Tidal Energy Generation: Ringfenced Funding

Debate between Richard Graham and Ian Blackford

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

We are where we are at the moment. My point to the Government is this. We know that the technology is there. We know that relative costs are already coming down dramatically; we can see that from the MeyGen project in the Pentland Firth, for example. Here is the opportunity to get behind something that could be revolutionary, in terms of providing clean energy—baseload energy, as I mentioned—but also the ability to create a manufacturing industry. We can perhaps learn from the mistakes that were made with wind turbines, and ensure that we are not relying on other countries to provide the infrastructure that we need, because we can do this ourselves. There is a responsibility that we have here, now, today, to get behind this industry.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Blackford]

I will give way one more time.

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I much appreciate his relatively new-found enthusiasm for the marine energy sector. I pay tribute to his colleagues, the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), for the help that they have given the all-party parliamentary group on marine energy, which I founded in July 2016. The group has 25 members, two of whom are from the Scottish National party, and their support is greatly valued. However, this is a great British success story, which has an impact on opportunities from the Isle of Wight, along the coast of Cornwall, up through Wales and into Northern Ireland.

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, this wonderful decision by the Government has been greeted by the chair of RenewableUK as a

“major step forward for the…tidal energy industry.”

The chair of the Marine Energy Council has said:

“The impact of this support cannot be overstated.”

Furthermore, Nova Innovation has said that this will be

“turbocharging the delivery of tidal energy”.

This is a pivotal moment, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is a huge leap forward for marine energy.

BHS

Debate between Richard Graham and Ian Blackford

Thursday 20th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

This debate has been called in several of our names, and I take particular pleasure in following the speeches of many earlier contributors, but especially those of the Chairman of our Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), and my colleagues on the joint Committees, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and for Horsham (Jeremy Quin).

I will start by saying what the debate is not about. It is not an attempt to suggest that the deficit of any pension scheme in this land is entirely the fault of one individual, or, indeed, the responsibility of the owner of any sponsoring scheme. It is also worth noting that, of the some 6,000 defined-benefit pension schemes in the United Kingdom, about 1,000 are in difficulties of various kinds and very few indeed have surpluses. The situation of the BHS pension scheme is not particularly unique, but the circumstances around it are.

That brings me to my second point. The deficits of pension funds go up and down. They do so particularly quickly at a time when interest rates are moving fast. The value of assets is driven by bond yields; when those are depressed, and that is exacerbated by quantitative easing and monetary policy, pension deficits will clearly rise. All sorts of people are responsible for that, including the scheme’s investment policy makers and investment managers; the costs of all those involved make a significant difference to the scheme deficit as well. I totally accept the argument in the 80-page report by Sir Philip Green’s lawyers that longevity and the macro-economic environment make it difficult for schemes to improve their funding situation.

[Ian Blackford]

I agree with every comment that the hon. Gentleman has made, but does he not accept that part of the difficulty we are in with defined-benefit schemes has been the Government’s policy of giving responsibility to the Bank of England in the quantitative easing programme, which is now at £435 billion? If we look at what has happened recently, the 50 basis point reduction in yields means about £120 billion on the defined-benefit pension deficit. The Government have created that by refusing to balance fiscal and monetary policy.

[Richard Graham]

I do not remotely accept the argument in that intervention. This is not a debate about the Bank of England’s monetary policy. The hon. Gentleman would be well advised to read the transcript of the Work and Pensions Committee’s hearing with the Bank of England Deputy Governor three days ago, which I chaired in the absence of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) is not paying attention, as usual. He would be well advised to read that evidence. Getting rid of quantitative easing will not solve the pension scheme problems, and, in particular, will not solve the problems of the BHS pension scheme. With his approval, I will return to the subject we are discussing.

Before the hon. Gentleman intervened I was remarking that the circumstances of the BHS pension deficit were extraordinary, and that is what I want now to come on to. The BHS scheme went from surplus to large deficit in about 10 years, without any clear plan or any really significant action by the sponsor, without decent relationships between the trustees and the sponsor, with conflicts of interest between some of the trustees appointed by the sponsor that they largely did not recognise during our inquiry, and with contribution holidays in the years when Taveta Investments, the owner of BHS, was taking out large dividends. All that cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as best practice. The plan put forward to resolve the deficit—a staggered series of injections over 23 years—without any evidence of a long-term commitment by the owners to the company, is also not best practice. Our report highlighted that there was an issue with the regulator approving very long-term solutions.

