Pre-1997 Pensions: Discretionary Increases
Luke Akehurst Excerpts(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
Across the country, an estimated 1 million pensioners are losing out on pension increases that they ought to be entitled to, simply because the hard shift that they put in to pay into their pensions happened to occur before an arbitrary date in a calendar. That is not good enough. I have secured this debate to shed light on the injustice of the lack of statutory increases for pre-1997 defined-benefit pension schemes, and to ask the Minister what the Government are going to do about it.
Prior to 6 April 1997, defined-benefit pension schemes in the UK were not legally required to increase in line with inflation. That oversight left pensioners, who had worked hard for their whole lives to pay into a pension guaranteeing security in retirement, at risk of seeing their hard work outstripped by the rising cost of living, reducing their financial position in retirement.
The Pensions Act 1995 sought to address the problem, introducing statutory limited price indexation, meaning that those pensions were mandated in law to rise as inflation eroded their real value. However, the change applied only to pension contributions made after April 1997. Almost 30 years on, pre-1997 defined-benefit pensions are subject to the same injustice identified and partially resolved by the Government all that time ago. It is up to the trustees of these pre-1997 funds to decide the level of pension increases granted.
I have secured this debate, during which I am aware that a number of right hon. and hon. Members will seek to intervene, to challenge the Government to finish the job, started almost three decades ago, of ensuring that every recipient of a defined-benefit pension scheme has the dignity and security in retirement that they have worked so hard for.
The Pre-97 Pension Justice campaign group of over 400 pensioners, who I pay tribute to for their persistent campaigning on this issue, has informed me of at least 13 companies where this spell of zero increases—effectively real-terms cuts to pensions every year—stretches to a decade or more. Top of the list, sadly, is Nissan, which has not increased these kinds of pensions for a quarter of a century. In those 25 years, the price of goods has almost doubled: the contents of a shopping basket worth £100 in 2001 would now cost £194.
Prior to this 25-year period, the trustees of the Nissan pension had set a precedent that when the pension scheme delivered a surplus, a discretionary increase would be passed on to members. Between 1992 and 2001, when the scheme was in surplus, increases of between 2% and 3% were granted. This pattern was disturbed after 2001, when the scheme went into deficit, but when the scheme returned to a surplus in 2022, the trustees broke with precedent and refused to grant an increase. The same has happened again every year since, which leads the pensioners to fear that there is a new policy by the trustees that no discretionary increases will ever again be handed to the retired Nissan workers holding these pensions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Luke Akehurst
I will give way to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) first.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent presentation. Rather curiously, up until 2023, ExxonMobil pensioners got automatically indexed uplifts to their pensions, but for some reason from that date onwards, the company changed its policy and now they are not getting the discretionary uplift. The trustees there say that they have no power and that it is up to the company to decide whether this discretionary uplift occurs. Is one way forward perhaps to ask the Minister to give an undertaking that the trustees should have the power to award such discretionary uplifts linked to indexation?
Luke Akehurst
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to that particular anomaly.
Luke Akehurst
I see that my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour wishes to intervene.
Luke Akehurst
I have had written communications and met with constituents who used to work alongside my hon. Friend’s constituents at Nissan. Sadly, in the case of Nissan and countless others, trustees have proven themselves not to be accountable enough for the decisions that affect those holding pensions. Evidence submitted to the Pensions Ombudsman shows multiple cases in which trustees have not even considered key factors when deciding discretionary increases.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on clearly laying out the injustice. Does he have concerns, as I do, that the make-up of the trustee boards means that the company is in control? That is either because the trustees are current employees and their promotion will depend on the company or because they have been appointed specifically by the company. Therefore, even where trustees vote unanimously for a rise, as in the case of 3M, it can be blocked by the company. That has happened for successive years with these companies.
Luke Akehurst
I absolutely share that concern. My understanding from the constituent I met is that Nissan’s trustees include a majority of company appointees who outvote the trustees representing the members of the scheme. Key factors have been ignored, from ignoring inflation to overlooking member contributions. For that reason, I believe that statutory intervention is urgently required.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I congratulate him on securing today’s debate. Has he noticed in his work on this issue that in some cases, some international companies are paying inflationary increases in other jurisdictions where they operate, but not in the UK? There have been a number of instances of that in my area, where pensioners from Berkshire in schemes run by international companies have seen exactly that. For example, Irish pensioners or US pensioners get an increase, but not British pensioners.
