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.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendments 2 to 6, 8, 9 and 11. If the House agrees to any of these amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Before Clause 4

[The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendment 8, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 9, and Government motion to disagree.

[Priti Patel]

The Bill is a vital part of the Government’s reforms that are moving this country to a high wage, low tax, low welfare economy. It is fundamental to our commitment to end child poverty and improve children’s life chances, and to ensure that work always pays more than a life on benefits and that support is focused on the most vulnerable.

As is right and proper, the Bill’s provisions have been carefully scrutinised by both this House and the other place. Where appropriate the Government have tabled amendments to bring clarity or to remove unintended consequences, and they have made important commitments on supported housing and the social rents measure, on kinship carers and sibling adoptions under clauses 11 and 12, and on guardian’s allowance and carer’s allowance in relation to the benefit cap. The Government remain firmly committed to the aims and principles of the Bill as it left this House, and for that reason we wish to resist the non-Government Lords amendments.

Before I address each area in detail, allow me to set out the key principles that underpin our disagreement with the Lords. Our view is that the addition of child poverty income measures is unnecessary because we have already committed to publishing statistics on children in low-income families through the “Households below average income”—HBAI—publication. Lords amendment 1 would also reintroduce a failed approach to child poverty that is focused on tackling its symptoms rather than its root cause, and it would drive perverse behaviour focused on lifting people just above the poverty line, rather than on a life chances strategy that could transform children’s lives.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Points of order come after statements. I shall await with eager anticipation the hon. Gentleman’s point of order.

Social Security

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Obviously, we are broadening the debate into other areas we are not expected to deal with, and I do believe we could have quite a bit more business to come.

[Sammy Wilson]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is now going to have to do without an answer to that question because you have made it clear—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am sure you can have a cup of tea later in order to answer it.

[Sammy Wilson]

Mr Deputy Speaker, you have made it clear to the hon. Lady that I would be digressing if I went down that route. The good thing is that Sinn Féin did face up to the reality that we could not go along a route where we did not have a sustainable budget and could not deliver services in Northern Ireland, we were going to hit a constitutional crisis and the devolution settlement was going to be under threat if we did not deal with this issue. I do not see what happened as a cop-out on our part, because we had always advocated that, if this matter could not be dealt with in the Assembly, it should be dealt with here—my only regret was that the Secretary of State did not take the powers earlier. Perhaps it is better that the powers were handed to her by the Northern Ireland Assembly and therefore we have this order tonight.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I want to make some progress. I will give way again later, but I am conscious of the fact that over 35 Members are waiting to speak—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Forty.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Forty Members, so it is in colleagues’ interest to let me make some progress.

I also want to support parents claiming universal credit to get into and stay in work after having a child. We found just last week that the number of children living in households claiming out-of-work benefits is at a record low, down by 450,000 since 2010. That is very good progress, but we want to build on it. The Government are introducing a far-reaching childcare offer: with universal credit, people will get up to 85% of their childcare costs paid from April 2016—up from 70% under the previous system. All three and four-year-olds already receive 15 hours of free childcare a week, as do 40% of the most disadvantaged two-year-olds. On top of that, there will be an additional 15 hours of free childcare available for working parents of three or four-year-olds. Overall, we anticipate that this provision will be worth about £5,000 per child per year. In line with that, we believe it is fair to ask parents claiming universal credit to look for work when their youngest child turns three, and to prepare for work when the youngest child turns two, and the Bill makes provision for that as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The impact assessment for the Bill has only just arrived in the Vote Office; it was not here for the beginning of the debate. Surely we ought to be given the statistics in order to have an informed debate, rather than having to rely on what comes out of the Secretary of State’s mouth.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

We will investigate the matter. I would have thought that the hon. Lady would give me a little more warning of her point of order, but there we are.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We released them earlier and they have been available since before the debate began, so I will simply move on.

I would like to turn to how we tackle the root causes of poverty. I believe that the past approach focused on dealing with the symptoms of poverty while completely failing to target the root causes. The Bill will provide a statutory basis for much-needed reform to improve children’s life chances. I have long argued that there are five key pathways to poverty that affect children’s life chances: worklessness, educational attainment, drug and alcohol addiction, family breakdown and problem debt. The Bill will remove the existing measures and targets in the Child Poverty Act 2010 and introduce a new duty to report on worklessness and educational attainment. Alongside the statutory measures, we will develop indicators to measure progress against either of those root causes of poverty.

Our new approach will drive real action, which will make the biggest difference to the most disadvantaged children now and in future. The key point is that this will enable us to measure what Government policy actually does, rather than just how much money we put into it. It is worth reminding the House that we will continue to publish the HBAI—households below average income—statistics so that those who wish to look at them can still do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The Secretary of State has given way quite a lot. We cannot have three people at once shouting, “Will the Secretary of State give way?” The Secretary of State will give way when he feels it is correct to do so, but we cannot have three people hanging loose.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Let me give the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) some figures for Scotland, which are worth looking at. Employment in Scotland is up 40,000 on the year and 179,000 since 2010. The employment rate is 74.3%, up 4.5% since 2010. Private sector employment is up 58,000 on the year and 244,000 since 2010. Just 5.2% of workers in Scotland are on temporary contracts and over 80% of those who work part time do so because they say it suits them. Although there is still much more to do, our reforms to lower corporation tax, get people back to work and create more jobs are exactly the route for her constituents to improve their life chances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Heidi Allen]

We are friends, I believe. I think we are all friends in here—I hope we are.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Absolutely.

