Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Monday 19th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Laura Trott]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the figures that I just announced on the uptake of pension credit. We will not have the eligibility figures for a while—hopefully, they will be out later this year. I hope we will see a rise, but in the meantime we are doing all we can—as I know is true across the House—to get as many people as possible to apply for pension credit so that they qualify for those important cost of living payments.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

15. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of funding for defined-benefit pension schemes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)]

The Pension Protection Fund publishes data on the funding of defined-benefit pension schemes. Average funding of the schemes was 113.1% in 2022 versus 104.3% in 2010—a significant improvement.

[Nigel Mills]

Does the Minister accept that we have spent 20 years—probably quite rightly—working out how we get more money into pension schemes to pay for the promise, and that now we need to work out what we do with the money in there that is in excess of what we need? Does she accept that in those 20 years we have seen pension funding increase probably at the expense of current workers, who get a much lower pension? Is there anything we can do to use the surplus to support the pension incomes in retirement of those current workers who will get a far less generous pension?

[Laura Trott]

As I would expect from a member of the Work and Pensions Committee and the head of the all-party parliamentary group on pensions, my hon. Friend makes an interesting point. In my time as pensions Minister I have tried to reduce the gap between DB and defined contribution pensions. I would be interested to talk to him about any further suggestions.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)]

I do not think they are. Also, the triple lock is very proudly a Conservative policy.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

With interest rates looking to hit around 6%, are the Government considering making the support for the mortgage interest scheme a little more generous, perhaps by raising the cap or the interest rate, so that it provides the safety net that people expect?

[Mel Stride]

As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Treasury has made it clear that there will not be a significant fiscal intervention around mortgages. Unfortunately, that would serve only to complicate the effectiveness of the measure and the monetary policy effects that the Government and the Bank of England are looking to achieve to halve inflation by the end of this year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

13. What steps he is taking to help ensure disabled jobseekers can access specialist support at jobcentres.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

16. What steps he is taking to help ensure disabled jobseekers can access specialist support at jobcentres.

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Tom Pursglove)]

Disability employment advisers have expertise on how to help disabled jobseekers into work and build work coach skills to help these claimants. That is in addition to broader support, including our increased work coach support, the Work and Health programme and intensive, personalised employment support.

[Tom Pursglove]

I categorically reject the initial point made in the hon. Lady’s question. The fact is that this Government set a target of getting 1 million more disabled people into work and we met it five years early, but now we must go further. That is precisely why we have brought forward the reforms in the White Paper, which we genuinely believe will remove that structural barrier to work. We will have the packages of support alongside this, which I believe people will want to engage with, because they are aspirational and want to enter the workplace. We will never ask people to do anything that is not appropriate for them. We will work on an individualised, case-by-case basis to support customers. Of course, it is absolutely right that we make sure that our services are as accessible as possible, and that is the whole thrust of the reform. The health model officers are helping us to test what works, and we will continue to work along those lines. I hope she will want to work with me, in the spirit of partnership, to make this a success.

[Nigel Mills]

One frustration for disabled people occurs when they have an assessment that identifies what support or adaptations they need in order to go into work and then that support is never actually available or employers cannot provide it. Is there some source of optimism to be found in the funds and the changes announced in the spring Budget that support will be lined up in advance, so that people can take a job when one is offered to them?

Social Security (Additional Payments) (No. 2) Bill

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 6th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[David Linden]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I tend to take the view that if the British Government concluded in March and April 2020 that social security was inadequate for the then economic climate, social security is indeed inadequate in the current economic climate. I welcome the fact that the Select Committee is looking at benefit provision. The all-party group on poverty, which I co-chair with Baroness Lister, is taking evidence on this separately tomorrow.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey has outlined, it was a huge disappointment when the British Government decided against retaining the uplift. Since its removal, I have heard anecdotally that many people have struggled with the sudden loss of income—the largest drop in support in the modern welfare state. Any of us who interact with our constituents can outline how challenging that has been.

Similarly, new clause 5 would require the Secretary of State to produce an assessment of the impact on household incomes— as well as on fuel and food poverty—of the Government’s failure to extend the equivalent uplift to legacy benefits. As with the previous iteration of the Bill relating to cost of living payments, it is welcome that the British Government have included Scottish payments for disability in the eligibility criteria. Although I wish sincerely that the London Government would look towards Holyrood as a guide for more of their social security policies, I appreciate that Ministers have been working with my colleagues in Edinburgh and have ensured that people in receipt of Scottish disability payments will also get the additional payment.

It is widely acknowledged that disabled people are far more likely to live in poverty than non-disabled people and are particularly vulnerable to the rising cost of living. For instance, I have heard testimony in my constituency, in the Lilybank area, of vital medical equipment—not something that can be turned off or turned down a wee bit to take cognisance of energy prices—leading to extortionate electricity bills. Despite that knowledge, legacy benefit claimants, many of whom are long-term sick or disabled, were unjustly denied that uplift during the pandemic. That was a monumental injustice, and it certainly adversely financially impacted many people throughout the pandemic, which was already causing heightened health anxiety. It is only right that an assessment be made of the failure to extend the uplift to legacy benefit claimants.

We must also consider where inflation will be at the time that payments are made. In January this year, the consumer prices index was still in double digits and near the highest levels in about 40 years, at 10.1%. However, we know that the poorest often experience a high rate of inflation; according to the Resolution Foundation, the poorest tenth of households experienced an inflation rate of 11.7%. What is more, recent Office for National Statistics stats show that food and drink inflation remained close to the highest rates since the 1970s, with the soaring price of milk, bread and other basic essentials pushing prices up by almost 17% in a year.

Recently, the British Government rightly increased social security benefits and the state pension in line with the CPI, so it seems only logical that that should apply to the cost of living payments that the Bill makes provision for. Therefore, our new clause 6 would ensure that

“all payments due under this Act are increased by the rate of inflation as measured by the latest Consumer Prices Index at the time of payment, if that is higher than the original amount.”

We do not know what the economic landscape will be later this year, so the new clause was tabled as an insurance policy in the event that inflation does not fall as has been forecast. It is unfortunate that some of the amendments are not in scope; the money resolution was so restrictive that it prevents our bringing forward amendments that would assist our constituents in a more meaningful way.

However, I have highlighted some of the inadequacies in the UK’s social security system, mainly the punitive sanctions regime. Instead of providing a robust safety net for millions of households, the surge in sanctions demonstrates the uncaring approach of a Westminster Government who Scotland did not vote for and who are pushing people further into poverty during a cost of living crisis. People across Scotland are paying a very steep price indeed for poor economic decisions made in this Palace of Westminster.

It does not have to be like this. We can make better policy if the Government accept that they do not have a monopoly on wisdom. I have tabled the amendments in good faith and I believe they would vastly improve the Bill. I hope the Minister can come to the Dispatch Box later and confirm the Government’s support for amendment 2, which I believe can make this legislation much better for not only the people that I represent, but the people that we all represent in this House.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you back in your position, Dame Eleanor. I rise to speak to amendment 3, which stands in my name and the name of the Chair of the Select Committee. It is an attempt to ensure that what the Government are legislating for is consistent with what they are generally trying to do with universal credit and with these payments: to ensure that we do not create a cliff edge and a lumpy system in which people miss out through no fault of their own.

