Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report
Debate between Mark Garnier and Pat McFadden(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
As constituency MPs, we will all have met many campaigners from the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign group—the WASPI women. I am sure that many Members will have received a large amount of correspondence on this matter recently. If they are anything like me—I have had 150 emails recently about it—they will really feel the strength of opinion out there. It is safe to say that both our constituents and us as Members of Parliament have been left wanting by this Government.
In December 2024, the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), told this House that the Government would not compensate these women. Let me remind colleagues what her rationale was. She said that
“the Government do not believe that paying a flat rate to all women, at a cost of up to £10.5 billion, would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money”—[Official Report, 17 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 168.]
She also tried to argue that they could not afford it because of holes in the Government finances. However, as my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions rightly said:
“Government compensation should always be based on what is fair and just.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 170.]
Before getting into government, it seems that Labour MPs did think that an injustice had been done. Let us remind our colleagues of what members of this Government have said in the past. The Prime Minister himself called this situation “a huge injustice”. The Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary slammed the “cliff edge” that he said faced WASPI women. The Foreign Secretary said that she was
“fighting for a fair deal for the WASPI women.”
The Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed to “want justice for WASPI women”. Even the current Secretary of State for Work and Pensions got in on the action, putting out a social media post with the caption:
“MPs campaigning for a better deal for WASPI women.”
It is therefore no wonder that the WASPI women, who were promised so much, are so angry; the people who used to stand beside them have now turned against them.
If the Government really believed that these women had faced a great injustice, they would have found a way to compensate them. They could have avoided a deal with Mauritius that will cost us all £35 billion, but they chose not to. They could have found savings on our country’s benefits bill, but they chose not to. They had 14 years to prepare for government and are messing up by doing nothing.
That brings us to the statement from the Secretary of State today. Is it not convenient that he should choose a sitting day when most MPs are not here? It is almost as if he does not want to hear the criticism from his own Back Benchers. In reality, all that the Secretary of State is doing is announcing that nothing has changed and that the Government will not be compensating WASPI women.
I have a few questions. Given that the Secretary of State previously campaigned for a better deal for WASPI women, does he think that today’s announcement provides that better deal? In his statement, he tried to argue that this issue is somehow the Conservatives’ fault. However, he forgets that the maladministration that the previous Secretary of State apologised for was committed under the last Labour Government, before 2010—the ombudsman’s report made that explicit. Can the Secretary of State hold up his hands and take accountability for those mistakes?
This is a really interesting point. The Secretary of State chose to mention the triple lock in his statement and to say that the state pension will go up by up to £575 this year, with incomes expected to rise by up to £2,100 a year by the end of this Parliament. We all know that there is no cap on the triple lock. [Interruption.] There is no cap on it, but he made the point that that would rise by “up to” £2,100 a year. Is he implying that the triple lock is about to be capped? Will he confirm that he is apparently U-turning on the Government’s policy on the triple lock by imposing a cap?
Is it not just a fact that, frankly, this Government resemble a bunch of joyriders pulling handbrake turns in a Tesco car park, when Labour should be a serious party of government? Their Back Benchers keep being marched up the hill, only to be told to march down again. The Government even take the Whip away from them for having a conscience, only to tell them later that Ministers are proud to support policies for which support was only recently a sackable offence. Does the Secretary of State really think that this constant back and forth is fair on WASPI women? I look forward to his comments.
Pat McFadden
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s questions. He is right that there has been a forceful and energetic campaign, which has resulted in lots of emails and contact with Members across the House, but his Government had this report from the ombudsman. They could have taken a decision before the election, but they chose not to, as with so many other issues. And perhaps the ombudsman had an inkling of how unlikely it would be to get a decision from the previous Government, because the ombudsman made the recommendations on remedy to Parliament rather than to his Government.
The hon. Gentleman refers to Labour, to me and to other MPs on this side of the House, and I remind him that we voted against the acceleration in the rise of the state pension age that was put through by the coalition Government.