Luke Akehurst
I thank my hon. Friend for that very useful contribution. I was not aware of that, and I am shocked. It is a further injustice if pensioners in the UK are treated differently from pensioners who worked for the same company in other territories. While the Pensions Ombudsman can establish whether procedure has been followed, only politicians can decide whether outcomes are fair. Will the Minister set out what scope he sees for his role in ensuring fairness over defined benefit pension schemes?
There is another injustice in the way that the Nissan scheme treats its pension holders. Members across the House will be aware that most people take up the option to take a quarter of their pension as a tax-free lump sum. That money is vital to kick-starting retirement, allowing people to pay off their mortgages and other major debts or make major purchases when they first become pensioners. However, the split between pre-1997 and post-1997 pensions means that this scheme, which should be hugely beneficial for those retiring, can be and is being used against them.
The Nissan pension scheme has been paying out its lump sums from those parts of people’s pension funds where the payments would have increased with inflation and leaving in their pension pot the pre-1997 part where the benefits will not track inflation. The impact of that means that, once a lump sum has been taken, the parts of the pension that are left will receive lower or no annual increases. That is clearly unjust.
Worst of all, this change was not even directly communicated with pension holders. My constituents knew about what is frankly an accounting trick only as they noticed their pension increasing by less than anticipated over the years. Because of that, I hope the Minister is able to set out what the Government’s position is on which part of these kinds of pensions should be paid out as a lump sum. Will he work to protect pensioners from quirks of sum calculation being used to deny them the increases that they need to keep up with the change in the cost of living?
I want to recognise that Nissan is otherwise an excellent employer and a hugely important contributor to our regional economy in the north-east and, indeed, to the British manufacturing industry as a whole. I am sure that my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist), who also has many constituents working there, agrees. Not only has Nissan employed people, it has provided jobs deep into the supply chain. Given its status in the region as a very much admired employer, it is a real shame that it seems to be forgetting that its success, bringing employment and regeneration to the north-east over the past 40 years, comes from its loyal workforce. These cost-saving exercises on the pension scheme are no way to treat employees who have worked so hard and deserve a decent retirement.
Crucially, discretion over what increases pension holders receive currently lies with the trustees. However, the most common long-term target for a pension scheme is buying out with an insurer, an outcome that takes decisions of that nature out of the hands of trustees. When a scheme is bought out, trustee discretion disappears entirely, meaning that without legislative reform, thousands of pensioners will lose even the faint hope that the trustees might give them an increase. Given that the Government have made clear their desire to put more power into the hands of trustees of pension schemes, I would appreciate if the Minister could set out whether the Government have made any assessment of that risk, and whether they intend to take any action to benefit those pension holders affected by insurer buy-out.
To illustrate the financial impact of this injustice, I will tell the House about a constituent of mine. Steve, who I have met, started working for Nissan in 1985, meaning that a considerable amount of his pension contributions were made before the 1997 cut-off. He retired in January 2016. Since his retirement, consumer price index inflation has totalled 40.3%, while Steve’s pension has increased by only 8.3%, the minimum legally required for his post-1997 contributions. In real terms, Steve’s pension has decreased by a staggering 32.5% in just nine years. Meanwhile, the state pension has increased by 48% since 2016, when Steve retired. We are right to be proud of the increases to the state pension we have delivered, including £575 this year for the new state pension. If we believe in the importance of protecting state pensioners—a belief we have backed up with real money out of the door—why should we not apply the same standard to defined benefit pension schemes?
Steve is just one example of someone being short-changed by this anomaly. My hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), for Blaydon and Consett, for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon), for South Shields (Emma Lewell), for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne), along with others, have all been advocating for constituents involved in the dispute with the Nissan pension scheme. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), who has been fighting for the hard-working people at Nissan as the constituency MP for the site. I congratulate her on her very recent and well-deserved promotion to ministerial office, which unfortunately precludes her from participating in the debate.
Nissan is not an isolated case; it is indicative of a much wider problem, where the state is failing to stand up for fairness and the value of a pension is drastically determined by which side of an arbitrary cut-off date contributions were made. Parliament has already been presented with a clear solution to this matter. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) on tabling new clause 22 to the Pension Schemes Bill, which would have legislated to address this issue. Disappointingly, the Government indicated opposition to that amendment, and it was not put to a vote. Will the Minister elaborate on why the Government were unwilling to support my hon. Friend’s amendment?
