Draft Civil Liability Act 2018 (Financial Conduct Authority) (Whiplash) Regulations 2021 Draft Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 General Committees

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Hollobone, and thank you for your chairmanship this afternoon. I would also like to thank the Minister for his remarks.

There is a long backstory to these regulations. The Minister mentioned the Civil Liability Act 2018, which in itself was a legislative response from the Government to the growth of claims for whiplash in road traffic accidents. The principle that I believe the Government ought to be aiming for is that there is a legitimate and easy-to-use avenue to claim for those who are genuinely injured, but at the same time it takes into consideration the costs to motorists as a whole.

Figures from the insurance industry suggest that in the decade prior to 2016, which is roughly when all this started—legislation is not always a quick process—there was a doubling of claims for whiplash, with an overall cost of around £2 billion a year. It is suggested that the rising whiplash claims drove up insurance costs for everybody else. That is what has spurred the Government on to introduce legislation.

There are several elements of reform set out in these two statutory instruments. Probably the most notable is a new tariff of payment depending on the length of the effect of the injury. The important thing about it is that these tariffs are set at considerably lower levels than some of the whiplash payments that people have been receiving in recent years. For example, if the injury does not last for three months, the payment is £260, which is a small amount of money. It then goes up on a scale to over £4,000 if the injury lasts up to two years. That is probably the main financial change here.

There is also the requirement for a medical report through a portal known as MedCo registration, and I have a couple of questions for the Minister about that. There is the increase in the financial limit of claims through the small claims process from £1,000 to £5,000. The important part of that is that it is designed to take lawyers out of the process for claims under £5,000. There is also the FCA ban on settlements without medical reports and, in exceptional circumstances, a power for the courts to uplift the payout on the figures I quoted a moment ago by 20%. I have a few questions for the Minister.

The first thing, which most people will look at, is that central justification for everything, which is that the volume of whiplash claims and payouts was resulting in an increase in insurance premiums for everyone. The Government claim that motorists will see a reduction in their premiums as a result of the overall reduced payouts for whiplash. The explanatory memorandum published alongside the draft regulations predicts a reduction in premiums of about £35. First, how will the Government ensure that the insurance industry will pass on any savings as a result of the changes? What is to stop the industry just pocketing the savings and increasing its profits?

Secondly, given that both sets of draft regulations are all about whiplash, how will mixed claims be treated, where not only whiplash might have been sustained, but other injuries too? That is very possible in a road traffic accident.

Thirdly, the draft regulations specify that the medical report must be provided through an online portal or by a doctor listed in the General Medical Council’s specialist register. Will the Minister clarify whether that means that a report from someone’s own GP would not be considered as a medical report under the regulations? That is most people’s point of contact if they have had an injury—they do go to see their GP. If that is the case, why is the GP’s report or letter not sufficient to corroborate the injured party’s claim?

Fourthly, how will data be handled by the new portal? How will the data be transferred securely between the insurance companies, solicitors’ firms and claimants?

Finally, what is the Government’s estimate of the impact of that question of taking lawyers out of claims under £5,000? Does that mean, given that most or all of the tariff is below £5,000, that claimants must in effect represent themselves? What are the implications for access to justice?

Motor insurance is rightly of significant political and public interest, because it is something that people are required to have by law; they have no choice about it if they want to drive a vehicle. The whole idea of the system is that claims should be honest and that there should be fair recompense for honest claims. That protects the interests of the claimants, but we also have to protect the interests of all drivers who have to pay their insurance premiums, many of whom—probably most—may never make a claim. The question is whether the draft regulations get that balance right, between those different interests of drivers as a whole and those making a claim, and whether they preserve access to justice properly for people genuinely injured.

The final thing I want to say to the Minister is about the review provision he mentioned. The 2018 Act states that there has to be a review within three years—I think that is in one of the early sections of the Act—but he also mentioned the period of a year. Review is important—to go back to my first question—because if the result of everything is simply to lower payouts to people, with the savings not being passed on to motorists and the insurance companies pocketing the difference, we will have to return to the issue in future. The founding reason for it would obviously be open to huge question in those circumstances. The real test will be whether the savings made are actually passed on to drivers as a whole in future.

[The Chair]

Lots of interesting questions for the Minister to respond to.

