Work and Pensions

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2018 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from questions to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on 5 February 2018.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Financial directors must not cause detriment to any private sector pension scheme. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the rules and regulations regarding the investigation of this sort of practice are toughened up, because we cannot allow this to happen in future?

[Ms McVey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government are seeking to ensure that the regulator will—our new Bill will come out later in the year—have more rights to fine, follow criminal procedures and look into mandatory clearance. Those of us who have studied corporate governance realise that the rules changed in 1991—the Cadbury report and the OECD corporate governance rules—and were strengthened in 2002. I believe that now, under this Conservative Government, we will be strengthening the corporate governance rules again. [Official Report, 5 February 2018, Vol. 635, c. 1187.]

Letter of correction from Ms McVey:

An error has been identified in the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone).

The correct response should have been:

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

What the Government did successfully back in 2004 was set up the Pension Protection Fund, which is there to compensate people should their businesses become insolvent. This is what the fund will be doing: affording protection at 100% for those who have a pension. Those not yet on a pension will be getting 90%. The Government are ensuring that businesses are responsible to their employees and their pensions. We will be bringing in stronger corporate governance rules to make sure that boards, trustees, shareholders and stakeholders hold company executives to account.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Financial directors must not cause detriment to any private sector pension scheme. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the rules and regulations regarding the investigation of this sort of practice are toughened up, because we cannot allow this to happen in future?

PIP Back Payments

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

Of course I do not like to hear of individual cases when things have not worked out as we would like them to. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to meet me to discuss his constituent’s case, I would be very happy to do so. I hold meetings twice a month so that Members or their caseworkers can come along and meet my officials to review such cases.

It is worth setting all we are doing in context. We have made 2.9 million—I repeat, 2.9 million—PIP assessments, and 8% of those go to appeal, of which 4% are upheld, so the vast majority of people are getting the benefits to which they are richly entitled. If we look at the claimant work we do—the customer satisfaction surveys—we find that most people are satisfied with the process. Of course, until we have no appeals and 100% satisfaction rates, we will constantly be seeking to improve the situation, but the facts do speak for themselves.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on her response to the urgent question and ask her whether she will be kind enough to check my understanding of the figures? I think she said that there are 1.6 million PIP claimants and that she expected just over 200,000 to have their assessments changed—improved. It therefore seems to me that the 1.4 million people who will not see a change in their benefit will have had their expectations raised by this announcement. How will the Minister manage those expectations?

[Sarah Newton]

The Secretary of State has made it clear at the Dispatch Box that the figure is about 220,000 people. Some of the things that some Members of this place have said in the media are very disappointing, having both scared people and raised false hope.

Personal Independence Payment

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

We will do everything systematically and coherently. We will get to people affected by any incorrect decision as soon as possible.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend to her post and congratulate her on her response to the urgent question. My constituents in Kettering would like to know whether there are more or fewer disabled people in work in 2018 than in 2010.

Private Sector Pensions

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms McVey]

That is a matter for the Pensions Regulator, but obviously we have the Pension Protection Fund in place, and we will be looking to ensure that pensioners are safe and protected.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

How is it that some of these private sector pension fund deficits are allowed to get so large before any action is taken?

[Ms McVey]

We allow businesses to run themselves without interference from Government, and therefore we do not know the complete structure of their profit and loss, and of their assets and liabilities. Should anyone wish to raise a concern about their business, they are free to do so with the regulator. With our combined corporate governance review and new legislation, we will make sure that pensions are on as firm a footing as possible. We will make sure that such abuses do not happen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

How many of the FTSE 250 companies have signed up to this excellent campaign?

[Mr Gauke]

That is a very good question, and I will have to write to my hon. Friend with the answer. I can tell him that businesses small and large have participated in the scheme, including large organisations such as Microsoft, GlaxoSmithKline, Sainsbury’s and Channel 4, as well as many small businesses up and down the country.

State Pension Age

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Hugh Gaffney]

I am very glad that I took that intervention; I thank my hon. Friend for that news. I am sure that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) will feel the same.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House rightly feel strongly about the impact of changes to the state pension age on women who are affected purely because of their date of birth. That is obviously not fair or appropriate. We need to see action, and I hope that we will see action now that my good friend has mentioned the date for the debate.

