Personal Independence Payment: Regulations

Simon Burns Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He is certainly a witty wag. I would add that, as far as Veolia is concerned, the hon. Gentleman is a formidable foe. I rather imagine the company is discovering that now, if it did not know it before.

[Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As you will appreciate, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) was put in a most unfortunate situation because he was given duff information that he used in good faith. It then turned out that the incorrect information he gave was an underestimate of the severe impact those journeys were going to have on his constituents and local community. Could you advise us, Mr Speaker, of any satisfactory way, notwithstanding my hon. Friend’s generous apology to the House, for the perpetrators of this disinformation to be called to this place to explain why they embarrassed my hon. Friend in a way that led to misleading figures being given in a debate, which had an effect on the views of other hon. Members listening to the debate?

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that point of order. Summoning someone to the Bar of the House is rarely used as a disciplinary device and is an extremely serious matter. I would have to reflect very carefully on whether it would be appropriate in this case. Even if it were not, I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree with me, and I think other hon. Members would agree, that in the circumstances the least we all might expect is for an apology to be proffered by the company. There is no shame in making a mistake, but there certainly is in failing to recognise the fact that one has done so and failing to apologise for having done so. I will wait to see whether we receive an apology. If I receive any such apology, the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to hear of it.

Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 3)

Ordered,

That the Order of 30 January 2017 (Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] (Programme)), as varied by the Order of 22 March 2017 (Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)) be further varied as follows:

(1) The Order of 22 March 2017 (Pension Schemes Bill) [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)) shall be rescinded.

(2) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order of 30 January 2017 (Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] (Programme)) shall be omitted.

(3) Proceedings on Consideration shall be brought to a conclusion immediately after the conclusion of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

(4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 90 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.—(Richard Harrington.)

amendment of the law

Simon Burns Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

We are the party who have said that we will cut the winter fuel allowance for the richest pensioners and means-test that benefit to save money, but Government Members do not support that. The reality is that we are the party who are willing to take tough decisions to get the welfare bill down, whereas it is rising, not falling, under this Government.

The truth is that social security spending is £13 billion more than this Government had planned. In last week’s Budget, the Chancellor had to revise up spending on social security by £1 billion more this year and £1 billion more next year than the Government had planned just six months ago. Was that what the Prime Minister meant when he said that he was cutting the cost of welfare? It is going up, not down.

The problem is that without addressing the cost of living crisis, it is not possible to control the costs of social security. Long-term youth unemployment has doubled since 2010, costing taxpayers £330 million a year. The number of people working part-time who want a full-time job is up to 1.4 million, costing £4.6 billion in extra social security. One in five workers are paid less than a living wage—up from 3.9 million in 2009—costing the Treasury an estimated £3.2 billion a year. Housing benefit is increasing and has been revised up again because house building is at a record low. The Secretary of State has also played his part, with his shambolic welfare reforms. Just one in five people who have been on the Work programme for two years have secured a job; £1 billion has been paid out, yet more people are ending up back in the jobcentre than getting a job through the Secretary of State’s failed Work programme.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

I think I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Given that I have been listening for 12 minutes to her critique of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s Budget, why is it that her party has come out saying it will support so many of its measures? Why is Labour thrashing around with such difficulty to find what to vote against tonight? Will the hon. Lady share with the House what her party plans to vote against?

[Rachel Reeves]

The right hon. Gentleman will not have to wait too long: at 7 pm, he will find out how we will vote on the different measures. Let us be clear: what matters most of all is what was omitted from last week’s Budget, including a compulsory jobs guarantee, a cap on fees and charges and cancelling the bedroom tax. Those things would make a real difference to the lives of our constituents, but the Chancellor did not even mention them in last week’s Budget statement.

The Secretary of State has not just failed with the Work programme; he is failing with universal credit as well. It is years behind schedule and £130 million has already been wasted on IT, yet the Secretary of State continues to say that his flagship reform is on time and on budget.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Burns Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jenny Willott]

The Government are very proud of our record on apprentices. Over this Parliament we are funding a quarter of a million more apprenticeship places. In fact, more girls and women are taking up these opportunities than boys and men, particularly at the higher levels, where over 60% of apprentices are women. There is an issue with the proportion of women taking up more traditionally male apprenticeships, which is something I will be taking up with the Minister for Skills and Enterprise, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock).