On re-examining the decision, I thought it was right to do so, to make absolutely sure that we got this right, considering not just the 2007 report but a whole range of evidence and documents. I have repeated my predecessor’s apology for the maladministration found by the ombudsman. There is no change in our position on the triple lock, and the figures quoted reflect the estimates of the Office for Budget Responsibility throughout the Parliament.
Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill
Debate between Mark Garnier and Pat McFadden(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Garnier
Yes, without a shadow of a doubt. A great many of the smaller banks that are looking to enter the marketplace have to use a piggyback system with the big clearers. For example, C. Hoare & Co., which has been around for 341 years and is still a private bank, uses RBS for its clearing. To that extent, the larger banks are providing a service, but ultimately it is causing a great problem for them. Over the past two years I have met about 20 potential challengers looking to enter the marketplace, and certainly it is largely the regulatory barriers to entry that have caused the problem.
Ultimately, the challenger banks are going to be running current accounts. Some of the larger ones, such as Metro Bank and Virgin Money, are 100% behind having full account number portability and recognise—I think that this is one tribute to them—not only that that will be an opportunity for them to attract accounts from existing banks, but that they will have to work incredibly hard to meet the challenge of a more sophisticated consumer in order to keep those accounts once they have them. That is crucial to one of the key points of the Parliamentary Commission’s report, which is the need to ensure that we drive better standards.
I return to the fundamental point that the best way to drive better standards is to have a very discerning and demanding consumer in order to ensure that those banks provide a service, and for that discerning consumer, once we have taught them how to do it, to hold the banks’ feet to the fire, so they need to be able to move their account very simply and overnight.
Mr McFadden
I want to make a few points about new clauses 10, 12 and 14.
New clause 10 deals with securing the best interests of the taxpayer as regards the state-owned banks and their future. If the best interests of the taxpayer were in the Government’s mind in recent weeks in their stewardship of RBS, that has been shown in a very peculiar way. This story does not begin with the departure of the chief executive. It begins before that with a briefing from the Minister’s Department about the share price in which it said that the previous Government had overpaid for the shares, and the briefing tried to set the scene for a pre-election fire sale of the bank that would have short-changed the taxpayer. I am glad to say that despite that briefing, the Government seem to be edging away from that strategy. If they were holding out hope that the banking commission would have given them comfort on that front, it did not turn out like that, and rightly so, because it would have been wrong to give a running commentary on the share price for an institution. An institution’s share price should be determined by the market, based on its future prospects.
After the briefing, we then had the unseemly departure of the chief executive at the Government’s hands. Most people saw him as doing a good job of reducing the risks on the bank’s grossly overblown balance sheet and trying to get it back into a healthier position, in the best interests of the taxpayer. Not only was he bundled out before he had completed that task, but this was done without any proper succession plan being put in place. Over the period of a month, we have had political briefing about the bank’s share price and the announced departure of the chief executive with no successor in place, and, as a result, a loss of investor confidence in the Government’s future strategy for the bank. That is no way to exercise stewardship of arguably one of the most important banks in the country. It has undermined the Government’s reputation as regards these state-owned assets and done harm and damage to the bank. I hope that in future the best interests of, and best value for, the taxpayer will be uppermost in the Minister’s mind rather than the politically motivated dabbling that we have seen in recent weeks.
On a happier and more bipartisan note, I turn to the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) and the very similar new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). At the heart of this is how much banks care about reputational loss; the hon. Lady referred to that. If the banks were in a normal business environment and there were a big IT failure or another failure of conduct such as mis-selling or LIBOR interest rate fixing, they would care because they would worry that their customers would walk, but they are not in a normal business environment. Banks seem to be immune to, and careless about, reputational damage that would really matter in another business environment.
During the banking commission’s deliberations, a parallel was drawn with the car industry. When a fault appears in a model of one of the big-brand car makers, they will very quickly issue a recall notice to ask the customer to come in and have the fault fixed at no expense and at a time that is convenient to them. Car companies do that because they care about their reputation and want that customer to buy a car from them the next time they get one. The same logic does not apply in banking, because the same forces of easy departure do not apply. There are two sides to this story. It is not all about the easy transfer of accounts, although that is important; it is also about what one would be transferring to and from. There is little point in creating a perfect exit system if the choice is merely between three or four offers that are all much the same anyway. There is inertia on both sides. We need more competition among the banks as well as an easier system of transferring accounts.