I want to mention the social care crisis in our country. The longer people work, the more likely they are to be pushed to breaking point, and therefore the demands on our fragile and under-resourced social care system become even more pressing. However, the issue is not just those in work, but those out of work. If older people are out of work because of long-term conditions or ill health caused by their occupation and are currently able to claim their state pension, that is good. It maintains dignity and respect. But what happens to those who now see their ability to claim their pension pushed further away? What safety network is in place for those older people not able to work?

I am also concerned by the roll-out of universal credit and older people being pushed on to universal credit. It has already failed and has the potential to cause real and lasting damage.

I am very grateful to Age UK for its briefing on the issues facing older people in our country. Like Age UK, I recognise that we need to look at the pension age, but we need to do so properly, fairly and effectively. I am pleased that 13 years of good Labour government saw pensioner poverty fall, but I fear that that trend is in reverse. Some 1.9 million pensioners live in poverty across our United Kingdom, and figures show that 25% of the over-65s find it hard to make ends meet. It is important to remember that 37% of women, and about 20% of men, between the ages of 55 and 64 do not have a private pension.

Let me make it clear: the state pension remains the most important source of income for the majority of pensioners, and any increase in the state pension age will present many challenges for people who already have difficulty working longer. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, representing seats in all four nations that make up the UK, will know the pressures that local government funding cuts have placed on councils’ ability to deliver decent, funded and effective social care provision.

I echo the comments made by Baroness Thornton in the other place. She made an important set of remarks in a debate on the human rights of older people that was introduced by Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. She noted:

“Human rights do not lessen with age.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 November 2017; Vol. 785, c. 2206.]

It is a human right to have a decent retirement, and in my view it is a human right to have a decent state pension too. I also echo Baroness Thornton’s comments regarding the injustice done to all women born in the 1950s who are affected by the changes to the state pension laws in the Pensions Acts of both 1995 and 2011. I hope that the Minister will give some indication in his response of what the Government plan to do about that. Will there be any transitional arrangements for the women affected? I might say, as a new parliamentarian, how delighted I am that the WASPI women are seeking a parliamentary solution; they are right to do so.

I called this debate because I want this House to discuss the pension age, but also the issues related to any increase. It will not happen in isolation, and we need to consider the impact of any decisions taken on every part of public life. I am committed to fighting for a better deal for our young people, not just in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill but across the country. I am equally determined to fight for a better deal for our older people, and I hope that this afternoon’s debate will be the start of that.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

The debate lasts until 5.30 pm. I will start to call the Front Benchers at seven minutes past 5, with the guideline limits being five minutes for the Scottish National party spokesman, five minutes for the Opposition spokesman and 10 minutes for the Minister. Mr Gaffney gets two minutes at the end to sum up the debate, and six hon. Members wish to speak, so I will have to impose a time limit of three minutes, which will ensure that everyone gets a chance to contribute.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Hill]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and it is a point well made.

Hartlepool women who have been left worst off will not be able to afford to bridge the pension gap. The WASPI campaign recognises that the equalisation of the state pension age is necessary, but the manner in which it has been introduced has been unfair, unjust and has had devastating consequences for the retirement plans of thousands of women in Hartlepool and millions across the country. I strongly support the demand for this matter to be debated in the Chamber and voted on so that this intolerable situation can be resolved once and for all if the Government continue to refuse to take action. I am not so well, Mr Hollobone, so I do apologise for my manner.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Thank you. We now come to the first of the Front-Bench speeches. The guideline limits are five minutes for the SNP, five minutes for the Opposition and 10 minutes for the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

Cost will always be an issue, but some have made the point that we need to base decisions on fact and new data. The data are changing. People will not necessarily live longer, so the cost might not be higher in the longer run.

We believe that we should have a variable state pension age whereby a person’s work background, health and income are considered, with their retirement age being based on their life expectancy, not just the national average. The proposal to raise the state pension age even further all but wipes out the chances of many of our people enjoying a few years of retirement in good health. The state pension should be flexible and recognise the contribution that people have made to our country, and the system should be designed to work for everyone.