[Alex Chalk]

Yes, lots of interesting and fair questions. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East for expressing himself as he has and for setting some of that initial context, which he did very fairly. I just want to develop that point before turning to his questions. As he rightly pointed out, the context of this is a worrying concern about what can only fairly be described as an explosion in whiplash claims, associated with grave concerns about the authenticity of a significant number of them. Only a brief look at some of the data could make one’s hair stand on end.

[Mr McFadden]

I do not have much hair to stand on end.

[Alex Chalk]

The right hon. Gentleman is very diffident on this matter. The latest ABI fraud data report for 2019 found that fraudulent motor claims are the most common insurance fraud, with more than 58,000 in 2019, valued at £605 million, which was up 6% on the previous year. However, City of London Police’s insurance fraud enforcement department achieved 433 convictions in 2019, totalling 239 years in custodial sentences arising out of this matter.

The point that the right hon. Gentleman was making is that this, of course, passes costs on to others, but it is worth taking a moment to dwell on how much we are talking about. The suggestion is that this will lead to savings of around £1.2 billion a year. None the less, his central point is a very fair one, which is to say, “Hang on a second; how can we be sure that these insurance companies will not simply pocket it and then up their profit margins, and the poor old consumer will not be reimbursed?” That is a fair challenge, but there are two limbs to the response to that.

The first part of the response is one that, bluntly, I did not expect to be able to update the House on today, but the impact of the pandemic—so cruel in so many ways—has unexpectedly shone a light on the likely behavioural response in certain regards. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that during the pandemic people have driven their cars quite a lot less. As a result, there has been a lot of pressure from consumers asking their insurers for a refund on their premiums. It may be that there are people in this room who have done exactly that, so when you actually look at the data to see how the power of the market has had an impact upon premiums—nothing the Government can do, but simply the actions of consumers putting pressure on their insurers—it is quite instructive.

I will give an example of one provider, Confused. In the fourth quarter of 2019, the premium was £630. In the fourth quarter of 2020, it was £575. Similarly, another insurer, ABI, was at £483 in the fourth quarter of 2019, and £468 in 2020. In other words, the power of individuals going back to their insurers and saying, “You are going to have to reduce my premium on account of the fact that I haven’t been driving my car” has had a market impact. As such, I think we can take increasing confidence that there will be a consumer power to drive down these premiums, effectively telling the insurers, “The Government have taken these steps to ensure that there is less fraud taking place by way of whiplash, and we know that there are savings of around £1.2 billion, so pass them on to me or I will go elsewhere”.

[Mr McFadden]

The Government cannot just leave it to the consumer to have to take the initiative. The Minister is probably right that some consumers have approached the insurance companies because they have been driving a lot less this past year, but trying to phone any big company like that—I am not referring to any insurance company in particular—and get through the systems is not easy. I suggest that we need more from the Government. Surely there has to be some sort of pressure from the Government, some sort of deal here, so that if the Government are going to pass legislation like this, the very purpose of which is to save the £1.2 billion in payouts, then insurance companies have got to pass it on. Otherwise, what is the point of what we are doing here?

[Alex Chalk]

The hon. Gentleman should have waited for me to make my second point, because he has asked and he shall receive. Let me just finish off the first point. It is not a case of always having to phone the insurer to say, “I paid X, so now you should give me a refund.” The point is simply this: if insurance companies do not offer competitive premiums, people are likely to go elsewhere. The experience of the pandemic is precisely that: unless those insurance companies act in a way that is competitive, they are likely to lose business.

The second point is this. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to be holding insurance companies’ feet to the fire. Having made a firm commitment to pass savings on to consumers, insurers should be held to account. That is precisely why the 2018 Act includes a statutory requirement on insurers to provide information to the Financial Conduct Authority on how they have passed on savings.

Insurers must provide that information to the FCA by April 2024, as stated in the draft regulations, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman has had a chance to study. The Government, with the assistance of the FCA, will assess whether the industry has passed on the benefits of the reforms to consumers. A report will be made to Parliament after April 2024. That will be his moment to say, “Do you remember, Minister Chalk, when we were having that conversation in April 2021, you told me that the savings would be passed on?” We have ensured that the mechanism is built into the regulations to hold those companies’ feet to the fire.