Under the amendment, rather than looking back and seeing whether someone has received 1p of universal credit in the previous month, we could simply check the two previous months and, if they received a payment in either or both those months, they would still get each of the individual £300 payments. It is designed to prevent a situation where somebody misses out on the individual payments because they have had some kind of strange anomaly in their UC record.

That anomaly might be that they are paid four-weekly and happened to get two payments in one assessment period, that they got a bonus or a few extra hours that tipped them out for that period, or that the employer has made a mistake, has not processed their payroll in time and has then managed to process two payments in the same month, as occasionally happens. Those are not really the intended position. I think we all expect that, for most people in a job, their monthly income is relatively stable—subject perhaps to a bit of overtime or the odd bonus here or there—and so their UC claim over a year is not affected; they get a bit more one month, a bit less the next and it all averages out over the year.

With the impact of these payments—not quite one-off payments, but three-off payments—that will not quite be the situation. If someone happens to have a month where they earn a bit too much, they could miss out on £300, which could be a material part of their annual income. That might drive people to be careful about whether they take extra hours and thus enforce the wrong behaviour. Having to plan for whether they will be £300 worse off if they get another £50 of wages or similar is not the behaviour that universal credit was designed to drive. It was designed to make clear that work would always pay, and we are in danger of doing something that goes against that.

I welcome the Government’s bringing forward these payments and the fact that we are debating them in March. That means that we have a plan for the year and people know what they are going to get, unlike last year when—perhaps for some good reasons—it was all a bit haphazard and we kept announcing new things all over the place. As some other hon. Members have said, I would have preferred this year to have an increase in UC; this £900 works out at just under £18 a week, and with the tapering effect we could have given a higher starting point to achieve the same costs, so those less well-off households got a bit more than the £900 and those who earn a bit more got a bit less. That would have been a better use of funds and a better way of doing it.

Social Security (Additional Payments) (No. 2) Bill

Nigel Mills Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 21st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I think I agree with nearly everything in the two Front-Bench speeches. There is not a lot to add, except really to welcome the Bill and welcome the additional support that the Government have provided. I think it was absolutely the right thing to do, and it is essential for people with the least that they get these extra supports while energy bills and other inflationary costs remain as high as they are. I have a few observations to make on the Bill, but that should not really take away from the fact that the Government have actually come to the right conclusion. Making this support available is by far the most important decision, and everything else is probably nit-picking around the detail.

However, I would agree with some of the observations of the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth). Perhaps it would be helpful if the Minister, when she sums up, explained whether the Government did look at temporarily increasing universal credit, rather than rerunning the new benefit three times again this year. That would have allowed for a higher basic payment, which would then taper off for households on a higher income, so those with the very least would have got more than £900 and those with the most would have got a bit less than £900. That would probably have given more help to those households that are going to struggle most with the fact that they are going to get £300 less support this year—if we take into account the energy bills support and the reverse running of council tax we had last year—and be faced with, on average, £500 higher energy bills. It would be useful to know if that was considered, if it was not technically possible and the system could not cope with it, or if there were other good reasons why we preferred the three roughly £300 payments rather than having smoothed that over the year and used the tapering system.

Those of us who did—and do—support universal credit, did so on the basis that having a tapering benefit linked to income is the best way of doing it, because it avoids cliff edges. It stops people having unfortunate behavioural ideas, such as, “If I take the extra hours this month, I’ll lose my £300, so I’d best not do that; I might wait till next month,” or, “Ought I to drop out of a job, or try to somehow reduce my income to get that payment.” I accept that having three payments of £300 is better than a one-off payment of £900, but if we really believe in all the advances of universal credit being linked to income with tapering to avoid cliff edges, we should use it in a time of crisis as well as in a normal situation.

We know from the pandemic that we can very quickly flex the amount of UC, because we did it in about five weeks, so I cannot see a problem with that. That might not be so easy for tax credits and other benefits and we might have wanted one system that works for everything here. If the Minister says that is the reason, perhaps we can understand it, but now that we have had some time—we have had a year of this crisis—we might have produced a slightly more effective solution.

We also know that for the households with the least, getting lump-sum payments is not always best, because if they struggle with budgeting, they might not understand that they have £300 more this month that they will not have next month or for winter. Smoothing those payments through every month might help them ensure they have the money in place for when energy bills will be highest, which I suspect will not be when they get their April payment this year. I accept, however, that there is no perfect solution and that this solution is better than doing nothing.

I also want to reiterate a point made by the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), and the shadow spokesman, the right hon. Member for Leicester South. They said—in the debate last year, I think—that needing to have received a UC sum in the assessment month before the payment prevented a large amount of people from getting a payment, not through any fault of their own or because they have got more money, but just because the way they receive their payments from their employer accidentally dropped them out.

A relatively simple solution would be to tweak two words in the Bill and say that if someone has received 1p in either of the two assessment periods before each staging point then they get the £300. That would add one word and one letter to the Bill and would fix the problem for the vast majority of cases. If someone happens to be paid four-weekly and they have two payments in one period, that would fix it; if they happened to have had a bonus once and it hit in one period, that would fix it because presumably they would not have had it for two successive months—and if they did have it for two successive months it is probably fair enough to assume they are now earning more than we thought they would be. That would be a simple change to consider in Committee, which I think will be on the Floor of the House so perhaps we can all get to vote on it—I suspect relatively shortly. I urge the Government to seriously think about making a simple change such as that, which would smooth out one of the rough edges quite easily.

The Secretary of State said that there will be a helpline, but this is primary legislation, and if someone has not received a penny in that month, there is no discretion for the Department to give them the £300, or the £301 or £299; it cannot do so because the Bill says it cannot—they have not received a penny, so they cannot have it. So there is no way of fixing that retrospectively; it needs to be fixed at this stage.

With those observations, I sincerely welcome the Bill, which will provide significant support for people in Amber Valley, who are struggling with high inflation and high energy bills. I repeat my request from the uprating debate, however: I urge the Government to keep the situation under review so that if it worsens and we need to help people more during the year we can come back and do that. It would not be too hard to add a fourth payment if we needed to.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

Saving for Later Life

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), on securing the debate. As a member of the Backbench Business Committee, I thank him for applying for time for us to have a debate on this important topic.

Pension debates are bit like buses: we have had none for ages, and now we have had three in the last four sitting days, so we can certainly explore the topic thoroughly. By some fluke, we have ended up with all the key planks of pensions status being considered over the last few days. We looked at the age at which people should get their state pension and, last night, we looked at increasing pensions to keep them in line with inflation, which is key plank. If we are going to have a model where the state pension should be enough to keep people out of poverty in retirement, and after that is up to people to save for the kind of living that they want, we need to ensure the minimum floor is in the right place. We should welcome the fact the Government did that last night.

However, that leaves our whole pension-saving approach relying on how much people and their employers save for their own retirement. It is almost impossible to avoid the conclusion that people are simply not saving enough. The vast majority of people who work now are not saving enough, and the younger they are the more likely they are not to be saving enough.

The situation is stark. Around 28% of employees are still in defined benefit schemes, mainly in the public sector. Some 87% of those get an employer contribution of over 12% of their pay. However, for the 51% of people in defined contribution schemes, that number falls to 9%, so 91% of people in defined contribution schemes are not getting an employer contribution that is anything like the level that they used to have, or the level that we get.