I really worry about the pressure facing older people in our country. The cost of living is going up and their pension is getting further away. At the same time, many are unwell and unable to work, or they may be caring for even more elderly parents or young children, making a very different but relevant contribution.

I wonder whether the Minister is even aware that 1.9 million pensioners now live below the poverty line. That means more struggling older people on social security and extra strain on the NHS when vulnerable people are living in poverty, all within a system that has seen that value of income shrink since 2010. I referred to older people with caring responsibilities. Many will fall short of the 35 years of contributions that are needed to secure a full pension. We need to do things for all those people, for all the different groups in our community, because that would be the fair and right thing to do.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

If the Minister can finish his remarks no later than 5.27 pm, Mr Gaffney will have time to sum up.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

On a point of order, Mr Hollobone. As a new Member of this House, I am perhaps not acquainted with the procedure, so I wanted to ask whether you could clarify. During the course of the debate there were a couple of rather pathetic, in my view, interventions from Government Back Benchers. Can you clarify whether any information was given to you beforehand about Conservative MPs coming here to take part in the substance of the debate?

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

It is open to any Member of the House to attend any Westminster Hall debate. Members can choose to apply to speak, or they can ask to intervene on the Member speaking. It is entirely in the hands of individual Members whether they attend a debate or not.

[Angela Crawley]

On a point of order, Mr Hollobone. Can I clarify something for the avoidance of doubt? A number of generalisations were made about young and old people, and who cares more or less about pensions—

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Monday 9th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Universal credit is about ensuring that our constituents are in a stronger financial position. That is what we are trying to deliver by enabling them to work and providing the support they need. As I said earlier, if we look at where we want to get to by 2022, 8% of claimants are already on universal credit and by January it will be 10%. The process is gradual and measured, and that is enabling us to learn from the experience and make improvements, which we will continue to do all the time.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I support universal credit and its roll-out, but I am concerned about applicants with zero savings who, if they lose money for one or two weeks, have nothing to fall back on. Will the Department consider the possibility of jobcentres writing supportive letters to landlords to explain the situation in which benefit claimants find themselves, because the worst outcome for applicants is that they lose their home?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There is an obligation on social landlords, given the source of income through universal credit, to work constructively with tenants. If a tenant has a reasonable expectation of receiving housing costs as part of their universal credit payment but has not yet received them, the landlord should not take action and the tenant should not face risk of eviction.

Leaving the EU: Disabled People’s Services

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered consultation with disabled people on the effect on their services of the UK leaving the EU.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Hollobone. I start by thanking Disability Rights UK for its support while I was preparing for today’s debate and for the excellent work that it continues to do on the impact of Brexit on disabled groups.

The Brexit debate in Parliament has to date focused largely on trade, access to markets and business objectives. Little has been said about the type of society we wish to be after Brexit, and even less about the impact of Brexit on groups in society such as disabled people and on their daily services and human rights. Today’s debate in Parliament is therefore important, because it highlights our need to consult widely and to think tangentially about Brexit. Fundamentally, Brexit is not just about markets and money; it is about people. To work for everyone in our society, Brexit must therefore be inclusive. For disabled people, Brexit must have equality legislation and vision placed at its heart.

Disabled people make up one in five of the UK population. That is a significant sector of our population that will be affected by the legislative changes flowing from the UK’s decision to leave the EU. It is therefore incumbent on the UK Government to consult disabled people and their organisations on post-Brexit Britain. How extensive is the consultation likely to be and what should be the remit for a consultation with disabled people on Brexit? We are concerned about the very real potential for Brexit to have a significant impact on the ability of disabled people to live and work independently and with dignity in our communities.

Many of the rights that are upheld for those living with a disability have their foundation in European Union law. Examples include the 2000 employment equality directive, which requires member states to prohibit disability discrimination in employment; the 2006 air passenger rights regulation, along with similar regulations on rail, ship and coach travel, which require disabled people to be given assistance when travelling in the EU and European economic area; and the 2004 medicinal products for human use directive, which requires the packaging of all medicinal products to include Braille labelling to make them accessible to disabled people. Indeed, the groundbreaking European Accessibility Act is currently being negotiated at EU level. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has said that it will benefit disabled people by providing common rules on accessibility in relation to computers, ATMs, ticketing machines and banking services. In the last few years, there has been a really strong set of initiatives from the EU, with accessibility very much part of the EU strategy, which impacts on the UK in a host of areas.