With regard to the portal, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether a person’s GP could be considered. It is important to note that under all sorts of legislation, whether on medical negligence or road traffic accidents, we have to have the right medical expert for the particular issue to come before the court—or, in this case, with a bit of luck, not to come before the court. It has to be the right medical expert. Without any discourtesy to GPs, they are not always the right expert. If the GP has ensured accreditation under the system, there is no bar to the GP being that expert, but it is not always automatically the case that a GP would be able to provide the medical report, because that might not be within their realm of expertise. There is nothing unusual about that and certainly nothing unusual in the draft regulations so far as that is concerned.

How will data be handled? Data will be handled in the normal way. There is overarching legislation that covers that.

On the impact of taking lawyers out of the system, we make no bones about the fact that for a small category of case, it is more proportionate and appropriate to do precisely that. Let me quote what the Lord Chief Justice said about this. Characteristically, he put it very clearly and pithily. He noted that the tariff was a

“narrowly defined statutory derogation from the principle of full compensation through an assessment of damages by the courts”.

He was saying that the Government are deliberately carving out an area to do with road traffic accidents to ensure that, where additional costs are created that pass on additional expense to consumers, that is dealt with in a surgical way. I say “surgical” because vulnerable road users such as children, pedestrians and cyclists are not covered. That is an important exclusion.

[Mr McFadden]

For two reasons, I am grateful to the Minister for stressing that. First, those groups he mentioned—pedestrians, cyclists and so on—are not covered, and that is important. Secondly, the broader importance—I would be grateful if he can reassure us—is that this is a carve-out just for whiplash in road traffic accidents, and it will not affect injuries at work or other kinds of injuries in which the normal system of claiming through a court and having a judgment on the proportionality of the accident will take place. Some people, responding to the draft regulations, have said, “This is unfair, because you are treating one class of injury unlike another.” There is that argument, and I repeat it, but a lot of our constituents want to be reassured that the draft regulations will not have a broader ripple into their circumstances if, for example, they were injured at work.

[Alex Chalk]

That is critical. The Government believe in access to justice. That means that if people make their way to work and their employer has created an unsafe environment, so they trip over something and need to make a personal injury claim, they should not be crowded out—not shut out from making a claim. The draft regulations preserve precisely that.

I will address the issue of mixed tariff cases and bring my remarks to a close. Section 3(8) of the 2018 Act provides that, where a claimant suffers injuries in addition to a whiplash injury—the point that the right hon. Gentleman was making—the court is not prevented from awarding damages to reflect the combined effect of the injuries sustained. Ultimately, it is for the courts to determine how mixed injuries are addressed. We are confident, given the excellence of our judiciary, that they are well placed to resolve such cases on a day-by-day basis.

In conclusion, the draft regulations are proportionate, calibrated and targeted measures that serve the public and consumers’ interests, drive down on fraud and act to drive down insurance premiums. They are manifestly good for the public and for road users. I commend them to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021.—(Alex Chalk.)

Streatham Incident

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend asks a pertinent question. I think that the individual offender needs to be assessed. There will be times when isolation is absolutely the right thing to do, but there is always a danger that by isolating prisoners of this nature together we could create further colleges of extremism. We therefore need to get the balance right. I think we are, but we constantly keep it under review.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I want to return to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). Does the Secretary of State not accept that it was a mistake to weaken the control order regime and replace it with a weaker system of supervision—a decision taken not through judicial necessity but through a political deal between the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats? Will he now review that decision in the light of the recent incidents?

[Robert Buckland]

I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman asked me that question because it allows me to develop part two of the point. He will have noticed in the years since the debate on TPIMs a welcome increase in the number of prosecutions for offences of terrorism. I have always believed, as I think he does, that the best way to deal with this type of offender is prosecution. The number of returning foreign fighters who have been prosecuted—I personally granted consent to a large number of prosecutions when I was Solicitor General—means that we have had an increasing number of that cohort in our prisons. It is as a result of conviction that they are on sentences, rather than part of that control order regime. I am afraid that he is choosing to ignore this point: it was a system that we had to change and I do not think it was the wrong thing to do.