The situation for the self-employed, as the Chair of the Select Committee set out, is even worse, as only 16% of self-employed people are saving anything like a material amount in a pension. Despite the incredible growth in the employed having a pension, that number for the self-employed is down from 48% 20 years ago, so they are going in the wrong direction. I suspect that is mostly because there is now a lot more self-employment in the gig economy. We can argue whether they are really self-employed, but they are the ones without any pension provision at all. There is clearly a huge problem, and we need to find a way to solve it.

Auto-enrolment was a tremendous start, getting people who were not saving anything to at least save something. The problem, of course, is that they are not saving anything like enough, and they probably do not even know that. The reason why auto-enrolment was chosen and was such a great success was that it did not require any engagement from the individual. In some ways, engagement is a bad thing, because if they do not know that this money is being taken from them and put in a pension scheme, they will not opt out.

We are trying to build a model that requires engagement to boost savings levels on a model where success was based on not having very much engagement. That is a real problem that we must wrestle with carefully. We do not want people to start opting out, but we do want them to realise that they are not going to have much quality of life in retirement if they do not do something materially different.

That brings us to two initiatives. The first is the dashboard and the second is access to guidance. There is a general consensus that the dashboard will be great, and that it will move us forward by enabling people to understand how much they have got in savings. It would be helpful if the Minister could give an update on when people will have live access that enables them to see at least the majority of the pensions they have saved for in their life. I think we would all accept that it is better to have it later than to have something that is rubbish, but let us not have perfection delay it too far. There probably will be some pensions schemes that will not be able to meet any kind of realistic starting date soon, but they will have so few savers in them that there will not be a problem for the vast majority. I hope that some time next year, people will have live access so that they can find out how much pension saving they have.

Having spent years working out the mechanics and how to make the system safe, what we really need to fix is what people will see when they go on the pensions dashboards. Will the Minister set out the process and her vision for it? People need a clear statement of what they have already saved and some objective, fair and consistent comparison with what they need to have saved, what other people have saved by that time and what they are on track to achieve. Otherwise, they will just see a large-looking pot of money. For someone with no other savings, having 20 grand in their pension might look like they are rich and everything is going to be fine.

[Jim Shannon]

I want to pick up on the point about national insurance contributions, and ladies who thought they were on a pension scheme that would reward them when they reached pension age. As an elected representative, I have had a number of constituents come forward over the past few years to tell me that, as they were part-time workers, their national insurance stamps were paid only for a certain period of time. That means that when they reach pension age, their pension is not there for them, although their understanding was that they would have a pension. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that for ladies of the generation now coming to pension age who will not have a pension because they have not paid their national insurance contributions to their full entitlement, the Government should make people more aware so that they can take steps early?

[Nigel Mills]

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right that we need people to understand if they have gaps in their state pension record. That can be found relatively straightforwardly on the state pension system. The dashboard will need to show the state pension entitlement. I urge ladies who might be in that situation to check, because they ought to have got credits while they were receiving child benefit. They might not have been working, but they had other caring responsibilities. It is always worth checking whether they have entitlements of which they may not be aware, and which the system has not picked up.

Back to my theme on the dashboard: for the dashboard to have the impact we want—for people to change their saving behaviour—the information needs to be there. It needs to say, “Yes, you have saved this amount, but most people by your age have saved this amount. If you want to have £10 grand of extra income in retirement over your state pension, you are not on track to do that, and you need to increase your saving.” We need to find a way to give people a context for their savings information. Otherwise, we will have a meaningless number that might not drive behaviour. It might even perversely make people think they are better off than they are.

It is important to understand what the Government and the regulators will allow to be shown and want to be shown. We must ensure that the data is objective, fair, accurate and preferably consistent, because we do not want people to get slightly different pension target across six schemes; they should be told the same information so they can make an accurate comparison.

The second area is the thorny issue of access to guidance and when people should have it. The Work and Pensions Committee has argued with the Government and the regulator about that for a few years. I hope the noises coming out of the Government about trying to get people who are not in economic activity back into work, and about wanting to do more than a midlife MOT or a financial review, mean that they are moving our way now, but the take-up of Pension Wise has been far lower than everybody wanted it to be. The Minister at the time said that Pension Wise take-up should be the norm. I am not sure how 8% or 14% take-up could be described as the norm; I would have thought that the norm would be just below half, or something. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what she thinks the norm is in that context.

There is no room for doubt: even with the stronger nudge that the Money and Pensions Service is trialling, Pension Wise will not get anywhere near that take-up. It is absolutely right that people should have access to that service when they are about to do something with their pension pot. It is a decision that they will not be able to change for the rest of their life, and if they get it wrong, it could be disastrous. Equally, given that we have so much unused take-up, can we not find a way of getting people to access the scheme earlier, soon after their 50s? That would allow them to get a proper review for half an hour or an hour and have all these things explained to them, so they can see what their situation is while they still have a chance to change it, rather than when it is too late? I am old enough to remember “Bullseye”—at the end of the show they used to say, “Here’s what you could have won.” Having a pension review at the age of 65 and a half that says, “Here’s what you could have had if you had saved a bit more,” is not all that helpful to people, so they should get that intervention earlier.

I was a little disappointed by the Government’s response to the Work and Pensions Committee. They said they did not want to go forward with a trial of auto-enrolling people into a Pension Wise appointment shortly after their 50th birthday. I understand that some pension schemes are willing to put their members forward in some sensible, random way so we can find out whether that works. All we are asking the Government to do is to allow MaPS and regulators to commission one of those trials so that we can see whether enrolling people into an appointment in their early 50s gets positive feedback and changes their behaviour. If it does not work, fine—we will have to find some other way—but it looks to be a low-cost way of seeing whether an intervention might work. It would use capacity that is already there and is not being taken up, and it would be a powerful way forward.

I hope that the Minister will be a bit more supportive than her predecessor. If we want to work out how to give people some kind of nudge, hint or push at an age when they can make a change, that is the best idea out there. If the Government are looking for ideas to get people in that age bracket to come back into work, because they have not saved enough for retirement but they think they have, a half-hour or hour session with an expert who can explain what they really need and what they have really got may be the best way of doing it. The online midlife MOT that the Government have produced contains some very useful information—I am not saying it is a bad thing—but it will not change behaviour. It is not an intervention that will really make a difference.

[Margaret Ferrier]

The Social Market Foundation found that just 25% of people from ethnic minority backgrounds have a workplace pension, and research found that they are more likely to be sceptical about private pensions. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should do more to educate and reach those groups so they can make sure of their post-retirement financial security?

[Nigel Mills]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is important to explain to people not just from that background, but from all backgrounds, that pensions are a good thing, safe and a good way of saving for retirement. People just do not understand pensions, and they are quite cynical and sceptical about the idea that their money will be there. The more we can do to reassure them, the better.