We ask ourselves what will happen to the financial support—the millions of pounds—that the EU provides from the European social fund to support a range of schemes and support for those living with a disability. Will successive United Kingdom Governments continue that important support? Will they set out how they will do so? Will they guarantee continued support for disability services post Brexit to disability rights groups and organisations, which currently benefit from that funding?

Understandable concerns have been raised about the settlement criteria proposed by the UK Government. It is alarming that disabled people from other EU countries might be disadvantaged when it comes to establishing a right to permanent residence in the UK. If the criteria are to be employment based, what of disabled people with fluctuating conditions, who may require breaks from employment? Consultation on settled status must be carried out with disability groups to ensure that disabled people are not excluded from settled status purely by virtue of their condition.

The impact of Brexit on NHS and social care staffing levels is a great concern. Adequate access to health and social care is vital for many disabled people, but with all the new implications that Brexit brings for EU citizens in terms of gaining work permits for the UK, and with EU workers perhaps deciding to leave the UK because of those conditions, there will be inevitable and undue strain on services. Recent reports show that, post Brexit, the UK may be a much less attractive proposition for EU workers, particularly skilled workers, and that healthcare could be one of the hardest hit areas, with a staggering 84% of workers in that sector from EU countries saying that they will leave the UK. For Scotland, that is also worrying, because according to the most recent figures, 5.8% of the health and medical workforce are non-UK but EU passport holders, and experts tell us that losing EU workers will have a significant impact on our NHS workforce.

How will disabled people be able to access the care packages and support and NHS treatment that they need in the light of the potential exodus? Many EU nationals are already considering leaving the UK. Will the Minister tell us what plans are in place to deal with the potential shortfall in staff, and address the extremely important concerns about the criteria?

Many disability rights groups across the UK have expressed concerns about the level of support and, some would say, the lack of understanding and compassion shown to those living with a disability, who have suffered as a result of UK Government policy, such as the cutting of the employment and support allowance work-related activity group component by £30 a week and the tightening of eligibility for personal independence payments. Those measures have pushed more disabled people into poverty and potential social isolation. Concerns about what life in the UK will look like post Brexit for people with a disability must be taken extremely seriously. Given those recent events, it is understandable that many disabled people are beginning to feel quite alarmed. The implications of Brexit and the potential impact on disabled people, which we will hear about today from many hon. Members, need to be addressed urgently by the Minister and the UK Government.

I was today given a briefing from the Guide Dogs association on the effect on disabled people of the UK leaving the EU. It makes key points to which I would like the Minister to respond. It states:

“The UK’s withdrawal from the European Union has the potential to have a serious impact on the safety, mobility and independence of people with sight loss, by placing at risk two key areas:

Disability awareness training for bus drivers

The audibility of electric and hybrid vehicles”.

Will the Minister respond to those points? I understand that EU regulation 181/2011 is due to come into effect in 2018 and requires all bus drivers to undertake disability awareness training. That regulation was due to come into force in 2013, but the Government used a derogation to delay its introduction. Guide Dogs says:

“We are now concerned that the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union may mean mandatory training will either not be brought into effect, or later translated into UK regulations once the UK has left the EU.”

Training for bus drivers is badly needed. It ensures that drivers are aware of the needs of passengers with sight loss and respond appropriately. In a 2014 survey, only 14% of respondents said that a bus driver always responded appropriately to their needs as a disabled passenger. To tackle social isolation and people’s very important need for independence and mobility, those issues must be addressed.

The concerns expressed today are very real. We need commitments from the Minister and the UK Government that the rights of those living with a disability will not be diminished or eroded over time. We need to know that the financial support for disabled people that is in place from our EU membership will continue; that those from other EU countries will not face discrimination if they choose to seek settled status; and how the Minister will address the seemingly inevitable shortfall in those who provide support and care for the disabled in our communities and NHS. Recruiting and retaining workers in the social care sector is already challenging, but Brexit could precipitate a shortfall that becomes a crisis.