The seven-day switching process that will come into play in September is an advance, and it should be given a chance to work; we should test it properly. At the same time, the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire and by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East call for proper reports to be produced on full account portability. The hon. Lady set out very well the reasons why we need a proper report, one of which is the issue of cost. The incumbents say, typically, that this will cost a fortune and that it will have to be passed on to the consumer, so let us explore the cost properly and get to the bottom of whether that argument is valid.
Mr McFadden
The hon. Lady may be right and that is another reason that we should have a proper report to drill into the issue.
On privacy, in addition to the cost argument I think that customers could also be discouraged by the argument that all their account details could be held in a single black box to which all the banks in the country have access.
Mark Garnier
The right hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point. I think that the vast majority of consumers would be very fearful of a central database holding their bank details. The beauty of the system proposed by VocaLink is that, although the payment system and the central infrastructure will hold the sort code and account number, the identity of the holder of the account number will be held by the bank. Therefore, the customer’s relationship will be with the bank, not with the payment system.
Mr McFadden
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that important point. If consumers are going to have confidence in a system of speedy switching such as that being advocated by the hon. Members for South Northamptonshire and for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), these questions about privacy and security of information will have to be bottomed out to the public’s satisfaction. My view is that that will be a more important argument than the one about the cost to the banks of whatever IT changes will be necessary to put this system in place.
In conclusion, it is important that we give the seven-day switching service a chance to operate, but the report that the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East are asking for is also important, because it would bottom out theses issues and others that I have not mentioned. It is a shame that the hon. Lady does not intend to put her new clause to the vote. After all, it only asks for a report; it does not seek to mandate a change before we have done the work and got the proper evidence. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to her suggestion and that of my hon. Friend. It is really important that there is proper competition between providers in this sector to attract consumers and that the kinds of free choices that enable consumers to walk away and get another product from another provider are available in practice, not just in theory.
Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill
Debate between Mark Garnier and Pat McFadden(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
To follow up on that point, rather than having a gun in the locker, some of these powers should be seen as akin to a nuclear deterrent. As parliamentary commission members will remember from doing the media rounds after the publication of the report, one of the big questions was whether Fred Goodwin would have gone to prison if we had had these powers in place. The answer to that is that RBS would not have gone bust in the first place. The deterrent element of these powers, rather than the enforcement element, is what is important.
Mr McFadden
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Without wishing to pursue this analogy too far, the difference between a gun in the locker and the nuclear deterrent is that it is conceivable we would use the gun in the locker, but less so the nuclear deterrent. I am therefore not entirely sure which of the two commission members has got this quite right, but deterrence is certainly part of the effect we are looking for.
To return to the issue of the power to separate in respect of one institution or the sector as a whole, my overall reflection, having served on the commission for the past year is that, although its recommendations should be supported, even if we take all the steps set out—even if we put a new system of regulation in place, including the twin peaks system, even if we have the ring-fencing powers on structure that are in this Bill, and even if we faithfully implement the standards and culture recommendations to which the hon. Member for Chichester referred—it would still be rash to come to the conclusion that we had fully resolved the problems of too big to fail or too complex to manage. These reforms should be implemented and they can make a difference, but if we think we have fully resolved the problems of this huge sector, we will be guilty of complacency and possibly kidding ourselves. The problem of too big to fail is still there.
Our recommendations will make a difference but we also need powerful weapons, even if their use is unlikely, to enforce good standards and to make those running banks think long and hard about the consequences before they decide to test or game the system in any situation in future. That is why I think my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) is right to say that a periodic review of ring-fencing and how it is operating is a good idea. It is why I support a more general power, to be held by the Government, to allow broader separation if the ring-fencing reforms do not work. That is what amendments 17 and 18 are designed to achieve and they are very much in line with the recommendations of the commission’s first report.