I am aware that Ministers have previously cautioned against retrospective changes to pensions that would go the full way to correcting this injustice. While I do not agree that we should accept an injustice just because it has already happened, I hope the Minister will consider whether a statutory increase to pre-1997 defined benefit pensions could be enacted from this point forward, even if it cannot be retrospectively applied. Earlier this month, I co-ordinated a joint letter with colleagues whose constituents are missing out on money to which we feel they are entitled. That letter calls on Ministers to address the problem I am raising today by supporting my hon. Friend’s new clause 22, or by committing to bring forward similar measures before the Pension Schemes Bill achieves Royal Assent.
The Pension Schemes Bill now sits with the other place, where my predecessor, the now Lord Beamish, will make the case for those adversely affected by this oversight in the law. I urge the Government to accept any forthcoming amendments on this matter, and to commit to working with those of us advocating for a fair resolution for our constituents. I understand that the Bill is completing its final stages, meaning that time for action is running out. Increasing pre-1997 pensions would not only benefit the more than 1 million pensioners in question; it would also mean greater tax receipts for the state, thereby boosting public services and allowing more investment in communities like the one I represent.
The Government have already taken limited but welcome steps to address the injustice for holders of pre-1997 pensions. They have announced legislative changes to allow the pension protection fund and the financial assistance scheme to start paying inflation-linked increases, capped at 2.5%, on pre-1997 pensions—something that had previously been prohibited under the law. Ministers have confirmed that this change will benefit around a quarter of a million PPF members by improving their payments by an average of £400 a year, with the earliest increases expected from January 2027 once the legislation is in place.
The Government have also stated that the reforms in the Pension Schemes Bill, particularly those relating to surplus release, are intended to give trustees more flexibility to address this issue in future. Have the principles that have guided the Government in making those welcome adjustments been applied to the remaining pre-1997 pension holders who have been left behind? I hope that Members will agree that there is no justification for why the constituents I have mentioned today should not receive a pension that keeps up with the rising cost of living.
I know the House is committed to dignity and security in retirement as a key part of the social contract that we seek to uphold. I have even heard anecdotal evidence that pensioners affected by the change have had to return to work after they have retired, or have downsized from their family home to make ends meet. No pensioner should see their dignity and security eroded by an accident of timing. I therefore urge the Government to do more to apply the current values to pre-1997 pensions. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Minister on this matter.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Akehurst Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Torsten Bell
That was just a bit sad, because the U-turn that we are seeing is from the hon. Member, who declined to vote against the Pensions Schemes Bill at Second Reading and on Report. I will quote him back to himself. He told me that “the Minister”—that is me—
“will be pleased to hear that there is cross-party consensus on many of the planned changes.”
[Interruption.] Wait a second. He then got even more excited—back in his reasonable days, before he had been leant on by the “looney tunes” who will wander off to Reform—and told us that
“we broadly support the measures in the Bill”.—[Official Report, 7 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 722-723.]
The U-turn has been done by the hon. Member, who has let himself down.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
The Health and Safety Executive is working to ensure that employers know their duties under COSHH—the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2022, as amended. Those regulations require a risk assessment and the prevention of, or adequate control of, exposure of employees to hazardous medicinal products.
Luke Akehurst
Will the Minister consider developing a clear statutory definition of “hazardous medicinal products” and subsequently mandate the development, publication and ongoing maintenance of a comprehensive UK list of hazardous medicinal products?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend make an interesting suggestion, and I know there has been some campaigning around this issue. The Health and Safety Executive has not seen evidence that the current arrangements are inadequate. They appear to be robust and well established, and they seem to be doing the job that is needed. If there is evidence of a problem to which my hon. Friend is able to draw attention, the HSE will certainly look at that very seriously. For now, though, the focus is on making sure that NHS trusts and others know their obligations under the current regulations.
Welfare Spending
Luke Akehurst Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
It is beyond belief that Conservative Members have chosen today to shine a spotlight on the subject of welfare, when their record on it is one of failure, chaos and incompetence. Under the previous Conservative Government, welfare spending ballooned out of control. The final Office for Budget Responsibility forecast on their watch projected that annual welfare spending would increase by close to £100 billion by 2028-29. That is enough to fund the entire NHS for a year, but instead, the money was spent patching up the consequences of Conservative failure.