Then we come to the moment of the sale of BHS, when information was withheld both from trustees and from the Pensions Regulator. There was a certain amount of dispute between the seller and the buyer about pressure on the buyer not to communicate with the Pensions Regulator at all, which was reiterated in further evidence submitted to the Select Committee only yesterday by RAL, the buyer. Most significantly, there was no attempt whatever at pre-clearance of the sale with the Pensions Regulator. Most shocking of all to many of us is the concept from both the buyer and the seller that in effect BHS was being sold debt-free, yet it had such an enormous pension deficit. That is at the very least disingenuous. It was naive of the buyer and cynical of the seller.

That brings us to Sir Philip Green himself. He said on 15 June:

“I want to respond to Mr Graham…We want to find a solution for the 20,000 pensioners. We still believe that money into the PPF does not resolve it. Without getting into it…the schemes are quite complex…We will sort it and we will find a solution. I want to give an assurance to the 20,000 pensioners—I am there to sort this in the correct way.”

With that, none of us could disagree. The question, of course—and this is why today’s motion and debate are important—is what has happened in the four months since. There has been some dialogue with the Pensions Regulator. That is absolutely clear. But the public want to know when this is going to be resolved. They are worried that after our report nothing is really going to happen and that an important and powerful man will not be held to account. Today is an opportunity for this House to stress our commitment to holding Sir Philip Green to account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

It is a privilege to speak in the debate. I thank the Committees for the report and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) for securing this important debate.

The issue of quantitative easing has come up, and I have to say that the powers of analysis of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) have somewhat deserted him today. He cannot get away from the fact that having had a quantitative easing programme of £435 billion, there is no underlying investment in the real economy. The only conclusion we can logically draw is that business does not have confidence in the economy, and that is why the interrelationship between fiscal and monetary policy is important. We need to get back to a balanced scenario in which interest rates reflect a normal economy. That is what the Government have to take responsibility for and that is what the hon. Gentleman seems to ignore.

The UK Government need to see the work of the Select Committees and the outcome of the debate as a lesson, and to acknowledge that we need to take action now that protects us all from outcomes that we have seen with BHS. The BHS pension scheme, representing 20,000 past and present workers, is in deficit by perhaps more than £500 million, meaning that scheme members face reduced entitlements. That is what should be at the heart of this matter. The reduced pensions of the workers and all those who lost their job should be what concerns us today. Why should pensioners be put at risk and fail to be protected from what is now fully acknowledged as corporate greed? As legislators, we all have to look at ourselves and ask what we could have done differently to have ensured that this situation did not arise in the first place.

This issue highlights the fundamental need to address the regulation of the pensions industry. Approximately 11 million people rely on a final salary pension scheme run by a private sector company. Schemes have come under increasing pressure as funding has become stretched, with about 5,000 private sector defined-benefit schemes now in deficit to the tune of more than £900 billion, according to Hymans Robertson. Despite the view that the hon. Member for Gloucester takes, we cannot escape the impact of quantitative easing and the lack of a balanced response from the Government. It defies logic not to have that.

As I highlighted on Second Reading of the Savings (Government Contributions) Bill, the previous Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), said in this House:

“there is a very real systemic issue with DB pension schemes that we need to look at, and my Department will be discussing it further in the months ahead.”—[Official Report, 11 July 2016; Vol. 613, c. 10.]

Since that statement, despite questions from the SNP, there has been silence from the UK Government. Where is the response to the fundamental challenges facing pensions today and what some might argue is a crisis for defined-benefit schemes? When will the Government face up to the challenges and threats to many who are beneficiaries of those schemes? When will the Government respond in detail to what the former Work and Pensions Secretary said was “systemic risk”? That was no throwaway line; a senior Cabinet Minister was admitting what we know to be the case. Does the Minister agree with that assessment given to this House and will she address the point this afternoon? What are the Government doing to deal with their own analysis of systemic risk? Sadly, I suspect the answer is still nothing.