I have two more quick points to make. We have wrestled for years with the conflict for younger people: should they save for a deposit to get on the housing ladder, or should they save for a pension? The pension industry screams if it is suggested that the former is possibly a good idea. There have been various ideas about how to link the two, but we have not yet made any progress on which one to go for. A key determinant of someone’s financial health in retirement is whether they own a house. If they do, they do not have housing costs to pay and they have an asset that they may be able to downsize to boost their pension pot, so getting young people on the housing ladder earlier is good for their retirement just as saving for a pension is good for their retirement.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the KiwiSaver scheme in New Zealand? It combines the two aspirations—to save for a pension in later life and to get on the housing ladder—in that someone can divert a portion of their pension saving pot towards a deposit for a house. Is that something that the UK Government should consider?

[Nigel Mills]

There are various ideas out there, and people could use that sort of scheme. They could take a loan out of their pension scheme to get their deposit, and pay it back. We could allow people to be auto-enrolled and have their employer contributions go into their help to buy ISA. There are various ways to try to achieve the aim, but we need to pick one and bring it forward. We have not made the progress that perhaps we should. To be honest, I can see no way of getting more money into young people’s savings to achieve a deposit other than allowing the use of some kind of employer support that is currently going into their pension, because in reality, young people will not have the scope to save much more for themselves. We have already tried to give them the taxpayer top-up through the help to buy ISA. Where else is new money coming from to improve this situation if not from money that is going into their retirement saving?

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way and to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies), who intervened before me and talked about the KiwiSaver scheme. I think that that is very interesting, but it strikes me, when considering this topic, that this is a discussion that we have within our little bubble on work and pensions but it is perhaps not something that has been explored in Government—for example, in the Treasury and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Does the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) agree that there has to be a slightly wider, cross-Government approach if we are seriously to explore the issue?

[Nigel Mills]

I agree. This is a complicated area and it clearly does cross into being a Treasury responsibility; it has to, as it involves quite a lot of pensions issues. But this is a question of coming up with a consensus around a plan for how we achieve the aim. There needs to be a long-term, stable solution. The Treasury did—it must be seven or eight years ago—move to the help to buy ISA and add the taxpayer top-up to it, and that is, in effect, an equivalent to what people get in a pension scheme. There does not have to be a completely closed door, but this is a matter of bringing these things to fruition.

I welcome the announcements made by my hon. Friend the Minister last week at the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association about the value for money of pension schemes. I have banged on about this for a few years. It is regrettable that the auto-enrolment market is generally still about saying, “We’re going to be really cheap for employers and really easy for you to comply with,” rather than, “Here’s a great pension that you can put your staff in. It will be a really powerful motivation and retention tool, and they will get a really good pension at the end of it.” Now that the market is mature, we need to try to move it away from being cheap and easy to being high quality, with decent returns and a decent service to members. If the Minister is going to make some progress on that, I will greatly welcome it, because having people in the best possible schemes with the best returns, rather than in the cheapest and easiest ones, will actually boost their retirement income.

It is also extremely welcome that the Minister is looking at how we can roll out CDC—collective defined contribution—schemes to many more people. Not having them necessarily being employer-led, and allowing them to be decumulation only, is a really powerful thing for retirement, especially now that we are in a different world. If interest rates stay where they are and people can get a much better annuity—I think the rates are now more like 6% a year rather than 4%—that dramatically changes the assumptions that we have seen for the last 15 or 20 years. Those schemes could become much more attractive and much better for people even than we thought they would be when we introduced the Royal Mail one. The landscape has changed, and the more we can make some progress on these key things, the more chance there is to make a real difference. I hope the Government will make some progress on these matters.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate my friend—he genuinely is my friend—the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) on securing the debate, along with the work that the Select Committee has done on this topic under his guidance.

For many people, my constituency of Torbay is the place they want to retire to, as many have already done. Its attractiveness as a tourism resort applies equally for those who want a change of lifestyle and to live amongst its natural beauty and enjoy the many activities that are on offer, which they previously had to put to one side to pursue a career. Given its attractiveness to retirees, Torbay is known for having a population mix that tends to be older than average. As I sometimes reflect on in debates about health and social care, in one of my wards, about 9% of the population is aged over 85. In an area where there is a one in 10 chance of meeting someone aged 86 or older, there are some unique challenges around the provision of public services. For example, at a local supermarket there might be a parent and child parking space, but nowhere to leave a scooter.

The focus of the debate is not those who are already retired, but how the dream of enjoying a comfortable retirement—hopefully in Torbay—can be maintained for those in their 20s, 30s and 40s; and how to ensure that they know how to save, what they need to save and what lifestyle their current level of retirement savings will allow them to enjoy. I welcome the Select Committee’s report and its focus not only on how to further develop auto-enrolment, but on some of the trickier situations around encouraging longer-term savings patterns where someone is self-employed or working in the gig economy.

Before I go too much further, it is worth noting the success of auto-enrolment in that endeavour. That one move has transformed saving for later life in the UK for millions of workers. The proportion of eligible workers saving in a pension rose from 44% in 2012 to 86% in 2020. As has been touched on, participation has remained high at 89% for 40 to 49-year-olds—my own age group—and, encouragingly, at 85% for 22 to 29-year-olds. The latter group is crucial, because small amounts that are put aside early can lead to a strong position for retirement in decades to come, not least with the additional employer contributions.

The financial impact has been significant, with an estimated additional £33 billion in real terms saved into workplace pensions in 2021, compared with 2012. It is also worth noting that with the forthcoming increase in the national living wage to £10.42, more people will go over the earnings threshold and therefore start auto-enrolment, with the savings it brings. Despite that major progress, however, it is clear that many are either still not part of a pension scheme or not saving enough to meet their eventual retirement plans.

The right hon. Member for East Ham rightly highlighted that it is worth people having a clear view of what is adequate so that they can think in their 20s and 30s about what they will need to support themselves in their late 70s and 70s. I think we all realise that there will be a difference in that figure across the UK, particularly if housing costs still need to be met. Someone living in central London will be in a different position from someone in Torbay or Glasgow who owns their property and therefore only has to account for the general lifestyle they want. Of course, if they own their property, they will still have to maintain it. The idea that housing is free when we reach retirement is often disproved when a property that has been owned for 20 or 30 years suddenly needs a new roof or a heating system upgrade. People can be capital-rich on paper because of their property, but they can find their finances quite stressed when they have to meet large repair bills.

There is a particular issue with how we encourage those who do not have a specific employer. That is relevant for many performing roles in Torbay’s tourism sector, and I was pleased that the Select Committee focused on it. The Government are right to say in their response that there is not a single solution for such a diverse part of the workforce. As was often mentioned during covid, self-employment includes everyone from those who are just starting out on their own in a small business, often on a relatively low income, to those in magic circle law firms earning significant sums. However, our focus will always be on those who may struggle in retirement, not on high-flying lawyers who are likely to be only too aware of their pension and saving options—probably their tax options as well—in planning for their retirement.

I agree that we need targeted messages that reach people when they consider their finances, or that we should proactively seek to put information about their retirement in front of them regularly. For example, how can we support self-employed people who work seasonally across the hospitality sector? When do they look at their finances? I share some of the thoughts of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), however. We do not want to have a counterproductive impact by advising people that money will be coming out of their wages each month and having them decide, “Actually, I’ll take the money instead.” In the earlier stages—the first couple of years—the entitlement they have built up will not look particularly impressive, but if it were continued, it would become a worthwhile pot. We do not want a counterproductive outcome overall, but it is certainly something that can be worked on, and we have seen the progress that has been made so far.