The Conservatives now want to run from their record. The Leader of the Opposition has even called for a “totally different approach” to welfare from the one that she supported when in government. So who did she appoint as her shadow Chancellor? The right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride)—the very Member who, as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, oversaw the overspending. When the Conservatives say that they have changed, I say: look at their Front Bench—the architects of failure are still drawing up plans.
And what a failure it was. On the shadow Chancellor’s watch, more than 800,000 people left the labour market. What does it say about a Government when hundreds of thousands of people give up on looking for work? Those people had lost hope. That is not just money lost in tax revenue—it is a parent who can no longer work because they are on an NHS waiting list; it is a young person with mental health challenges, left behind by cuts to mental health services.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I am listening, as always, to the hon. Gentleman’s wise words—he presents his case very well—but, honestly, has he forgotten the pandemic? Will he give any credit to the then Government for managing it? Does he talk to his constituents, and all the businesses that are still going thanks to the work done at that time? With regard to his attacks on the Conservatives, will he just grow up? I hope to goodness that Labour never has to manage what we had to manage, but if it does, I hope that it manages it even half as well.
Luke Akehurst
Obviously, the pandemic was a factor, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot blame every Government policy failure on external factors. All Governments must deal with external factors.
Unpaid carers are having to leave their jobs because the Conservatives never fixed social care. Behind every one of those 800,000 people who are outside the labour market is a tragic story of wasted opportunity and a Conservative Government who looked the other way. That abject failure hits constituencies like mine the hardest; North Durham has more economically inactive people than the national average.
Let us contrast that with the record of this Labour Government in our first year in office. Economic inactivity has fallen and employment is up: 730,000 more people are in work, and 360,000 fewer working-age people have been out of work and not looking for work since we entered office. That is 360,000 stories of lives moving forward, new parents able to get back to the workplace, people off NHS waiting lists thanks to our record investment, and young people accessing training. Behind every one of those stories is a Labour Government who refused to accept wasted opportunity.
There is still so much left to do to fix the mess that we inherited from the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Chancellor and the rest of the Conservative party, but I am proud to support a Labour Government who want to help people into work, so that they can get on with their lives.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I want to start the debate by acknowledging the fact that many Members here do not know that much about me. The debate so far, with this caricature of Conservatives who do not care, has saddened me. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who is no longer in his place, I am entirely motivated by social justice and care for the most vulnerable, as are many colleagues on the Conservative Benches. Indeed, it was my right hon. Friend who founded the Centre for Social Justice, which I know feeds in a huge amount of work to what the Labour party is doing. So I just want to set the record straight. We just differ in how we help. We are also that voice for the voiceless, the hard-working individuals and families who want the system to be fair for them, as well as for the most vulnerable. That is why I believe that reforming Britain’s welfare system is a moral imperative.
As Conservatives, we believe in the dignity of work. We believe that work provides purpose, independence and, ultimately, a path from poverty to prosperity. We want to empower people to take control of their own lives, not abandon them to a lifetime on benefits. But right now, as we have heard multiple times this afternoon, work simply does not pay. A person on sickness benefits can get between £2,500 and £5,000 more per year than a worker on the minimum wage, which is something that my constituents have been at pains to ensure that I am aware of. They are hard-working business owners who cannot believe that those figures mean that somebody working is often less well-off than somebody who is not. Faced with such a disparity, it is easy to understand why living off welfare is a more attractive option for many.
I am a Conservative because I believe in personal responsibility and living within our means. I see our welfare system as a safety net for the most vulnerable, not a lifestyle choice, as has been mentioned several times in the debate. However, that safety net has reached its breaking point. By 2030, around £1 in every £4 of income tax will be spent on health and disability benefits. That is nearly £100 billion—an eyewatering sum that surpasses our entire defence budget. Only the Conservatives have a realistic and sustainable plan for reforming the welfare system. We will get more people into work, while providing support for those facing genuine need.
When our Government left office, over 4 million more people were in work than in 2010.
Rebecca Smith
I am going to make some progress, if I may.
Youth unemployment had fallen by nearly 380,000, giving far more young people the security of a meaningful career. However, under this Government, the unemployment rate is set to reach 5% by next year, compared with 4.1% a year ago. We have already heard that graduate jobs have gone down by a third since last year, and we have 1 million young people not in education, employment or training.