Legislation against Female Genital Mutilation

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to those points. Under this Prime Minister, the Government have taken a number of actions over several years to ensure that the offence of FGM is properly identified and prosecuted, that funding is allocated to addressing it and that girls are protected. The Government have introduced both a new offence of failing to protect a girl from FGM and civil protection orders, which have been well used since their introduction last September, and have made it a mandatory duty to report known cases involving under-18s. While the matter is important and the Government will bring forward new legislation, I reiterate that these changes would enable a judge to make a care order in the same proceedings. The protections that have existed since 2015 remain in place and will continue to protect individuals.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), the legislative programme for next week is not exactly heavy. The public will simply not understand how such important legislation can be stopped by the shout of one man when it has cross-party support. I repeat the call for the Minister to speak to the Chief Whip about bringing forward a Bill next week. Such a Bill would have bipartisan support and would go through the House very quickly.

[Lucy Frazer]

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I understand that the measure has cross-party support. When the Government introduce a Bill, I look forward to its swift passage through the House.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Committee: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

May I just make a little progress?

I am not sure whether every hon. Member has had a chance to read the written ministerial statement that was published today—it is entitled “Procedures for the Approval and Implementation of EU Exit Agreements”—but it is worth taking a look at it with regard to some of the concerns that have been expressed. We intend to introduce the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill after there has been a successful vote on the final deal in Parliament. Notwithstanding that, it remains essential that clause 9 stands part of this Bill. We do not yet know the precise shape or outcome of future negotiations, and it is important that the necessary legislative mechanisms are available to us so that we fully implement the withdrawal agreement in time for the exit date.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Dominic Raab]

I will make a small amount of progress but then, of course, I will take the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

There will be a wide range of more technical separation issues that will need to be legislated for in time for our exit on 29 March 2019. Some will be better suited to secondary legislation, and it would not be practical to account for the sheer volume of all these issues in primary legislation. It is of course not uncommon for the principles of an international agreement to be implemented, at least to some degree, through secondary legislation. To give just one example, the Nuclear Installations (Liability for Damage) Order 2016 implements the 2004 protocol to the convention on third party liability in the field of nuclear energy.

As for how we implement such secondary legislation, clause 9—this is the crux—offers a material benefit in terms of timing. We would be able to start—not complete—laying some of the statutory instruments soon after reaching agreement with our EU friends alongside the passage of new primary legislation. It is impossible to say with 100% precision at this point all the technical regulations that will be required to implement the withdrawal agreement before the full terms have been negotiated. That is obvious, and is accepted by Members on both sides of the House. However, some regulations might be required, and some will require a lead time of several months, so we need to reserve the ability to use clause 9 as soon as practically possible after a deal has been concluded. If we waited for further primary legislation to receive Royal Assent, that might be too late and we could be too squeezed for time, even in the scenario in which we reach an agreement in October, as is our current aim.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

All hon. Members should heartily welcome the agreement we have reached on the principles that will protect the 3 million EU nationals in this country—we want them to stay and to know they are valued—and the 1 million British expats abroad. Of course, there is still a significant amount of detail in the withdrawal agreement that will need to be worked up, so the hon. Lady may be putting the legislative cart before the diplomatic horse. Can we at least recognise that we have made substantial progress—and substantial progress from the EU’s point of view—which is why we are proceeding to trade talks?

[Mr McFadden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dominic Raab]

I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman shortly. He has been very patient and I did say that would take his amendment. Sorry, I meant that I would take his intervention, not his amendment—just teasing.

Clause 9 is not intended to be used to implement major elements of the withdrawal agreement. Its role will be to assist with making regulations to deal with the more technical separation issues that are better suited to secondary legislation. There will be a large number of such regulations and they will need to be in place in time for exit day.

[Mr McFadden]

The Minister said that the House would vote on a resolution. This morning’s written ministerial statement also refers to the House voting on a resolution on the final agreement. What would the Government’s response be if the House were to vote against that resolution? What would it mean for Parliament and for the country?