Although the Select Committee report was welcome overall, I have some concerns about the suggestion that national insurance payments could become a quasi-auto-enrolment position for the self-employed. There is a real difference between a person saving specifically for their own retirement, to fulfil the dreams or plans they have, and paying tax to fund public services and benefits, as they are required to do under the law. I appreciate that the state pension is linked to making national insurance contributions, but that has always been on the basis of years, rather than “You will build up x amount of contributions, and that will produce y pension.” It is not a pot that people have and that they can access. I can see the idea that when people pay NI they are arguably making contributions towards a state pension, but that is slightly different from them building up their own pension pot, which would be theirs in name as well.

[Nigel Mills]

To clarify, the idea was that because the self-employed pay a lower national insurance rate than those who are employed, we could effectively say to people, “Either you can put that into your own pension pot and top it up, or you can pay national insurance at the same level as somebody who is employed and not get any benefit from it.” It was a way of trying to replicate the auto-enrolment position, where a person puts in money themselves and gets money from somebody else and the taxpayer. It was the only real solution we could find in terms of people getting more bang for their buck.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Mills]

Would the Minister consider setting a target for the number of self-employed people who are regularly saving into a pension scheme by a certain date? I think the rate is currently around 16%. If we could get that up to the 48% it was at 20 years ago, that would be a dramatic improvement and would show whether the efforts to encourage people to save are working. Does she accept that targets are the only way to really drive change?

[Laura Trott]

I think what we need to do is set out a plan. I accept that when we look at the various mechanisms that I have outlined today, we should outline the impact that we think they should have. I commit to go away and have a look at that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay asked what the Department is doing to develop sectoral pension schemes and whether they can be made available for gig economy employers. Collective defined contribution schemes have the potential to transform the UK pensions landscape. He will know that we introduced legislation to allow them for single employers last year, and we are currently consulting on multi-employers. They are really exciting and could be a way forward in this space.

I am conscious of time; I will obviously write to hon. Members to cover anything I do not get to. The Work and Pensions Committee is right to raise concerns about ensuring pensions adequacy. The shift from the promise of retirement income through defined benefit to defined contribution places responsibility on the saver to ensure they have the outcome they want, but I do not think there is widespread understanding of that among the general public. Personal circumstances obviously dictate what individuals consider an adequate level for retirement savings. It is my role as the Pensions Minister to enable people to save adequately, as well as to ensure pension-maximising returns on their savings. The key to that is empowering savers to take control of their financial future. The introduction of simple annual statements, the midlife MOT and the pensions dashboard will make pensions more understandable to the saver and empower them to take control of their retirement outcomes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) was entirely right that the pensions dashboard will be crucial to that. We expect to see on the dashboard an understanding of what current savings will lead to as retirement income. What he said about comparing that to what others have was really interesting, and I will take that away.

Social Security and Pensions

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and it is a bit of a pleasure that we are in a better position than we were a year ago, when we were looking at a welfare increase of 3% as we saw inflation forecast to hit 7% by April. We have—perhaps more by chance than judgment—a rise of 10% while inflation is actually 10%, so we at least have an uprating that looks to be the right number. However, the fact is that that is still a bit by chance, because we are still having to use information that will be six months out of date by the time we get there. It shows how strange the system we have is. When the Minister winds up, can they say whether any progress at all has been made in trying to get the systems in a position where we can use a more recent number, so that we do not end up with a repeat of last year, using an out-of-date number that is way below the level of inflation by the time we get into the year?

A 10% rise in benefits and the state pension is extremely welcome, and we should pay tribute to the Secretary of State and the ministerial team for getting that amount of money out of the Treasury, but I suspect that when the Chancellor sat down to do his emergency Budget, or several Budgets back in the autumn, he probably was not overly excited by having to find this amount of money. It was, however, clearly the right thing to do. The idea of putting up the incomes of people on fixed incomes or earning the lowest levels in the country by less than inflation would have been completely ridiculous. I think we have got to the right answer, and I welcome it. The timing of the changes has an unfortunate impact; by the time we get to April we will have had increases of just over 13% for the last two years, while inflation will have risen by about 17%, so people will still be 4% down on where they were before the crisis.

And it is worse than that. The basket of goods and services bought by most people on these benefits tends not to relate well to the consumer prices index. For example, food price inflation is much higher—more like 19%. There is no doubt that the Government have been extraordinarily generous with energy support, but if we factor in the changes to energy price support, what do we see for the coming year? The inflation figure that has been used is from September—before the move to the energy price cap, which started in October—and the price cap that drove that figure was an annual bill of £1,971. We are currently at £2,500, and the Government’s cap will mean that that number will rise to £3,000 from April, so the average household may well be £1,000 worse off on their energy bills. The rise in the state pension of about 10% is a little under that, so will only cover the rise in energy bills from the current financial year to the next.

The support will drop off quite considerably. If we add up the cost of living support, the £400 from the energy company and the £150 via council tax, the average household on the lowest incomes has had £1,200 of support this year. That will go down to £900, and the pensioner support will go down from £850 to £300. Although there will be a rise in the main benefits and pensions income, a cut to the other support and a rise in energy bills will mean that that is all gone, and most households will actually be worse off as we go into the next financial year. I am not sure that is what the Government intend.

The idea that we have to taper off the extra support for households that are earning money is right in principle, but the Government may need to keep a watching brief throughout the year on whether people living on a fixed income in retirement, on out-of-work benefits or on the very lowest incomes, can really absorb a change that could mean—by the time all the extra bills and the reduction in support have been factored in—that they are £1,000 worse off next year than they are this year. Is that what we really intend? Are we in danger of unravelling the incredibly generous support we have given in this financial year by taking it away next year, perhaps a bit too soon?

We all hope that inflation will fall considerably, and we see encouraging signs from the energy markets that prices are coming down. Perhaps by the time we get to April, the energy price forecasts for households for the next year will be a long way below the £3,000 or even below the current £2,500 cap, and this problem will go away. Perhaps the Government will be proven right in taking a more cautious approach to support for next year. Having gone to the effort to create a brand-new benefit for cost of living support, which I think is unprecedented, I hope the Minister can confirm that the Government will keep reviewing that rate to see whether we are giving households enough to get through the next financial year.

I wholeheartedly welcome today’s increases, which are clearly the right thing to do, but there are two things that the Government need to do on top of monitoring the situation. The first is to try to get this decision made on more recent, more relevant data. I accept that the systems are so old and steam-driven that we have to start doing the work in October based on the September number, and that if we do not start that early we cannot get the rises through, but it is a bit bizarre to bring to the House in February an order that we had to start programming the computer to do in November or October, and that we cannot change. If the House voted for something different tonight, it would be too late; this is plumbed into the system. We should either have this debate in November, when we can actually change it, or we should try to move the rise to a more relevant date. Given that we managed to get the £20 universal credit uplift through in a matter of weeks, I really cannot see why we could not be using more modern data. Now that we know that more of the legacy benefits will be continued on late into this decade, surely it is time to try to get a system that means we can do an uprating that reflects the real cost of living at the time that income comes in.