Nothing is being done. The Government have been caught like a rabbit in the headlights—caught doing nothing in the face of systemic risk that threatens the interests of pensioners up and down the country. In the light of the Government sitting on their hands, I welcome the recently announced Select Committee inquiry to examine the adequacy of the Pension Regulator’s powers. That must be welcomed, but why should we be reliant on the Work and Pensions Committee? Why are the Government not doing their job and addressing this issue?

Scottish National party MPs will work to strengthen the powers of the regulator to ensure that the Philip Greens of the world are dealt with effectively when they seek to avoid their pension responsibilities. It is, however, a duty of government to protect citizens from undue pensions risk and the systemic risk to which the Secretary of State referred. Ultimately, defined-benefit pension schemes need to be placed on a sustainable footing and employees must be protected. I look forward to seeing whether the Minister responds to this when she makes her speech, but perhaps I should not hold my breath. More likely, she will have a Government briefing of handwringing, and then she will wait for the debate to end and scurry for cover. After all, we do not expect real answers from this Government.

Brexit means that pension disasters such as BHS and Tata Steel will be much more likely challenges for UK companies. Only when companies are able to afford to keep their promises to employees can pension funds be regarded as safe. Even large and successful companies can fail. The Pension Protection Fund offers help in such cases, but Cass Business School forecasts that up to 1,000 pension schemes could end up in the PPF over the next few years. There are more BHS disasters to come if that is correct. There will be a combined deficit of £45 billion, which would be overwhelming.

Let us try to take this out of politics. The SNP has long called for the establishment of an independent pensions commission to ensure that employees’ savings are protected and a more progressive approach to fairer savings is considered as we move to a period in which defined-benefit schemes are becoming a thing of the past. Why will the Government not do that? Why do we not establish a pensions commission that can consider all these issues in a holistic manner?

Let us come back to BHS—[Hon. Members: “Yes.”] Well, of course Government Members do not want to talk about the Government’s responsibilities, because they have run away from them. They can scoff and laugh, but 20,000 pensioners at BHS are going to suffer and thousands of people have lost their job while the Government looked on from the sidelines. That is the reality of this Tory Government.

Let us come back to BHS, perhaps this time without the laughter from the Government Members. I hope the BHS workers are watching the response of Government Back Benchers. How disgraceful; how contemptuous of people in this country!

[Richard Graham]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Savings (Government Contributions) Bill

Debate between Richard Graham and Ian Blackford

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 17th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly reasonable point, but he should bear in mind the fact that opt-out rates were expected to be 25% and are averaging 9% so far. The Government’s expectations about opt-out rates have therefore, happily, been proved wrong. He is right to say that the under-30s will become the over-30s, but we should all be trying to encourage those people to stay in and build up their savings through the pensions scheme, rather than introducing a competitive product that could, for various marketing reasons, seem more attractive and therefore divert people of all ages from the good and noble cause, which I think he supports, of building up more savings for their retirement.

[Ian Blackford]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that auto-enrolment has been an enormous success, and that one reason for that success has been the relatively low opt-out rates? Does he also agree, however, that there is more to be done to ensure that we include low-paid workers, particularly women and the self-employed? That should be the focus, but the tragedy of the Bill is that it deflects attention from what we should be doing—namely, incentivising pension saving.

[Richard Graham]

That is an interesting point. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that auto-enrolment is not good for the self-employed, and there are other aspects of it, including women’s savings, that could be improved. Yes, there has been success, but my “yes” is a cautious one. After all, auto-enrolment has not been going for very long. The real test will be over the next couple of years when up to 4 million people could come into the scheme, taking it from roughly 6.9 million savers at the moment to more than 10 million fairly soon. We will have to see whether they come in with the same enthusiasm as did those who work for larger employers. My point is that introducing the lifetime ISA at this stage, before we know how smaller employers and their employees are going to react, risks undermining the success of auto-enrolment so far.

In 2005, the Pensions Commission described pensions, and the tax relief on pensions, as

“poorly understood, unevenly distributed, and the cost is significant.”