[Dominic Raab]

I will come to that. It is very clear that we would not be able to proceed with the withdrawal agreement, but that does not mean that we would stop Brexit from happening. That is set out very clearly in the written statement, which also repeats points that have been made before in statements at the Dispatch Box.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Pat McFadden Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

The Bill attempts to incorporate into domestic legislation the body of European Union law that has built up in the 44 years since we joined the EU. The stated purpose is to provide the country with continuity and certainty on what our statute book will contain on the day when we leave. Yet the purpose of leaving the EU is to depart from the laws incorporated by the Bill, otherwise there would be no point. So the legal certainty that the Bill aims for can last no longer than day one itself.

Leading leave campaigners have attempted to assuage such fears by pretending that they want to change nothing—not labour laws, not environmental protections, and not consumer protections. Those who have been the most vociferous opponents of any regulation that has stemmed from the EU, including members of the Cabinet who have attacked its laws and protections, such as those for people at work, now profess to agree to all the regulation that they previously detested. As we have come to expect in the pattern since the referendum, any attempt to ask questions about the Bill has been met with the usual accusations of betraying the public and denying the referendum result. Our democracy deserves better than that. If the proposals cannot stand scrutiny and questioning, the proposals are at fault, not those doing the questioning and trying to apply scrutiny.

Let us look at the content of the Bill. Most attention has been focused on the delegated powers provisions set out in clauses 7, 8, 9 and 17, and on the scrutiny provisions set out in schedule 7. In simple terms, those are the powers to amend the law without the usual legislative process of full debate. For example, clause 7 states that a Minister

“may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate”,

and clause 9 states:

“Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament (including modifying this Act).”

Up until last week, the cornerstone of the Government’s defence of those proposed powers was the claim they were supported by the House of Lords Constitution Committee. Indeed, last Wednesday, the day before this debate began, the Prime Minister told the House that the Government’s approach

“has been endorsed by the House of Lords Constitution Committee.”—[Official Report, 6 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 148.]

Let us look at what the Committee actually said in last week’s report. It stated:

“The executive powers conferred by the Bill are unprecedented and extraordinary and raise fundamental constitutional questions about the separation of powers between Parliament and Government.”

It continued by saying that

“the Bill weaves a tapestry of delegated powers that are breath-taking in terms of both their scope and potency”

and that the

“number, range and overlapping nature of the broad delegated powers would create what is, in effect, an unprecedented and extraordinary portmanteau of effectively unlimited powers upon which the Government could draw. They would fundamentally challenge the constitutional balance of powers between Parliament and Government and would represent a significant—and unacceptable—transfer of legal competence.”

If that is the Government’s case for the defence, I would not like to see the case for the prosecution.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there have been a lot of arguments in the past about Henry VIII powers and about the Executive taking power away from Parliament, and that it has all steadily gone in one direction? The danger now is not only the consequences of this Bill and of the details of Brexit, but that if the House does not challenge this Bill and change it, it will be quoted as a precedent for years to come. I have no doubt that if the Labour party ever gets back into power, a future Labour Government will start lecturing a Conservative Opposition that there are clear precedents for taking powers of this kind.

[Mr McFadden]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is, of course, correct that we have had some of these debates before.

The criticism does not stop with the House of Lords Committee. The Hansard Society says that

“the Bill will strengthen the…executive, not Parliament”.

Its report on the Bill says:

“the broad scope of its…powers, the inadequate constraints…on them, and shortcomings in the proposed parliamentary control…will be…a toxic mix”.

We have had regulatory Bills before, and many years ago, when I was first elected, I was involved in taking the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 through the House. There was huge controversy about the powers contained in that legislation, and many Conservative Members who most vociferously defend the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill attacked that Act as a huge power grab.

The response to the 2006 Act led to the setting up of a special scrutiny process for deregulatory measures, and the Hansard Society says:

“Previous legislation, such as the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, provides examples of ways in which”

the Government

“could introduce safeguards into the EU (Withdrawal) Bill to tighten the scope and application of the powers.”

But there are no special scrutiny measures proposed in the Bill, even though its scope is far, far broader than the 2006 Act.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr McFadden]

With consideration for other speakers, I will press on.

In fact, most of the orders made under the proposed powers, far from being elevated into some kind of special sifting and debate procedure, will go through on the negative resolution procedure, with little or no debate.