So far, Labour has shown little appetite for making tough decisions. As we have already seen, the Prime Minister’s plan to reduce welfare spending ended with a U-turn, with key measures being ditched in a last-minute attempt to win over his own MPs. I do not think I will ever forget the day the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Bill became simply the Universal Credit Bill mid debate—a parliamentary pantomime, or even a farce, that encapsulates the Labour party’s inability to take welfare reform seriously.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has admitted that his much-anticipated review being conducted by the Minister for Social Security and Disability, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), the Timms review, will not involve any welfare cuts. That means that our public spending will continue to rise, running out of control, and taxes will inevitably rise at the next Budget. Labour is now staring at a £9.3 billion welfare black hole. Scrapping the personal independence payment reforms alone will cost £4.5 billion by 2030.
To truly encourage people into work, we need to look at long-term solutions. It is easy to dish out sickness benefits. It is harder to provide the right combination of physical and psychological support to ensure that people facing challenges can keep or find meaningful employment. Yet these are the solutions we owe it to people to deliver, offering them a chance at a better future, one that is not entirely reliant on the state. That is why the Conservatives have set out a clear plan that will reduce the welfare bill by £23 billion. We urge the Government to consider our proposals.
First, we must prioritise British citizens in our welfare system. That means making the system fairer and preventing non-UK citizens from claiming benefits such as universal credit, the personal independence payment and the carer’s allowance.
Secondly, we must stop benefits for those with lower-level mental health conditions. Under this Government, 5,000 people are being signed off work sick every single day. This figure has ballooned to twice the size it was last year, mainly because thousands of people are signing up to benefits for less severe mental health issues, including anxiety and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Rebecca Smith
I bow to my hon. Friend’s medical wisdom. I agree that we need to give people hope and ensure that our policies tackle the most severe mental health problems. However, if is mental wellbeing that we are talking about, we need to do more to ensure that people have the skills and tools to stay in work, so that they can enjoy the future that they can have.
Given the right support, many people benefit enormously from the social interaction and sense of achievement that comes from regular employment. Holding down a job provides a sense of agency, and breaks the cycle of dependency. Enabling access to benefits for those whom we should be encouraging to work feels perverse and is a dereliction of duty.
Thirdly, we must increase face-to-face assessments for disability benefits. Since the covid-19 restrictions, the number of face-to-face assessments has tanked, with 90% now happening over the phone. This is unacceptable, and has opened the door to so-called sickfluencers, who are coaching people online on the right words to say to get the maximum amount of benefit. Insisting on in-person appointments will mitigate this issue. With the Chancellor now beginning to blame covid for the economic challenges she faces, other Departments should be free to acknowledge the same and crack on with changing things back—in this case, to in-person assessments.
Fourthly, we must reform the Motability scheme so that only those with serious disabilities qualify for a vehicle.
Rebecca Smith
Sorry; I am going to continue.
Motability is a lifeline for those with serious mobility issues, yet under Labour, Motability costs have surged by almost 10%.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Akehurst Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
Given our objective to reduce the number of children in poverty overall, I expect the impact of the child poverty strategy on children in Stroud to be positive, as all children benefit when the whole community can rely on children enjoying a good childhood. We will publish the child poverty strategy as soon as possible, but, as we have said, we are not waiting to act. The Secretary of State has listed a number of initiatives that we have already been getting on with.
Alison McGovern
As the Secretary of State has already said, all policies that can lift children out of poverty are under consideration by the taskforce. We obviously will not commit to any policy without knowing how we will pay for it; neither, as I have said, will we wait to act if there are steps we can take immediately. I thank my hon. Friend for his question, which I will take as input to the child poverty taskforce. I also take this opportunity to thank all colleagues who have participated in the five parliamentary sessions that the taskforce has hosted since November 2024.
Luke Akehurst
Will the Minister give an update on the work the Department is doing with the North East Mayor Kim McGuinness’s child poverty reduction unit to tackle the specific drivers of that issue in our region?
