measures including direct mailings, to advise the public of the changes. In 2004, during the 13 years of Labour Governments, the DWP ran an information campaign distributing more than 2 million pension guides alongside adverts in the press and women’s magazines to complement an interactive online state pension calculator. In addition, all state pension statements issued from 2001 would have included as standard the new state pension age as determined by the 1995 changes. Since then, more than 11 million statements have been issued.

The Government have been notifying women of the changes. Those most affected by the 2011 changes were written to directly. That involved sending out more than 5 million letters between January 2012 and November 2013. Research carried out by the DWP found that 6% of women who were within 10 years of pension age thought that their state pension age was still 60. However, those efforts were not wholly successful. Had they been, we would not be here now debating this subject. There are lessons to be learned by Governments of all colours, present and future, on effective communication of such important matters. Those who planned for their retirement want to live the retirement they planned for.

After the 2011 changes, the Government passed an amendment to the Bill that provided £1.1 billion-worth of transitional funding, delaying the equalisation of the state pension age. We have already considered this matter and taken mitigating action. The new state pension has been brought forward a year and many women will be significantly better off than they would have been. By 2030, more than 3 million stand to get an extra £550 a year. Likewise, the introduction of the triple lock, which ensures that the state pension rises by inflation, wages or 2.5%, whichever is greater, ensures that the basic state pension will be over £1,100 a year higher than it was at the start of the last Parliament.

To undo the 2011 changes would cost £30 billion in addition to the loss of £8 billion in tax revenue. To undo the 1995 changes—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[David T. C. Davies]

I am not giving way.

I remind Opposition Members that it was a Conservative Government who equalised the voting age between men and women; that the first female MP to take her seat was a Conservative; that the Conservative party—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Stopped in your prime, Mr Davies.

Autumn Statement Distributional Analysis, Universal Credit and ESA

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

While half of me is loth to continue this debate, I want us to be clear. We have here an economic crisis brought about by political instability caused by the rupturing of unions between countries. So for the hon. Gentleman to argue that Scottish independence would not have had similar disastrous effects for the Scottish economy is, frankly, disingenuous.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I remind Members to be cautious with the language they use. Also, I do not want this to degenerate into a debate about independence, and I know that the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) wants to get back to his brief and not to be tempted by those who want to go out fishing today. To those Members intervening, I say this: when your speaking time is reduced to four minutes, do not blame me.

[Ian Blackford]

I will take your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I only say to the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) that she has demonstrated once again that Better Together is still alive and well—and how did that work out for the Labour party in Scotland?

I will return to the issue we are dealing with. We have inflation created by Brexit and a falling the pound, and the result of this failure will be a fall in living standards for many of our poorest—falling living standards brought to you by this Government. On top of the benefit cuts next year, the Prime Minister is sleepwalking into a perfect storm for low-income families, rather than living up to her promise of delivering for just-managing families. The UK Government must use the autumn statement to end their austerity obsession and instead bring forward an inclusive programme that will truly support low-income families and their children.

The UK Government’s U-turn on tax credits last year was simply a delaying tactic that kicked cuts to universal credit further down the line. The Government should take the opportunity to reverse the cuts to universal credit work allowance in their autumn statement. The original intention of universal credit was to increase work incentives and make sure that, as the Government put it, work paid. On top of damning economic forecasts, however, which will push up the cost of living, the work allowance cut will simply push more working people into poverty. It has slashed the income of working universal credit claimants. The IFS has calculated that in the long term more than 3 million working families will lose an average of more than £1,000 a year as a result of the work allowance cut.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, let me clarify that we shall start with a seven-minute limit, but if Members can speak in less time than that, everyone should be able to have approximately equal time.

Construction Companies (Fatal Accidents)

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hepburn]

I do recognise that description. It is the work of academics and trade unions that has brought about tonight’s debate. They are bringing these shortcomings to our notice.

There can be few worse experiences for a family than to lose a father, husband or son who has gone to work normally, like we all do, but, unlike the rest of us, has never come home. Even if a prosecution is mounted by the HSE, the agony of the bereaved family does not stop there. The delays between construction accidents occurring, then prosecution and conviction are excruciating. The problem is getting worse, not better. Families are being forced to put their lives on hold for years and years, with no hope of closure until they see those responsible for the death of their loved one brought to justice. Justice delayed is nearly as great a failure as justice denied.

In 2005, the average time between the death of a worker and a prosecution, was over two years. Ten years later, it has increased to two-and-a-half years. I must stress that these are averages, so the worst cases are a lot worse. The HSE has admitted that in 15% of cases prosecution does not even begin for three to four years. Beginning the prosecution, however, is just the beginning of the judicial process. There are many further stages that need to be completed before a conviction is achieved. In 2006-07, the average delay between a fatal accident and a conviction was 985 days. That was bad enough, but the latest figures are so much worse. In 2014-15, the average time between a fatal accident and a conviction in construction was now 1,267 days—or three-and-a-half years. I need to stress again that that figure is just an average. Delays in justice can be a lot longer.