There is a second thing the Government should do, which the Select Committee recommended previously. We have had a slightly haphazard journey of welfare increases in the last 13 years, so it would be quite unlikely to have ended up in the right position, whereby the amount we are giving people in various household scenarios is equivalent to what they need in order to buy the goods and services that we think they ought to be able to buy. It is time to have a rebasing exercise: to go away and do the work, and work out whether we are giving the households of a single person, a couple, a couple with one child or two children, and so on, the amount of money we expect they need to live on—to be able to pay for all the essentials they ought to have. In some cases, perhaps we are. In some cases, we are probably not. But if we are, it is by fluke rather than any sort of planning, and if we are not, we are putting people in a really difficult position.

I hope Ministers can accept that there really needs to be a rebasing at the end of this crisis. If we have been through 17% or more inflation in the space of two years, that must suggest that the cost of living is in a very different position from where it was. Let us do the work. I will be very happy to find out that the benefits are in the right place and there is no need for any further increases. If they are too high—well, that is very generous, although I think it is very unlikely that they are too high. If they are too low, we need a plan to fix that. That would be the right thing to do. Let us do the work and find the evidence, and I hope we will then all be able to take an informed view when it comes to the uprating next year.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

Raising the State Pension Age to 68

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of raising the State Pension age to 68.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for providing the time for this debate, and Members for staying here on what I know is a tricky day for travelling. Some people may have somewhere more exciting to get to later in the evening, and I suspect we will not be able to drag this out until 7 o’clock, but you never know. There is plenty to talk about on pensions, and we can but try.

I wanted to hold this debate because the Government have recently received the periodic review of the state pension age from Baroness Neville-Rolfe. They have not yet published that review, but we have been seeing stories in the media suggesting that there may be an announcement in the Budget of a change in date for the increase in the state pension age to 68 from 2044 to sometime in the 2030s. I should probably declare an interest in that, depending exactly when that choice is made, it may change my own state pension date. That is on the record, but I have no idea what year the Government are thinking about.

I hesitate to say it, but this is actually a really important decision that will have a very significant impact on a lot of people. It needs to be made very carefully, and with very careful consideration of the impacts on people of different genders, backgrounds and occupations and on those in different parts of the country. Its impact for a manual worker will be very different from that for a professional, or someone living in an area with much lower life expectancy than, say, in the south-east of this country, and it is the same for those who have had a high-earning career rather than a lower-earning one. So it is quite a hard thing to get right, as various studies have shown. The other reason to be very careful is that the whole success of the pension regime depends on certainty and predictability, and if people start to think that nothing is certain or predictable, then they cannot have confidence, the whole basis on which we save for our retirement starts to become unclear and people start showing behaviours that we would much rather they did not show.

I actually support—I did support and I still support—the position the coalition Government got to in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament, in which we raised the state pension age to 66 in 2011 and brought forward the increase to 67 really quite considerably. That was based on the principle that we should get roughly a third of our adult life in retirement, and I think we should be very clear about sticking to that principle. However, it is right that, if life expectancy increases, that has to be paid for. If we are going to get longer in retirement, we have to find a way of paying for that. The inevitable impact is that we have to work a bit longer to pay for that. If there is a clear principle that we will spend about a third of our adult life in retirement, people can at least understand what the situation is and what may be coming down the line. I urge the Minister to not move away from that principle, to at least give people that understanding.

I fully support all the other pension reforms introduced by the coalition Government, including the successful roll-out of auto-enrolment and the introduction of the single-tier state pension, which was designed to say to people, “You will get a state pension and it will be above the poverty threshold, so there will not be any means test. If you save more and have your own private pension, you won’t be losing benefits.” It is therefore absolutely worth saving for that pension. The success of auto-enrolment ties directly into that. Everybody is clear that it is well worth their doing that.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

May I take the hon. Gentleman back to a point that he made a moment ago about raising the pension age because of increasing life expectancy? That has always been the justification that has been given. However, at best, life expectancy is now stalling, and in Scotland it has been falling for the past two years. Does he agree that, in that context, it seems bizarre to use that information to raise the age further and faster?

[Nigel Mills]

I will come to that point in my argument. If we accept that we should stick to the principle that we get roughly a third of our adult life in retirement, the reason why we would increase the state pension age is that we have seen a three-year increase in life expectancy, and that should give us two more years on the state pension age. So for every 12 months life expectancy goes up, people should effectively get four months of that in retirement and expect to work for eight months of it. The hon. Lady is right: the data does not now show, sadly, life expectancy increasing, certainly not at the rate that was forecast by all the actuarial calculations at the time of previous reviews. The data for the 2018 to 2020 reference period showed that male life expectancy had fallen by seven weeks compared with the 2015 to 2017 reference period, and female life expectancy had gone up by half a week, or something really quite insignificant.

On that logic, we would be thinking, “Yes, we are due a periodic review and it would say that nothing has changed—in fact it has got a bit worse. There is nothing to see here, so let’s not make any more changes.” The Minister can intervene if she wants to say that that is what the review says, and we can all go home quite early, but I suspect that nothing is ever quite that simple.

I suppose what we are asking the Minister to confirm later in the debate is whether the Government will stick to the principle of people getting a roughly fixed proportion of their adult life in retirement, and whether they will therefore be guided by that 33% figure. The hon. Lady’s point would appear to suggest that the position is, if anything, worse than that at the time of the Cridland review six years ago and we should presumably come to the same conclusion as that. That is not what the media stories are suggesting. They seem to be saying that the increase to 68, scheduled for the mid-2040s, will come forward to perhaps as early as the mid-2030s—possibly around 10 years from now.

That leads me on to two keys asks of the Government, and I think they were principles that were previously set. First, increases in the state pension age should always come with 10 years’ notice, so we should never give people less than 10 years to have to change their retirement plans. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that there will be at least 10 years’ notice.

Furthermore, we should make one of these changes only every 10 years; we should not be making multiple changes. Had the Cridland review been handled differently, we could have had the increase to 66 from 2011, the increase to 67 in 2014, and then the move to 68 a few years after that. That would have been far too much change too quickly for people to handle.

Those key principles that we established were not that different from what the Labour Government did in previous pension Acts when they brought in pension age rises. It is overwhelmingly in the interests of a stable pension system that we keep those fundamental principles in place. We do not want to end up in another situation like we had with the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, where women—and I met many of them in my constituency—genuinely did not know that their state pension age was going up significantly until they tried to claim it or thought they were about to get it, only to in some cases find out that it was another five or six years away. That is why we need to ensure we have that certainty in place. I know that that was changed in the Pensions Act 1995, so everybody had at least 15 years’ notice for most of it, but people just were not told, or at least not in a way that they understood or noticed. We need a clear, stable pension architecture, as was established under the coalition Government, with a single-tier state pension above the poverty threshold, so that people could save for themselves and had predictability.

This is not random conspiracy theory nonsense. Articles are occasionally written by people who just do not believe that when they get to retirement age, their state pension will be there, or that they will ever get to it. In fact, there was an article in the Daily Mail raising exactly that point. Reading other stuff around, we see that there is a general pervasive fear that people will never get to state pension age—that it will always be pushed just out of reach and they will never actually get there. That is why we need to be absolutely clear that that is not what we are trying to do here. We have a predictable and reliable state pension system that people can factor into their retirement savings and then use to plan for the later years of their life. I am sure the Minister will be able to reaffirm that that is absolutely the Government’s position.