Alison McGovern
Child poverty is a significant challenge in the north-east, and that is why it is right that Mayor Kim McGuinness participated in an early session of the taskforce and has shaped the agenda since then. The child poverty reduction unit engages regularly with colleagues from the north-east and will hold a dedicated session on strategy with the north-east child poverty commission this week. Mayors have been absolutely critical to the development of the strategy, and we will continue to work closely with them.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Akehurst Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. The eligibility verification measure in the new Bill will do just that, providing a crucial data feed to help us identify fraud that relates to pension credit as well as to universal credit and employment and support allowance. This will flag up claimants who are potentially in breach of eligibility under capital and abroad criteria, so that we can start to lower the unacceptable level of fraud and protect the public purse.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
Our commitment to the triple lock throughout this Parliament means that spending on the state pension is set to rise by £31 billion a year. Individuals are set to see increases of up to £1,900 a year, benefiting 21,000 pensioners in North Durham and 12 million people in Britain as a whole.
Luke Akehurst
I welcome the fact that the Government are not only protecting the triple lock for every pensioner in the country but tackling the biggest problems for pensioners by uprating pension credit by more than the rate of inflation, encouraging a higher take-up of pension credit and substantially increasing funding for our NHS. Can the Minister tell me how many pensioners in North Durham currently claim pension credit, and how many are entitled to it but do not claim it and could benefit from this increase?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of the 4.1% increase in pension credit that will take place in just a few weeks’ time, and I can tell him that about 3,000 people are claiming pension credit in North Durham. He is also right to mention the more than £25 billion that the Government are investing in the NHS. The unacceptable state of the health service is the biggest betrayal of older generations by the Conservative party, and we are going to change that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Akehurst Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison McGovern
I am glad the hon. Gentleman is bothered by the employment rate and I hope he is bothered by the record of his party, which saw employment fall off a cliff after the pandemic and never recover. We were an outlier in that; it did not happen anywhere else in the world. As it is, our jobcentres, which, as we have said, are full of brilliant staff, see just one in six employers ever consider using them to recruit. We will change that. We have a new strategy. The Secretary of State recently announced our plan to ensure that the Department of Work and Pensions serves businesses and that we get the best jobs into jobcentres so that people can take them up, improve their lives and grow our economy.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), to his post as Pensions Minister, and to place on record my personal thanks to his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), for all her hard work.
Our new Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill will update the Department’s powers to tackle fraud for the first time in more than years, including enabling our serious and organised crime investigators to apply for a warrant; enter and search premises for evidence; seize items such as computers and phones; and bring criminal gangs to justice.
Luke Akehurst
Does my right hon. Friend agree that tackling fraud against the taxpayer is key to setting the country’s finances on a sustainable footing and allowing the investment in public services that my constituents are so desperate to see?
Liz Kendall
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We have a responsibility and a duty to use every possible measure to ensure that taxpayers’ money is wisely spent, on our schools, hospitals and police and on supporting those who are in genuine need. Our new Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, along with fraud measures in the Budget, will save £8.6 billion over the next five years. That is the biggest fraud package ever. We were elected on a mandate for change, and that is what this Government will deliver.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Akehurst Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Kendall
I am under no illusion about the impact 14 years of the Conservatives and the social security system has had on child poverty. That is why we are determined to take action across government to increase family incomes, drive down costs and, crucially, put in place long-term support, particularly in the early years. We will produce the strategy by spring. I am absolutely sure that every part of the plan will lift more children out of poverty.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
The last Labour Government lifted 600,000 children out of poverty. Under the Conservatives, the number went up by 700,000. There are now more than 4 million children living in poverty in the UK in the 21st century. In one of the richest countries in the world, that is a complete disgrace. That is why the work of the child poverty taskforce, which I co-chair with the Education Secretary, is so urgent and so important.
Luke Akehurst
Almost a third of children in the north-east live in poverty. The problem is particularly acute in the region. Will the Secretary of State work with our Mayor of the North East, Kim McGuinness, on her excellent regional plans to reduce child poverty?
Liz Kendall
Yes, we have already met Kim McGuinness, on 19 September, when she set out the actions she is already taking. Let me say to Members on both sides of the House that our strategy will be out in the spring, but we will not be waiting until then to act. Nationally, we have put £421 million into the household support fund to help the poorest families, and mayors such as Kim McGuinness are doing amazing work: they are working with schools to ensure that people claim the benefits to which they are entitled, and, crucially, working with businesses to help them to do all that they can to tackle in-work poverty and ensure that working families receive the money for those children.