Last week, Falcon Crane Hire was fined £750,000 following the collapse of one of its cranes in Battersea, which lead to the deaths of Jonathon Cloke, the crane driver, and Michael Alexa, a member of the public. That accident occurred in September 2006. It took nine-and-a-half years for justice to be done—nine-and-a-half years for the families of the victims of that accident to witness justice. I am sure the House agrees that nine-and-a-half years is far too long.

The Battersea crane accident might be the case with the longest delay, but it is not unique. I can give other examples. There are other ongoing cases where delays are highly significant. In January 2011, in the worst single accident for many years, Daniel Hazelton, Tom Hazelton, Adam Taylor and Peter Johnson were killed in a construction accident in Great Yarmouth. In February this year, over five years after the deaths of these workers, the case was finally referred to the magistrates courts. The eventual conviction of those concerned is still to come.

Given these agonisingly long delays, attention needs to turn to what the HSE’s response has been to the concerns that I and the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, of which I am a proud member, have raised—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. If there is a case before the courts, we should not comment on it. We really ought to be aware that we do not want to put the House in the position of seeming to prejudge an individual case.

[Mr Hepburn]

Thank you for that advice, Mr Deputy Speaker.

UCATT and I have raised concerns about the delays in prosecutions and convictions. In response, the HSE says that the delays are due to other bodies and agencies, such as the police, the coroners courts and even the justice system itself, especially if the matter is referred to the Crown Court. In other words, the HSE is saying it is not its fault.

Well, this House and the families of the victims of construction workers deserve to know exactly who is to blame. The one group certainly not to blame is the victims and their families who are being treated in such an abominable manner. It is time for the HSE to stop passing the buck and blaming others. These are straightforward cases where a worker has died. They are not major inquiries into a war, or how the Government covered up their failures following Hillsborough. They should not take this long. These cases are straightforward. If these problems are to be laid at the door of the HSE, we need to know whether they are a result of the 35% real-terms grant cuts the organisation has suffered over the last five years, as was mentioned earlier.

At the start of my contribution, I said how important it was that the HSE had a high profile in order to discourage the breaking of safety laws in construction. There is another area where its performance has been found wanting. A freedom of information request by UCATT has revealed that since 2012-13, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, the number of unannounced inspections made in the construction industry in the UK has declined by 8.7%. This decline occurred at a time when the industry was expanding and the number of sites in operation was increasing, following years of decline owing to the recession and Government cuts.

Within that overall decline were some truly shocking figures: the number of inspections in Scotland has dropped by 55%; in my region of the north-east, the number is down by 28.5%; in the north-west, the figures have declined by nearly a third; and in the south-east, where construction is booming, the number is down by 19%.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendments 8B, 8C, 9B and 9C.

Before Clause 4

[The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendments 1B, 1C and 1D.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to take the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendments 8B and 8C and the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendments 9B and 9C.

[Priti Patel]

Lords amendments 1B, 1C and 1D place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish data annually on four low-income statistics. Let me start by being very clear about what the Government are not doing in these amendments: we are not returning to the broken state of affairs in the Child Poverty Act 2010; we are not returning to a policy approach driven by flawed income measures; and we are not compromising on the new life chances measures and the approach that we have set out in the Bill. Income measures do not drive the right action. They focus the Government’s finite resources on the symptoms of child poverty, not the root causes.

Let me be clear on what these amendments are about. They provide a further guarantee that information on low income will be made available for all to see, every year. We have repeatedly given commitments on that throughout the passage of the Bill, in both Houses. The “Households below average income” publication, which provides a range of low-income data, already has statutory protection as a national statistics product. We are now reinforcing that with a new statutory duty to publish those data annually. Three of the four income statistics—relative low income, combined low income and material deprivation, and absolute low income—are already routinely published in the HBAI publication.

Our commitment goes beyond the data that are already published. It will also place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to publish new data annually on children living in persistent low-income households. The information will be based on a new data source, and the first figures will be published before the end of the 2016-17 financial year. We believe that those data are a useful addition, because they tell us about families who are stuck on low incomes.

However, although we have given full statutory guarantees that those low-income data will be published annually, we will not commit to the Government’s laying a report on them to Parliament. Reporting to Parliament on those statistics would incentivise Governments to take the wrong action and would simply continue to drive actions, such as direct income transfers, that fail to tackle the root causes of child poverty. The duty to publish low-income data is fundamentally different from reporting on or setting targets for them, and Opposition Members should not confuse the two.

We need to move away from the flawed “poverty plus a pound” approach that income measures incentivise. Resources are finite, and it is crucial that the Government prioritise the actions that will make the biggest difference to children. The evidence is clear that tackling worklessness and low educational attainment will make the biggest difference to children’s life chances. That is why the Government will report to Parliament on their life chances measures of worklessness and educational attainment every year.

We are also committed to publishing a number of non-statutory measures annually, including family stability, drug and alcohol dependence and problem debt, but we firmly believe that any move to report on those low-income measures would divide Government’s efforts and undermine the new life chances approach, which will bring about the transformative change that we all want to see. I urge hon. Members to support the motion to agree with amendments 1B, 1C and 1D.