There is a question about whether the Government are minded to make a change. I think the Cridland review suggested that we could have brought the change forward to the late 2030s, at least, so it should not be a complete surprise if we think that 2044 is probably too late and would result in that figure of roughly 33% becoming a bit generous and people getting a bit longer than that. We need to set out the rationale for that pretty clearly and try to work through how we can help people who will be put in the most difficult position by that change. Intriguingly, the Cridland review said that if the Government are after Budget savings, increasing the state pension age is not a very clever way to do that. Instead, the review recommended abolishing the pension triple lock, which, I suspect, is not a view that has great support around Parliament. Hopefully this latest review does not re-recommend that, and the Government will not accept it if it does.

There were, though, some sensible analyses and recommendations as to what we can do to help people who are out of work in their mid-60s because they are either not really fit for work or not realistically going to get a job then. How do we give them financial support when we cannot give them their state pension? Do we subject them to full universal credit conditionality, or can we find a way of giving them a better experience? The review recommended potentially allowing people to access the state pension a year early, having a benefit equivalent to the state pension at least a year early or having a tapering-off approach to UC or UC conditionality, in case people fall out of work at just the wrong point.

I am not actually aware that the Government have ever really put in place any of those measures, so that would be another ask of the Minister. If the Government are thinking of making a change, while we do need the notice, can we also put in place a plan early for handling those who will be the worst affected by the change? I think we will need that for the rise to 67, anyway, which is coming up much sooner. It is just not realistic for people who fall out of work very late in their working life to get another job, and leaving them in financial trouble for those last few months before they get their pension seems to be a rather inefficient and cruel situation. Hopefully we will have made some progress on that before we get to the next pension age.

I would also like to say that I do not think handling this sort of issue as part of the Budget process is necessarily sensible. This change will not affect the public finances this year or next year, or, actually, the next Parliament; it may not be until the Parliament after that, or possibly even the Parliament after that, when this triggers any financial savings. There is not, as far as I can tell, any real Budget sensitivity to how the Government make this announcement, so I do not think we need to have a shroud of secrecy over what the Government are thinking of doing.

What the Government should do is publish the Neville-Rolfe review. It would be helpful if Baroness Neville-Rolfe could appear before the Work and Pensions Committee and explain the findings of her review. I think she has been brought back as a Minister in a different Department, so I am not entirely clear whether that would be permitted. Could we have a Minister from a different Department answering questions about a review they led before they were a Minister? I cannot think of any reason why not. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that the Government would be happy for her to come and explain the findings of her review. We could then have an open consultation about the content of that review and come up with a coherent policy, rather than it being dropped out by the Treasury and perhaps consulted on afterwards. The fear is always that once something has been announced, there is much less chance of it being changed.

I hope that the Government will get the feeling from this debate that people are concerned about there being further rises in the state pension age before we have had a chance to assess fully the impacts of the rise to 66—let alone the rise to 67 that is coming. I think we all recognise that it is a difficult situation and that it is worse for different parts of the country, worse for people in different occupations and possibly worse for women than for men. It would be useful to understand those implications and how we can mitigate them before we make any further decisions.

Fundamentally, if life expectancy data is not going as has been forecast, we should respond to the facts as they change and accept that our policy on expected changes to the state pension age can change as well, that we do not need the increases to come as fast and as often as we had thought, and that we should just leave things as they are. Let us hope that life expectancy starts to increase again. We can make these decisions then, rather than rushing into things that really hurt people, that bring uncertainty to the pension system—we do not need that—and that will probably not bring any financial savings for several Chancellors.

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. Let me restate my point: our pension architecture and the foundations on which we have been trying to build the system are all still there and are robust, and we can all rely on them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Mills]

I thank all Members for taking part in the debate and the Minister for responding to it. I do not think anybody spoke in favour of bringing forward an increase in the state pension age. I hope the Government will factor it in that, on a cross-party basis, there is not a lot of inclination for that. I hope we get to see the completed review in relatively short order, and that no decision will be taken until it has been published and there has been a chance for further consultation and consideration. I do not see any need for a rush, so I hope the Government will take a consultative approach. With that, I thank all those who took part.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of raising the State Pension age to 68.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Laura Trott]

I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Lady is doing in her constituency to boost take-up of pension credit. I would love to work with her and all across the House on this important topic that we are all focused on.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

The Minister will know that a lot of private pension schemes increase by inflation each year, but with inflation capped at 5%. Will she encourage the trustees of those schemes, where they have a healthy balance sheet, to increase their pensions by the full 10% this year to help out those pensioners who are struggling?

[Laura Trott]

My hon. Friend does a lot of important work in this area. What he says is sensible, and all pension funds need to be looking at what more they can do to support pensioners.

Social Security (Additional Payments) Bill

Nigel Mills Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was not planning to speak, but I have been tempted to say a few words.

There is a danger, in a debate where we have a quite a small audience, that we think that despite spending billions and billions of pounds, this is a small insignificant thing and not one of the biggest spending items the Government have tried to put through in rushed legislation in history. We should recognise that the Government have responded to a probably unprecedented crisis in a very generous and creative way. Those of us who have been wrestling with this issue for the last few months—almost the same crowd were here for the benefits uprating debate in February, pleading for more help and for a more generous uprating—would never have believed that we would see this level of support and ingenuity, given all the financial turmoil the country has been through in recent years. We must give the Government credit for what they have tried to do to help people through what we all hope is a relatively short-term blip, rather than a long-term, sustained problem.

With the £150 through council tax and the £200 loan via energy companies, that certainly seemed to be the original plan: we were hoping we could get people over a few months of a spike, and then things would get back to normal. We have to recognise now that that is not likely to be the case. We will have to have a much higher rise and one that is perhaps sustained for a longer period, unless some very happy events happen around the world and the situation starts to reverse more quickly than everybody seems to think.

For the next few months, the Government need to think about what they are trying to do and where they are trying to get to. The strategy may be to pass this money out on a one-off basis until next year’s upratings, which we hope will have taken into account inflation so that people with income from benefits and pensions will be able to match the raised outgoings and we will have solved the problem. However, I am not convinced that that will be the case if inflation remains at 9% or 10% for a long period. In April, we will be giving people inflation based on the year to September 2022. There could be another 5% of inflation before we get to March and we may well be back in this position in a year’s time.

Some clarity from the Government on the long-term plan would be helpful. We—the Select Committee and others—have been calling for a while for the Government to do some work to rebase benefits and ensure that key household compositions are provided with enough to meet the cost of living so that the increases will maintain that situation. Otherwise, there is a danger that in the next financial year, even with the uprating, people will get less than they had with this year’s benefits plus the one-offs. In that case, people would be worse off in a year’s time, even though their benefits would have gone up, because they would not have gone up by quite enough. We would be back in a similar crisis, needing more one-off payments in the next financial year—repeating those made in this financial year. That does not strike me as a long-term, sustainable way of running a welfare system.

Huge congratulations to the Government for what they have done in the legislation to get us—I hope—through this problem, but they now need to step back and work out the long-term, sustainable way of delivering welfare at a level that meets the essential living standards that we expect it to. I do not think we can get there through haphazard one-offs and increases that are not based on real-terms inflation at the time such provisions are made. A second uprating in a year may be one way of mitigating that. In fact, it would probably help the Government, because when benefits are uprated, there is often a taper, meaning that not everybody gets the full amount, which could result in a bit of cost saving. The Government could also make use of the taper to be more generous at the lower end of the earnings spectrum, with a higher base amount, and less generous at the higher end, accepting that some people would not get the full amount. We are asking not necessarily for huge amounts of extra spending, but for more targeted and better use of the systems that are in place.