I ask the Minister to ensure that, as the Brexit negotiations unfold, the rights and needs of those living with a disability are central to discussions and negotiations. Post-Brexit considerations may seem of most significance to trade, but they are also of fundamental significance to people, and ultimately to the inclusiveness and the nature of our society for those with a disability.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I see no Back Benchers standing, so we will go straight on to the speeches by the Front-Bench Members. I take it that you are the Scottish National party Front-Bench spokesperson, Mr Linden. Normally there is a limit of five minutes for the SNP, five minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition and 10 minutes for the Minister, but I think we can be far more liberal—with a small “l”—this afternoon. You cannot speak for as long as you like, but you can speak for longer than five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Hollobone. Can I start by congratulating the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron)—I hope I have pronounced that correctly—on securing this timely debate? I also thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for contributing this afternoon.

During the referendum campaign relatively little was said about the impact that exiting the EU would have on disabled people, their rights and their services. With some notable exceptions, not a great deal more has been heard since. That is a big mission. It is crucial that this issue receives the attention it deserves, not only because Brexit is ultimately about people—the outcome of the negotiations will impact on every aspect of our national life and everyone living in this country—but because the outcome of the most difficult and complicated negotiations that this country has undertaken since the second world war could have serious implications for the more than 10 million disabled people in the UK and their families. That is why the Opposition have consistently called on the Government to ensure that the priorities of disabled people are at the heart of their approach to the Brexit negotiations.

Indeed, the fact that Brexit will affect disabled people in specific ways is precisely why we sought to amend the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill to ensure that the Government considered the impact of withdrawal on protected characteristics—including disability—by means of detailed equality impact assessments. Sadly, they used the majority they enjoyed at the time to vote down that amendment. Now that the article 50 negotiations are formally under way, it is more important than ever that the Government make it clear, to an extent that they have not done to date, that the voices of disabled people are being heard and that their interests will be championed throughout the Brexit debate.

The comprehensive Disability Rights UK consultation and manifesto clearly sets out the range of concerns felt by disabled people in relation to Brexit. There is far more in that report than I can hope to cover in the short time available to me, but I want to touch on a couple of the main issues that both the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman have raised, and put a series of questions to the Minister that add to theirs. They both spoke passionately about their concerns for the future of disability rights once the UK has left the EU. I know that the repeal Bill will not be published until Thursday, and the Minister will be limited in what she can say, but can she give some sense of how the Government intend to consult with disabled people and disability rights groups when it comes to converting EU disability law into UK law, particularly in terms of corrections undertaken by means of secondary legislation? What means of redress does she envisage being available to disabled people to enforce their rights once we have left the EU? Can she confirm whether the Government’s intention is to keep pace with any positive developments in EU disability law that occur after our exit? The European Accessibility Act, which is making its way through the European legislature, is a case in point.

Both the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman mentioned funding. Brexit clearly jeopardises the funding provided by the EU to disabled people’s organisations and to projects that directly benefit disabled people. Will funding be honoured for such projects signed before or after the autumn statement of last year, financed either under the social fund element of EU structural and investment funds or by means of the European regional development fund? Will the Minister offer some clarity about the funding prospects for these projects after 2020?

Both hon. Members touched on the potential impact of Brexit on our health and social care system. There is particular concern among disabled people that a sharp reduction in the number of EEA/EU personal assistants and carers could have a detrimental impact on independent living. Where that sort of support is reduced, disabled people could for forced to choose between residential care and living at home with inadequate support. We do not want to see either outcome.

Can the Minister clarify whether her Department, the Department of Health or the Department for Exiting the European Union have undertaken any assessment of the impact of exiting the EU on the health and social care workforce on whom disabled people rely? Will that impact assessment and that issue be taken fully into account during the drafting of the forthcoming Immigration Bill?

We have touched on the impact that exiting the EU will have on the rights of UK citizens abroad and EU nationals living here at home. It has the potential to become a serious concern and challenge for the Government, because many EEA/EU citizens either act as full-time carers for family members who are UK nationals or live here of their own accord but are unable to attain permanent residence because the Home Office does not consider them to be working persons exercising their treaty rights. The Government’s recent offer to UK nationals made no mention of disabled people or their carers, so there are understandable concerns that those individuals will not qualify for settled status. What assurances can the Minister give about safeguarding the position of EU citizens in the UK and UK nationals living in the EU, so that disabled people and their carers will not face unequal treatment?