It was absolutely right. The cost to the Treasury is £34 billion a year, and it receives back some £13 billion in tax on pensions, so there is a huge cost involved. I am pretty sure that that is why the Treasury is rightly trying to shape a savings policy that is both good for individuals and not so expensive for taxpayers or for the Treasury as the intermediary. I would like to see a much more co-ordinated effort by the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions to look closely at the existing range of savings offerings, pensions included, to see how they can be rationalised in order to come up with a simpler, less expensive method of encouraging people to save.

It is interesting that the online information sheet on the lifetime ISA does not mention the fact that contributions come from someone’s salary after they have paid tax. It also strongly urges people to

“use it to save for retirement”.

That is exactly what we would expect people to do with a pensions product, so the concept that the lifetime ISA is not competitive with auto-enrolment and other pensions offerings is slightly disingenuous. Others have made the point that it is competitive with auto-enrolment and therefore offers significant potential for many of our constituents. Let me quote briefly from one or two of those who have highlighted this issue.

The Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association, which used to be called the National Association of Pension Funds, illustrates my point that all pensions are now, rightly, considered to be savings products. It comments:

“We look forward to working with the Government to help make sure that the Lifetime ISA does help younger people build up their savings.”

It goes on to say that it is important to ensure that

“the regulation on charges and governance of the Lifetime ISA are comparable to those for pensions, which have been reviewed to make sure they offer savers good value”.

That refers to the cap on charges and the increased governance. The association is implicitly recognising that this product will be considered by consumers as an alternative to saving. Indeed, former pensions Minister Steve Webb says:

“There is a real danger that the new product will mean that many young people will not start saving for their retirement until their thirties”

because that option is available to them through the lifetime ISA.

It is also interesting that the Association of British Insurers, Zurich and Hargreaves Lansdown have all expressed concern. One of the points raised by the Institute for Fiscal Studies is exactly the same point that I made in an article earlier today in which I referred to the lack of clarity over the extent to which there will be new savings, as against the shifting of existing funds by people who have already saved in ISAs. We must recognise the fact that 21 million people have invested in ISAs. That is not a small body of people. It is not a narrow cohort consisting exclusively of the very rich, for example. If savings are recycled and 80% of the people who put money into a cash ISA in 2014-15 recycle their money into a lifetime ISA to get the 25% Government bonus, that would not necessarily demonstrate a success for the Government in terms of bringing in new savers and people who would not otherwise have the chance of getting on to the housing ladder. Rather, it would demonstrate that people who already have savings are being given an opportunity to increase the return on those savings, and that higher-rate earners will have an opportunity to provide lifetime ISAs for their children or grandchildren.

It would help if the Minister clarified what impact assessment the Treasury has carried out. How much money does it expect to come in from new savers? How much does it expect to be recycled from existing ISA-holders? Who will be the beneficiaries of the lifetime ISA? My concern is that the main beneficiaries of the vast weight of the £850 million that this will cost the Treasury and therefore the taxpayer will be people who already earn quite a lot, or their children, and that the benefits will not reach the many, even though that is the intention behind the Bill.

I have tried to address some of the issues and unintended consequences that could arise from the Bill. Hargreaves Lansdown has written a useful paper on simplifying ISAs and pensions, in which it proposes a number of changes to ISAs. It is worth flagging them up today. It proposes: consolidating six different types of ISA into one; limiting the cost to the Exchequer of the Government top-up to the lifetime ISA; simplifying ISA decision making for investors; reducing the administrative burden for the industry; retaining the help-to-buy element of the lifetime ISA in one simple ISA product; and eliminating the risk that the ISA will undermine pension saving. It goes on to make a similar number of recommendations on pensions as well. The last point about eliminating the risk that the LISA will undermine pension saving is the one to which I keep returning because it is possible to do these things in a different way.

The Pensions Policy Institute found that Canada, Australia, New Zealand, US and Singapore—all countries that broadly follow Anglo-Saxon approaches to finance and investment—allow early access from the same product used for pension saving. That is critical because it means that people do not have to choose between a LISA or auto-enrolment and that they can decide whether they want to save to get on to the housing ladder or to save for their retirement through the same product. It would be a major achievement of this Government and Treasury and DWP Ministers if they could work together to rationalise the structure of pensions and savings so that individual consumers can access the same product for different reasons without having to subscribe separately. That would eliminate the main concern of many about the unintended consequence of the LISA directly and negatively impacting auto-enrolment. That is why I will certainly not be voting against the Government but will abstain from voting on the Bill this evening.

Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Debate between Richard Graham and Ian Blackford

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

Having listened to the Minister for 35 minutes, I cannot think of a time when I have been in the Chamber and felt so utterly depressed by what I have heard— 35 minutes to say absolutely nothing and to give absolutely no hope to those women who are facing pension inequality. Talk about a Government who are out of touch!

The game was given away by one of the Minister’s hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries), who told the Government that she is one of the ladies who are caught up in this. The Government know who she is, where she lives and her age, but she has heard nothing. Does the Minister have anything to say to her? Absolutely nothing—just sheer contempt from this Government for the WASPI women and the WASPI campaign. He and the Government should be utterly, utterly ashamed of themselves.

A Conservative MP asked me last night, “Why are we having yet another debate on this issue?”, and I have some sympathy with his view. We should not be having this debate for the simple and straightforward reason that the Government should have acted by now to end this injustice.

Let us just remind ourselves of the fundamentals. We in the Scottish National party, I am sure along with everybody else in this Chamber, agree with pension equalisation—we are not debating that—but we do not support the unfair manner in which the changes have been made. The Government must explore options for transitional arrangements to protect retirement plans for the females adversely affected. The Minister tossed out the figure of £30 billion, but what he did not say is that that is £30 billion over the years up to 2026. Let me give him one suggestion. The Government are consulting on pension tax relief, which costs a gross £35 billion. Why do they not readjust that to give some hope and to deal with the problem that women pensioners are facing?

[Richard Graham]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Blackford]

I will give way later, but I want to make some progress because I am aware of the time constraints.

Parliament voted unanimously on 7 January for a motion that the Government should put into place mitigation for the women affected. The Prime Minister speaks about the sovereignty of this House. Why have the Government ignored that vote? Why have they ignored the will of the House? Whose sovereignty now? They cannot ignore the will of the House at random on the legitimate demands of the WASPI people. The Government are treating this House and the people of this country with contempt. Where is parliamentary democracy?

[Ian Blackford]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. The women in the WASPI campaign are paying for the failures of the economic policy of this Government.

Let me remind the House that what we have is a Conservative Government—

[Richard Graham]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman did not give way earlier. I needed to correct him on a point of fact. The evidence given to the Work and Pensions—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

I will indeed give way because I will treat this House with respect; respect that has not been shown to the WASPI women by this Government. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) is correct.

[Richard Graham]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Blackford]

I will give way. I will answer the point and then give way.

Austerity is a political choice. In the election campaign, we argued that if the Government increased spending by 0.5% per annum in each year of the Parliament, they would increase spending by £140 billion but still reduce the deficit to 2% of net national income by the end of the Parliament. That is the responsible way. That would mean the Government would not be punishing the women who are affected by this. Show some leadership, Minister. Take some action and address this properly.

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Gentleman said earlier that the cost would be some £29 billion by 2026. He is completely wrong. The evidence to the Select Committee is that the bill in 2016-17 would be £29 billion and the total cost £77 billion. In Westminster Hall, the hon. Gentleman said that his party would commit to the policy of changing that if it were ever in the unlikely position of having responsibility for running these things itself. Will he confirm that his party leader will say, on the record, that if the SNP ever had responsibility for this, it would commit £77 billion?

[Ian Blackford]

Good grief! Have I ever heard such nonsense as I have just heard from the hon. Gentleman? I never committed the SNP to anything. What I did was make suggestions about what the Government may do. To toss around the £77 billion figure, which refers to the 1995 Act, is something I have never done. House of Commons Library figures show that the cost of reversing the 2011 Act would be £30 billion by 2026. Let us get the facts right. Rather than the nonsense from the Conservative Benches, we will tell the truth; they can spin the nonsense.

The Government keep telling us that this matter was decided in 2011 and we should just meekly accept that. What arrogance! I, and every other Member elected in May 2015, was sent to this place not to accept whatever went before. We were sent here to represent the views of our constituents in this Parliament. If we want to change the 2011 Act, we can do it. The Minister should stop hiding behind that. We cannot be bound by the mistakes of past Parliaments. We are here to speak up for our constituents, to hold the Government to account and to make sure they right this wrong. My heavens, the ways of this place are archaic! It is little wonder that people in Scotland see Westminster as out of touch and irrelevant.