On one level, I sympathise with Ministers. The outcome of the Brexit negotiations is so uncertain—in fact, getting an agreement at all is not certain—that they want to confer on themselves the maximum possible leeway in legislating, but Parliament cannot take that view. It has been argued that the best way to raise the issue of executive authority is in Committee and not now, but we already know that the Government propose to give themselves a majority on all Committees even though they did not win a majority at the general election. There is no indication—in fact, the very opposite—that the Government are more likely to listen in Committee than they are now. Parliament’s maximum moment of leverage to call on the Government to think again is not in Committee but now.

We have been told that a vote against the Bill is a vote for a chaotic Brexit, which is a bit rich. There only has to be more than two Cabinet Ministers in a room to produce versions of a chaotic Brexit. When Ministers are pushing against one another, and when letters supported by junior Ministers are being circulated attacking the policy of the Government in which they serve, the Tory party is well capable of producing chaos on its own. We have a legitimate job to do in scrutinising the Government. To further that end, I will vote against the Bill tonight.

Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

My hon. Friend speaks with passion and knowledge about the 4,000-odd women in his constituency who are affected. There are thousands of women in a similar position in all our constituencies, and my hon. Friend’s point is clear: one of the transitional measures must be put in place.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Constituents such as Mrs Cox in my constituency do not object to the principle of equalisation, but they object, as my hon. Friend is quite rightly saying, to the speed and scale of the changes. That is why his points about transitional arrangements are so important to Mrs Cox and many others. Will he also deal with the insidious evasion of responsibility among some Conservative Members, who are trying to blame the European Union rather than their own Government’s decision for the measures that have been taken? The same thing is not happening in other countries. It is the Government’s decision, and no one else’s.

[Owen Smith]

I expect that the Secretary of State is out in Europe somewhere right now blaming the European Union for his sins of inaction. Mrs Cox speaks for all the women in the WASPI campaign who are not opposed to the equalisation of the state pension age at 65 or 66, but who are opposed to the injustices that are being visited on them.

Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) because, if I heard correctly, he seemed to suggest that it would perhaps help the Government with the pension policy if we all died sooner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) on her contribution to the debate and on all the work she and many other Labour colleagues have put in.

How many times have we heard constituents say, “I’m not interested in politics. What has it got to do with me?” Well, here today we are debating political decisions on the pension age that have profoundly changed the law with regard to men and women. The fundamentals of the change to equalise the state pension age between men and women is not the problem. It is right that as the barriers to women working and saving for a pension were tackled in the 20th century, the anomaly between the retirement ages for men and women should be addressed too. While recognising the health inequalities that still exist, it is fair to reflect on the statutory retirement age and on what is appropriate, as we are all living longer overall, and to recognise that pension support must better reflect how we live our lives today and that funding must be sustainable in the future.

So what has gone wrong? Why are so many MPs from all parties concerned? How did the WASPI campaign manage to get more than 139,000 signatures on an e-petition, so as to be granted today’s debate? The problem is when politicians and senior civil servants forget that public policy making is only as important as delivery, especially when we expect the public to make important decisions affecting their lifestyle and future financial security. It is because of the lack of attention to delivery and to the impact on women’s lives that the genuine and widespread concern of the many women and their families affected by the changes has struck such a chord.

Sometimes laws require relatively little of the public, but pension changes need the public to engage with how they will be affected and what they need to do ensure that they can retire with security. For that reason alone Governments have a huge responsibility to do as much as possible to ensure a smooth transition.

The first increase in women’s state pension age was introduced by the Pensions Act 1995, but the plan was that the change would not start until 2010 and that it would take 10 years to complete, so that by 6 April 2020 women’s state pension age would be 65 and equal to that of men. Perhaps the thought of 25 years between 1995 and 2020 led to a complacency in Whitehall that has exposed the lack of priority given to ensuring that women were informed and prepared. One letter, even if it gets to the recipient, is not enough. Receiving such a letter at 58—even at 59—saying that the pension age of 60 has been delayed, has left many women unprepared for retirement, after decades of work.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making a good point that is not just about the principle of equalisation, but the speed and sharpness of the increase. That is what has been the focus of so much anger and frustration. Does she agree with my constituent Mrs Cox, who points out that it is not just about the state pension, but other benefits, such as bus passes in some parts of the country, continued national insurance contributions and winter fuel allowance? It is not just one hit on the women affected, but several, and that is what has made them so angry.