To conclude, disabled people are worried about the risks that Brexit poses to their hard-won rights and the services that they value. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about those issues and others of concern not only to disabled people but to the disability rights groups, such as Disability Rights UK, that advocate on their behalf.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I am sorry, but the Minister will have to tear up half her speech, because she has only 36 minutes of time available. Would she be kind enough to conclude her remarks no later than 5.27, to allow Dr Cameron three minutes for a winding-up speech?

Long-term Health Problems and Work Outcomes

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Will Members not staying for the next debate please be kind enough to leave quickly and quietly? We now come to the important subject of the role of employers in improving work outcomes for people with long-term health problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Tracey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I know she speaks from experience. She is a few steps ahead, mind-reading my speech. I will come to the valid point she makes, but I definitely agree with her comments.

Obviously such conditions can have many knock-on effects for families. When someone gives up work for health reasons, their partner will often cut back or stop working to become their carer. That can double the financial impact. Employers clearly have an enormous role to play in the health and working lives of disabled people and those with long-term health conditions. As the number of working people living with chronic health problems grows, the impact employers have on the population’s work and health outcomes—both positive and negative—will grow, too. Around 21 million people of working age in the UK will have at least one long-term condition by 2030. By the same year, the number of working-age people with cancer is set to increase from the current figure of 750,000 to an estimated 1.7 million. Ensuring that employers retain as many of those people as possible and support them to progress their careers will also help the Government to tackle some of the other big challenges facing our society.

The Government’s report “Fuller Working Lives: a partnership approach” and the recent independent review of the state pension age by John Cridland are both responses to our ageing workforce. Demographic change is sometimes presented as a problem for the long term, but we need to confront some implications now. In five years’ time, there will be 763,000 more people in the UK aged 50 to 64 and 292,000 fewer aged 16 to 49. One in eight people stop working before reaching the current state pension age due to ill health or disability, and raising the pension age will only increase that figure. It is inevitable that as people age, they are more likely to have health problems—half of over-50s have a long-term health problem—but it is not inevitable that so many should be forced to give up work.

More flexible and understanding employers would retain a greater amount of those people, and it would also mean that people would retire with bigger pension pots. The DWP has said that if the average earner worked to 65 instead of 55, they could have more than £200,000 in extra income and increase their pension by 60%. It would also be good for people’s health and the sustainability of the health service. The “Five Year Forward View” for the NHS in England recognises the need for “new partnerships” with employers to help people

“get and stay in employment”

as part of a

“radical upgrade in prevention and public health”

to protect

“the sustainability of the NHS, and the economic prosperity of Britain”.

I am pleased that the Government prioritised the critical role of employers in the Green Paper, which also makes a strong business case for employers to invest in inclusive workplaces and health and wellbeing. It would reduce the £9 billion direct cost of sickness absence and boost productivity through healthier, more engaged employees. The Green Paper includes welcome plans to ensure that the public sector

“leads the way in developing employment practices that allow disabled people and people with health conditions to flourish.”

But it is the Government’s proposals for the 26 million people working in the private and third sectors that could have the biggest impact on work and health outcomes, and it is on those that I wish to focus. The Green Paper asks how those employers could be incentivised to invest in the things we know create healthy workplaces and prevent people from falling out of work. How can we create a culture where people feel confident about disclosing health problems? How can we ensure employers have regular conversations with employees who are off work to agree steps to support their return? How can employers put in place timely access to occupational health and vocational rehabilitation support? The Green Paper proposes sensible reforms to statutory sick pay to ensure that people are not penalised financially by returning to work. It also proposes putting in place a one-stop shop for employers with information on the different things they can do to support staff and the return on investment they can expect to see from such measures.

While such measures would be welcome, they would not alone bring about the vision set out in the Green Paper of a society where everyone is ambitious for disabled people and those with long-term conditions, where jobs actively support and nurture health and wellbeing and where everyone at risk of long-term absence or falling out of work due to ill health gets early action as needed to stay in or return to work. The Government acknowledge that much more needs to be done.