Although the Government and the Minister are yet to repent, the pensions Minister in the previous Government, Steve Webb, admitted recently that the Government made a bad decision on state pension age rises. It is time not just for Steve Webb but for the Government to repent. When the Minister responsible for piloting the Bill through Parliament can see the error of his ways, surely the Treasury can recognise it has to act in the best interests of the women affected. When I think of the intransigence of the Treasury in not recognising its responsibility to do the right thing, I am reminded of a line that I am sure could be used in a school report card for the Chancellor of the Exchequer: we thought George had reached rock bottom; sadly, he has kept digging. This is one hole that the Government have to dig themselves out of. Many Conservative Members are hoping that this issue and the WASPI women are just going to go away. That is not going to happen. We will keep fighting for the WASPI women, because it is the right thing to do. The Chancellor has refused to act—the iron Chancellor in his bunker.

When we start to pay national insurance, we are entering a contract with the state to receive a pension. The Government have an obligation to meet that commitment. There has to be fairness and transparency, and that is what is lacking in this case. We are asking for the Government to put in place mitigation to reflect and recognise that the pace of the pension age increase is far too steep. It is a pity, in the week that they are welcoming the fiscal framework that would allow us to proceed with the Scotland Bill, that we are not seeing pensions provision come to Scotland. One thing is crystal clear: if we had powers over pensions in Scotland we would do the right thing for our pensioners.

Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Debate between Richard Graham and Ian Blackford

Monday 1st February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Richard Graham]

May I make a little progress before giving way to the hon. Lady?

First, I agree that the changes in the Pensions Act 1995 and the Pensions Act 2011 will undoubtedly be difficult for women born in the 1950s. Indeed, those changes have been underway for some time and the pension age for women is already 63. But—this is a significant but, and a challenge that has to be made today—I do not accept the proposed WASPI solution, and I will explain why.

The e-petition states:

“The Government must make fair transitional arrangements for all women born on or after 6th April 1951 who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age”.

The fair, transitional arrangement sought by the campaign is spelt out on the WASPI Facebook page, which reads:

“What is our ask?... put all women born in the 50s, or after 6th April 1951 and affected by the changes to the state pension age in the same financial position they would have been in had they been born on or before 5th April 1950.”

One of the key WASPI campaigners, Anne Keen, who I imagine is here today, said in her evidence to the Women and Equalities Committee,

“we feel this is a very fair ask”.

Now, the impact of the ask that appears on the WASPI Facebook page has been estimated at more than £30 billion. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a little bit more clarity on that. The figure is a third more than the entire Transport budget, more than the entire budget of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and probably the same as—possibly more than—the entire budget for Scotland. What we are talking about today may be considered a very fair ask by some people, but others may consider it an enormous and wholly inappropriate ask.

The petition states that the WASPI campaign agrees with equalisation, but the implication of the ask on the Facebook page, and as repeated to the Women and Equalities Committee, is to unwind the 1995 Act, which was brought in specifically to bring about the equality of gender.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

rose—

[Richard Graham]

If the spokesman for the Scottish National party wishes me to give way, I am happy to do so.

[Ian Blackford]

We recognise that equalisation has to take place, but this is about the pace of change and the desire to ensure that mitigation can take place. We talked about the pension age being 63. As it is, somebody born in February 1954 will not retire until July 2019—two and a half years after somebody born a year earlier. That cannot be acceptable. Also, £30-odd billion is not the spending in one year; it is the spending up to 2026. The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right.

[Richard Graham]

I am half grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The SNP’s position has always been interesting, because its Members are in the happy situation of being able to say—and, if need be, to promise—whatever they like without any danger of having to fulfil a commitment on the pension age. I notice that he did not try to commit himself to any transitional arrangement, let alone the full transitional arrangement proposed by the WASPI campaign. It is fine for hon. Members to posture in this debate, and I am in no doubt that we will see a great deal of that, but it is unkind and unfair to the WASPI campaigners for Members not to speak honestly about what they and their party would do.