It is interesting that in February we were told that the Government could not possibly use any inflation number that was less than six months old because the systems could not cope, yet we now appear to have managed to come up with some ideas in late May and will make the first payment to people about seven weeks later, in the middle of July. That suggests that when there is a will and desire, things can be done at less than six months’ notice. I hope that that will be built on when we get to next year’s uprating, when we could at least try to creep the inflation number from September to December, so that it is only three months out of date by the time we get there.

On ingenuity, the Government’s one-off help payments now involve: a payment by councils, reverse-engineering the council tax system; effectively a payment by energy companies for what was the loan and is now the gift; a payment through the welfare system; a payment through the tax credit system; and a payment that I think is the winter fuel allowance being increased for the year. That is quite a creative way of spreading the workload to make all those payments, but it produces a complicated system, whereby people do not really understand what help they have from who and why, and when they should have had it and if they have received the right amount.

Now that we have some more time to plan, if there are any future rounds—I hope we do not need them, but if we need them, we ought to have them—I would hope that we could find a way of such payments being made through one mechanism, or at least one for benefits and one for pensions. Having a multitude of mechanisms risks people missing out, because they just do not know who they should be checking with, or what they should be claiming and chasing.

It will be far more beneficial to my constituents if they get the first of these payments in the middle of July, as sadly many still have not had the £150 through the reverse running of the council tax system because the council still does not have the approved form to put on its website for people to fill in. That means it cannot make the payment to those who do not pay by direct debit; people still are not receiving the support we wanted them to have in April, and it will probably be a good few weeks before they get it.

There is much to welcome in the legislation. We should not be mealy-mouthed in our praise for the Government, as this is exceptional support at an exceptional time. I hope that we can do what we did through the pandemic: rush things out at the start, and then think them through and develop better systems if we have to do a re-run as the crisis continues.

Social Security (Additional Payments) Bill

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

We have had a useful debate on Second Reading and I welcome the chance for more detailed examination of the Bill in Committee of the whole House. We had an extensive debate, with some probing questions, so I will endeavour—with the support of the Opposition Front Bench and your permission, Mr Evans —to move as fast we can through the Committee stage.

Clause 1 will ensure that the £326 and £324 cost of living payments totalling £650 will be made to an individual or couple who have a qualifying entitlement to a social security benefit or tax credit. The clause also sets out the qualifying benefits and tax credits. Where a claimant is entitled to both a qualifying social security benefit and a tax credit, the social security benefit will be the qualifying benefit for the purpose of receiving a cost of living payment.

Clause 2 sets out who is eligible for the two payments that make up the £650 cost of living payment. It ensures that only those with the entitlement to a positive payment or award in respect of the passporting social security benefit or tax credit will receive a cost of living payment. The aim is to ensure that we target payments to those on the lowest incomes. The clause also defines the relevant eligibility period in relation to the qualifying days set out in clause 1.

[Nigel Mills]

The Minister will be aware that there are some situations in which an employer pays a month’s wages late, wages are paid on a four-weekly cycle and two payments are made in a month, rather than one, or a one-off bonus is paid in a certain month. Those situations could mean that someone who ordinarily gets a UC payment in a month has a month in which they are entitled to nothing. If that happened to be the month that was used for the qualifying payment in this situation, the person would miss out on the whole £326. Would the Minister be tempted to use a two-month period, so if someone gets at least 1p in either month they would get the £326, rather than risk the strange one-offs that could wipe out someone’s monthly payment?

[David Rutley]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. We have already talked about fluctuating earnings. The important thing here is that we have had to define these eligibility periods to be able to get the payments out speedily, and we have also made sure that there is a protection mechanism. There is a wider package of support that is available other than just the £650 cost of living means-tested benefit. There is also the further funding of the household support fund, which will help these individuals.

Clause 3 addresses the situation in which a person has a qualifying entitlement to a social security benefit or a tax credit more than once. It ensures that, where the person is entitled to both universal credit and another social security benefit, they will receive the cost of living payment as a result of their entitlement to universal credit only.

Where a claimant is entitled to both a qualifying social security benefit and a tax credit, the social security benefit will be the qualifying benefit for the purpose of receiving a cost of living payment. Where a person is entitled to both child tax credit and working tax credit, but not a qualifying social security benefit, they will receive the cost of living payment as a result of their entitlement to child tax credit only. That will ensure that a person does not receive duplicate cost of living payments irrespective of whether they have a qualifying entitlement to more than one passported social security benefit or tax credit.

Clause 4 places a duty on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to make a cost of living payment to people whose entitlement to qualifying tax credits only becomes apparent at a later date. The clause will ensure that those people will not miss out, which is a point that has been raised by others in this debate.

Clause 5 places a duty on the Secretary of State to make a disability cost of living payment of £150 to 6 million people who receive eligibility benefit in respect of 25 May 2022. This disability cost of living payment will support disabled people with the additional costs they may face. The clause also sets out the eligible benefits, or the qualifying benefits, for this particular additional payment. To be eligible, the person must have been entitled to a payment of one of these benefits in respect of 25 May 2022.

Clause 6 confirms that the administration rules used for each cost of living payment are the same as the benefit or payment that conferred the eligibility. Clause 7 provides for co-operation between the Secretary of State, the Department for Work and Pensions and HMRC in the delivery of cost of living payments. The scale and scope of the measure also require collaboration with other colleagues across government. Together, the bodies set out in the clause ensure that the intended recipients of the cost of living support are paid. There is a need to have data sharing to minimise the risk of duplicate payments and to support operational delivery.

On clause 8, some important points have been raised on this already on Second Reading. It ensures that the cost of living payments are disregarded for the purposes of tax and social security. I can confirm that the cost of living and the disability cost of living payments are exempt from tax. Payments will not affect a person’s entitlement to social security benefits or tax credits, either as capital or as income. I can also confirm that the payments will not be subject to the benefit cap.

[Nigel Mills]

When my hon. Friend says that they will be disregarded as capital, does that mean that, if somebody quite prudently puts the money in the bank and saves for their high energy bills in the winter, that would not take them over the £16,000 savings limit for universal credit? Effectively, they could ignore not just the receipt of the income, but that part of their savings as well if they were to treat them in that way.

[David Rutley]

Just to clarify, yes. That is the important thing. The clause ensures that every person who is entitled to a cost of living payment receives every penny, as all Members across the Chamber will want to see.

Clause 9 sets out the definition and interpretation of certain terms used in the Bill. Clause 10 explains the procedures for laying the regulations, previously referred to under the powers contained in clause 1(4), to specify the qualifying day for the second cost of living payment, which will be no later than 31 October, and clause 6(5), to apply and disapply regulations around the administration of payments, including overpayments and recovery, as is required. These provisions ensure that regulations made under the Bill can enable the efficient delivery of the second payment in the autumn. Finally, clause 11 defines the territorial extent of the Bill, whose provisions extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This ensures that the payments will be payable throughout the United Kingdom.