The Green Paper is a call for bold, ambitious ideas and I understand the response from individuals, charities, employers and others has been very encouraging, with thousands already putting their views forward. That momentum must not be lost. Making progress towards the Government’s vision will bring enormous benefits to working people who live with long-term health problems, and to their families, employers, the economy and taxpayers. My first question to the Minister is therefore how the Government will involve those outside Parliament who have engaged so valuably up to now and have so much to bring to the debate.

My second question relates to one of the bold ideas put forward to rapidly improve the ability of employers to provide effective early support for those at risk of long-term sickness absence. The Green Paper includes a section on group income protection insurance, recognising that it not only provides an income to those who are too ill to work, but also includes vocational rehabilitation and practical support for employers, which together prevents and reduces sickness absence and stops people from falling out of work altogether. Group income protection insurance is purchased by employers, who cover their staff. One virtue of that is that, save for the very highest earners, there is no medical underwriting, which means that insurers do not ask any questions about employees’ medical history or existing conditions. People with health problems are covered at no additional cost.

The evidence is that group income protection is highly effective. The Green Paper cites a report from the Centre for Economics and Business Research, which found that such insurance reduces the length of sickness absence by an average of 16.6%. Research from one provider, Unum, found that seven out of 10 people with serious health problems who used its return-to-work service got back to work with the same employer. The most common conditions for those returning to work were mental health and musculoskeletal problems, which are the two health problems prioritised in the Green Paper.

Currently, just 7% to 8% of employees have group income protection from their employer. The Green Paper states that the Government think group income protection insurance has a much greater role to play. Coverage is particularly low among female workers and those working for small and medium-sized employers, yet both are most likely to benefit from the support it provides. Rates of sickness absence and disability are higher among female workers than men, yet for some reason employers fail to protect them in equal numbers.

SMEs are less likely to have experience of managing someone with a serious health problem or to have access to human resources, occupational health or vocational rehab expertise. As a former small business owner myself, I know what an impact it has when one of a small team needs to take time off. I know how difficult it can be to try to support an employee with a long-term condition, while also meeting legal obligations and keeping a business on track.

In my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on insurance and financial services, I have received representations from across the sector that make the case for tax incentives for employers to invest in group income protection for their staff. Insurers, their trade bodies and employers, through EEF, make the case that a tax incentive for employers would be the most effective way to increase coverage. They argue it would raise awareness of the benefits of providing the insurance, would act as a signal from the Government that group income protection is something good that employers should consider investing in, and would stimulate demand for and supply of this insurance.

Working with its members, the Association of British Insurers has produced an economic evaluation highlighting the gains to taxpayers if a modest incentive increased coverage. Fewer people would fall out of work or would require state support. Those in work and those who were too ill to work and so receiving an insured income would continue paying taxes on their salaries. Will the Minister explain how the Government intend to support a much greater role for group income protection insurance? Are they minded to consider the case for a temporary tax incentive for employers, particularly SMEs, to invest in it?

The Green Paper vision is rightly ambitious and I am sure it will have broad support from those inside and outside the House who follow the debate. The Green Paper talks of a 10-year plan to achieve that, but there is clearly potential to make great strides in a much shorter timeframe. The Government can take action now that will make a huge difference to the lives of working people with long-term health problems, their families, employers and the taxpayer.

Janey, a solicitor who shares her story in a guide from the British Heart Foundation, was 35 when she was diagnosed with a serious heart condition after giving birth to a baby boy. Janey’s employer communicated with her and together they agreed a successful plan so she could return slowly and steadily to her job, starting after a long absence on a two-day week and building up to four days a week over six months. She got back to work doing longer hours, but always making sure she was home in time to be with her son. That is the kind of positive experience we want everyone to have. So my final question is how the Government will measure success in delivering their vision. What are their top priorities in supporting employers to improve the work and health outcomes of people with long-term health problems?

I welcome the Government’s approach to this important subject. There are some exciting opportunities for innovative solutions to help those with long-term problems to remain in work. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I know we are talking about long-term health issues, but I can see that the Minister is in some discomfort with a short-term health issue. It would be perfectly in order if she would like to give her speech sitting down.