Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation
Manuela Perteghella Excerpts(5 days, 23 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is right and he encourages me to turn to the ombudsman’s report, which I have before me. Members will be pleased to note that, although I have inserted many tags into my copy of this report and the previous one, I will not refer to all of them. That would take forever.
Suffice it to say that the ombudsman found
“maladministration in DWP’s communication about the 1995 Pensions Act resulted in complainants losing opportunities to make informed decisions about some things and to do some things differently, and diminished their sense of personal autonomy and financial control.”
The ombudsman’s remedy is set out at the end of the second report. Ombudsmen recommend recompense on a scale—a series of levels, from 1 to 6. The report is here for everyone who has not studied it in detail to see: the ombudsman recommended a level 4 response. That means
“a significant and/or lasting injustice that has, to some extent, affected someone’s ability to live a relatively normal life.”
It suggests that the recompense might be between £1,000 and £2,950.
Sir John Hayes
I will in a second.
That suggestion seems to me to be a pretty modest response. It is not extreme, extravagant, unrealistic or unreasonable. It is a modest, measured response borne of the fact that the ombudsman has found maladministration. I have read the two reports. Having been in this House for a long time, been on the Front Bench of my party for 19 years and been a Minister in many Departments, I have rarely seen an ombudsman’s report as clear as this one about maladministration by a Government Department. On that note, I give way.
Manuela Perteghella
I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. Does he agree that rejecting the ombudsman’s recommendations for the compensation of WASPI women undermines the role of independent bodies in holding the Government to account? If we cannot rely on the Government to implement such findings, what message does that send to the public about justice and fairness?
Sir John Hayes
That brings me to the constitutional point that I said I would make. I have established an ethical case, but there is a constitutional issue about the ombudsman. Over the years, we have developed a number of ways of holding the Executive to account. Parliament does that, of course, but there needs to be other means of doing so on particular and specific issues. That is why the Select Committee system emerged: as a way of studying what the Government were doing and making recommendations accordingly. That is also how ombudsmen began. They are an additional mechanism through which Government can be held to account, but for Select Committees and ombudsmen to have meaning, they must have teeth.
Income Tax (Charge)
Manuela Perteghella Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
While I welcome aspects of the Budget, including investment in the NHS and the review of carer’s allowance, I want to express my deep concern about the negative impact that this Budget will have on family farms and rural communities. Farmers in my constituency are already navigating immense financial challenges, from the rising cost of machinery and equipment to punishing weather patterns—repeated heatwaves and flooding—and now face increases in national insurance contributions and changes to agricultural property relief. For Derek Wilkinson, one of the hard-working farmers in my constituency, the increases to national insurance contributions could mean £490,000 in extra costs this year alone, reducing the amount of money available for investment in the farm.
With the changes to agricultural property relief, the Government risk imposing a family farm tax that could sound the death knell for countless small family-owned farms across the UK. Farming is a way of life, often passed on from generation to generation, but the next generation of farmers faces a tax bill just to be able to continue to farm. These changes are not only unfair, but deeply short-sighted: without support, family farms will increasingly fall into the hands of large multinational corporations, eroding our rural communities and threatening our domestic food security. For example, as one of my family farming constituents wrote to me today, land value is much higher than the earning capacity it holds. If my constituent were to sell part of their land or another asset to pay the tax bill, that would render their business unviable.
Farmers are not only custodians of the land: they are the backbone of our rural economy, yet under this Budget, they will be forced to make painful cuts or, in the worst cases, sell their land. The Government should focus on reversing tax cuts for the big banks and asking large corporations such as the social media giants to pay their fair share, rather than placing the burden on hard-working farmers and rural businesses. If we truly value our farmers, we must protect not only their ability to continue to farm and plan for succession, but Britain’s proud tradition of small, independent family farms—farms with roots stretching back generations. Farmed land is not merely a financial asset: it is a legacy of community, stewardship, sustainability and high standards of food production. We must stand by our rural communities and ensure family farms have the support they need to thrive for generations to come, so I urge the Government to review their policy so that family farms are not penalised.
Carer’s Allowance
Manuela Perteghella Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I praise hon. Members for their excellent contributions and maiden speeches.
Unpaid carers are the hidden backbone of our social care system. Whether they are parents or grandparents caring for children with special educational needs or disabilities, individuals supporting a spouse or sibling, or those stepping in to care for a relative in need, those carers provide tireless support with little recognition or help. We have already heard from my hon. Friends and from Members across the House about the scandal of the carer’s allowance overpayments and their devastating impact on families up and down the country. In my constituency, countless carers are doing extraordinary work, often at great personal cost. Many are struggling to balance their caring responsibilities with their own health, their financial stability and—for some—even their jobs.
The weight of those responsibilities can be overwhelming, especially without access to proper support services such as respite care. We need a statutory guarantee of respite breaks for carers, because those breaks are essential for giving carers the time to rest and recharge so that they can continue providing vital care. At the same time, we cannot ignore the financial pressure that carers face. Carer’s allowance is simply not enough to live on: it is the lowest benefit of its kind, and it is unacceptable that carers—many of whom are unable to work due to their caring duties—are left struggling to make ends meet. We need to see a fair increase in carer’s allowance and an uplift of the thresholds, which would make a real difference for families in my constituency, ensuring that carers are not forced into poverty while looking after their loved ones.
If you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I also want to raise the issue of care provided by young people. In Stratford-on-Avon, many young people in full-time education are balancing schoolwork and studies with caring for a parent or sibling, often without the support they need to succeed in both roles. I would like young carers’ voices to be heard in the Government’s review of carer’s allowance: no young carer should be left behind simply because they have taken on the responsibility of caring for their loved ones. The Government must set an urgent timetable for reviewing carer’s allowance and simplify the system to show carers that they are valued for the essential work they do in today’s Britain.