[Caroline Flint]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. The problem has been compounded by the coalition Government’s decision to speed up the introduction of the equalisation of the pension age and to increase the state pension age. Those changes were made without any sense of how aware and ready women were.

Probation Service

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Not only that; we are encouraging our management teams from trusts. We cannot contract on a payment-by-results basis with ourselves, but the Cabinet Office is investing money to encourage and support teams of staff who want to take over the business, run it and be free to innovate.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

The Lord Chancellor is being generous in giving way. Let me make it clear that I believe there is valuable expertise among the many charities that work with offenders on some of the problems he has raised—on mental health, alcohol and drugs—but can he define medium-risk offenders? What offences is he talking about? How does he deal with the point that was raised earlier about offenders who fluctuate between medium risk and high risk? If there is a logic to keeping the management of high-risk offenders in the current system, what is the logic for those who fluctuate between the two?

[Chris Grayling]

Let me answer that question specifically. First, the categorisations are existing categorisations—they are not mine—and are part of a triage process within the existing probation system that we will continue to use. Secondly, on moving people from one category to another, it will be the responsibility of a national probation trust to carry out risk assessments at the beginning, or later if circumstances change that require a new assessment to take place. The two organisations will be in part co-located, so it will not be a complicated bureaucratic process—people will be sitting in the same office. The national probation service will carry out assessments when they need to be carried out. I can explain this to the right hon. Gentleman separately and at much greater length if he would like, but that is how it will work.

On voluntary sector organisations, we are making absolutely sure that smaller organisations have a place at the table.

The shadow Justice Secretary’s comments about the Work programme were complete nonsense. When I left the Department for Work and Pensions, the voluntary sector was supporting about 150,000 people. It was by far the biggest voluntary sector programme of its kind ever seen in this country, with organisations such as the Papworth Trust delivering the programme across large areas of the country and making a real difference. I pay tribute to those charities. The story about bid candy is simply not true. In the two years I was employment Minister, fewer than 10 of the 250 to 300 voluntary sector organisations involved left the programme, and all of them did so for reasons unconnected with the programme. So I am afraid he is plain wrong.

Legal Aid Reform

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) on securing this important debate and commend her for her excellent speech.

Given the welcome fact that so many Members want to contribute, I will confine my remarks to the impact of the Government’s proposals on my local citizens advice bureau in Exeter, whereby it would lose all its welfare benefits funding, and funding for debt cases would be restricted to instances where there is an “immediate risk” of homelessness. Taken together, my CAB estimates that the changes will affect up to 700 cases a year in Exeter alone. The director of Exeter CAB, Steve Barriball, has described as “perverse” the fact that the Government are proposing to fund debt advice only when the client faces an immediate risk of homelessness. He says:

“It is widely accepted that timely intervention is more productive and reduces costs elsewhere, such as County Court repossession and other action.”

As other Members have said, these changes represent a terrible false economy, and in the case of Exeter they come at the same time as the local authority, Devon county council, is proposing to cut its support to the CAB by a massive 20%, as part of its attempt to grapple with a 27% reduction in funding from central Government. Yet it is estimated that for every pound of public money spent on CAB services, the CAB saves the public purse £12.20.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I appreciate what my right hon. Friend is saying about his local citizens advice bureau. In Wolverhampton, the citizens advice bureau handles some 1,600 cases a year that are funded by such help, involving 26 employees. The local director has said:

“The CAB would effectively go back 20 years in its development”

if the current proposals go through. In response to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who spoke a few moments ago, would my right hon. Friend care to contrast those proposals with the record of the Labour Government, who increased the funding to citizens advice bureaux when the recession was coming, precisely because we knew that there would be a greater need for debt advice as economic times got tough?

[Mr Bradshaw]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. Indeed, I was about to make the point—gently, I hope—to the hon. Members for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) that it is not good enough for Government Members to excuse every cut that this Government are implementing by talking about the need for fiscal consolidation. There is a clear choice to be made about the speed and degree of fiscal consolidation, and there is growing evidence that the speed and degree of fiscal consolidation being pursued by this Government is not only damaging important services such as the CAB, but damaging our economic recovery. All hon. Members need to do—