[Heidi Allen]

Thank you. I do not have children, so I often tread carefully in these sorts of debates because I do not want people to point the finger and say, “Well, you don’t understand.” But I am certain of one thing: a choice between one, two or three children is a choice. If you cannot afford it, why should the taxpayer subsidise you? Can she answer that? [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I will try to get everyone in, but I now have to reduce the time limit to four minutes. Let us stick with it. Interventions, if we must have them, must be short.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the thoughtful and interesting speech of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). He showed huge sincerity in his opposition to the Government, but during a couple of sections of his speech, I thought he might be joining us in the Lobby this evening, and I am disappointed that on this occasion he will not. I draw his attention to the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) and other hon. Friends who have pointed out that this is, in fact, the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. I thought the hon. Gentleman was getting there—surely we all support systems that work; surely we all want annual reports to the House on progress on full employment, troubled families and apprenticeships. There must be much in the Bill that hon. Members on both sides of the House can agree on.

The last Labour Government spent £170 billion in tax credits between 2004 and 2010. It is not unreasonable to ask whether that £170 billion, or at least some of it, could not have been better spent on measures that would change recipients’ life chances. That is particularly true since we know we have to live within our means, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) stated so eloquently—far more eloquently than I put it in my intervention on him. Between 2010 and 2015, the welfare reform that we achieved made savings of £60 billion, helping to halve the deficit and restore confidence in our public finances. In the same period, employment increased by no less than 2 million. In my constituency, the number of people who are unemployed has fallen by a third, and I am sure that similar statistics could be quoted by hon. Members throughout the Chamber if they chose to reel them off.

The best way to tackle poverty and reform welfare is to ensure that everyone who can work has that opportunity. That is the best way to tackle poverty both in this generation and in the next. Under this Government, 387,000 fewer children are being brought up in workless households. That is hugely positive in enhancing the life chances of all our people. I am delighted that the Government are not only targeting full employment but ensuring, through the introduction of the national living wage and the targeted reduction of tax, that those working in lower-paid jobs get a fairer reward.

The proposal to reduce the welfare cap is right for two reasons. It will support a culture in which people know that work will always pay, and that it is the best way to maximise income and support a family. It is also right to redirect our support to enhancing life chances. The funds saved will go towards increasing the number of quality apprenticeships—I take the point made by the shadow Secretary of State that they must be quality apprenticeships, and I am sure that is what we will get. I know that enabling young people to achieve their ambitions is close to the hearts of all of us, on both sides of the House. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) that that is an exciting feature of the Bill, which we should all support. The Government have overseen the creation of 2 million apprenticeships, delivering more apprenticeships in two years than Labour delivered in five. The Bill will take the aspiration further, with a target of 3 million apprenticeships.

I acknowledge much of what the hon. Member for Ogmore said, but there are great differences across the House in how we achieve our aims. We believe—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

In order to keep to the time limit, I will turn immediately to the Government’s intention to increase the tax credits withdrawal rate—the taper—from 41% to 48%, and to the cut in the tax credits income threshold from £6,420 to £3,850 a year. Those are two of the most damaging and far-reaching changes, and the Government are determined to press ahead with them, but in fact they are not in the Bill. They will be dealt with in secondary legislation, yet they will have an enormous impact on family incomes, and the Bill needs to be considered in the context of those changes.

Increasing the taper from 41% to 48% will make it less attractive to seek more hours of work and will produce a marginal rate of tax higher than that paid by those on the 45% additional tax rate—those earning more than £150,000. Combine that with the cut in the tax credits income threshold—the point at which the withdrawal of tax credits begins—from £6,420 to £3,850, and people working on low incomes will be hard-hit. Furthermore, those earning just above £7.20 an hour, the new minimum wage from next spring for over-25s, will gain nothing. Figures from Citizens Advice show that a couple with one child, one working 37 hours a week and the other working 18.5 hours a week, both on £8 an hour, will lose £646 per annum; a similar couple with two children will lose £2,400; and a single parent with two children, who works full time, will lose £1,862. That is no way to treat those working hard on low incomes and with little prospect of getting better-paid work.

I am absolutely opposed to limiting child tax credits to two children. What if a family’s income suddenly drops? If one earner loses a reasonably paid job and can find only a replacement job on much lower pay, the family might become eligible for tax credits, but they will not be eligible for the family element or anything for the third child. What about cases of family break-up, in which one parent—usually the mother—is left with sole responsibility for three or more children? The whole point of providing tax credits for children is that a child needs support, no matter how the family income has fallen in hard times.

The Secretary of State has talked about education and about better-paid jobs being ways out of poverty, but first a child needs food to develop healthily and clothes to wear at school. Only one in seven families in the UK have three or more children, and nine out of 10 families with three or more children have one adult in work. We should make sure that every child has food and clothing and provide support where family incomes are low.

The Secretary of State justifies the extension of conditionality to single parents of three and four-year-olds by saying that the Government will roll out additional childcare, but we already know that their manifesto promises on childcare are being postponed. The provision of childcare is devolved to the Welsh Government, so the change presupposes, or assumes, that the Welsh Government will provide exactly the same support, but that Government have extended the Flying Start scheme while the Tory Government have slashed Sure Start centres in England. They should not be introducing measures contingent on spending on specific provision by the Welsh Government without discussion with Welsh Ministers and the appropriate Barnett consequential funding.

I am also concerned about the freeze on payments such as tax credits and jobseeker’s allowance that the Bill will enshrine in legislation. That comes on top of previous freezes implemented since 2010. Never before this Secretary of State came to office was the link between benefits and inflation broken; there was always uprating to reflect inflation, even in the time of Margaret Thatcher. The way to reduce benefits bills—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.