Women in Public Life

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

4. What initiatives she has taken to enhance opportunities for women in public life.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Mrs Helen Grant)]

The Government have enabled political parties to use positive action, should they so wish, to increase participation by under-represented groups. We have extended to 2030 their ability to use women-only shortlists. We have also set an aspiration that 50% of new public appointments should be filled by women by the end of this Parliament.

[Mr Burns]

Does my hon. Friend accept that it was a Conservative, Mrs Pankhurst, who campaigned for votes for women; that it was the Conservative party that gave all women the vote; that the first woman to take her seat in this House was a Conservative; and that it was the Conservative party that provided this country’s first woman Prime Minister? We will take no lessons from others about our commitment to enhancing opportunities for women. As I am sure you will appreciate, Mr Speaker, the Unites States will have an opportunity in two years’ time to elect a woman as their next President—Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[Mrs Grant]

Yes, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our party has a proud record on all these areas. However, we recognise that we are on a journey and that it is far from complete. It is therefore very important that all parties continue to prioritise that very important issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Burns Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I declare an interest as chair of the John Clare Trust—it is John Clare’s 150th anniversary this year. We have received a lot of money from the Heritage Lottery Fund. I was against the lottery when it came out, and I was wrong.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

You usually are! [Laughter.]

[Mr Sheerman]

I shall continue being jolly.

I am a little worried, however. Many MPs find the Big Lottery Fund very good for our regions, but regional offices seem to have closed down. Why is that, and could we ensure that a regional presence returns?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

The Government are extremely grateful for the hon. Lady’s support for our policies. We are looking forward to an announcement shortly on the video games tax credits to go alongside the television, animation and film tax credits, which have done so much to support our creative industries, with the support of Manchester city council, which plays a key role in helping to support creative industries in that part of the world.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

T3. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the creative industries are now worth more than £70 billion to the UK economy, and would she care to comment on the success of the creative industries and what support the Government can provide so that they can continue that success?

[Maria Miller]

I am delighted to say that, as we have already announced, the creative industries are now worth £70 billion to this country. It is one of the fastest-growing sectors. It is a little surprising that the Opposition are launching their second review into the creative industries—industries they said were at risk from global pressures—but I am delighted that the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) only last week endorsed our policies when she said that our creative industries were a huge success story. Perhaps that is the result of four years of a Conservative-led Government. We should not return to the idea of—

--- Later in debate ---

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

1. Whether she plans to attend the Sochi 2014 winter Olympic games.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Maria Miller)]

Along with the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport—my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), who is sports Minister—I shall be attending the winter Olympics in Sochi to support our Team GB athletes. The sports Minister and the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who is Minister for disabled people, will also attend the Paralympics to support our Paralympic GB athletes.

[Mr Burns]

Given the attitude of the Russian Government, what have our Government been doing ahead of the winter Olympics to support the LGBT community, many of whom remain deeply worried about their status in Russia?

[Maria Miller]

I share my right hon. Friend’s concern about the protection of human rights for LGBT people in Russia. I have raised the issue personally both with Ministers and with non-governmental organisations, as have my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. Over the coming months, Stonewall will be developing a programme of activities which it will seek to deliver to human rights defenders in Russia, to help them to support LGBT people in the country. Stonewall’s work is being made possible by support from our coalition Government.

Ford and Visteon UK Ltd

Simon Burns Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) for the tremendous work that he has done as chair of the all-party parliamentary group in support of Visteon pensioners since his election to the House, and the way in which he has led his merry band of warriors in keeping this issue at the forefront of people’s minds. We are not prepared to allow it to fade away with time and be forgotten. I think that the strength of feeling and the outrage over what is basically an issue of decency and morality have been obvious in the two speeches that we have heard so far today.

I, too, do not wish to use my speech to knock an international company that provides valuable jobs, expertise and innovation in this country. However, I am baffled by the fact that that it is seemingly being led by its north American approach to business—which is infinitely hard-nosed—and is not prepared to recognise what it is doing to a group of people who, although totally innocent, are being made to suffer ruined retirements, despite the assurances that they were given back in 2000 that their pensions would be looked after and would be on a par with the pensions of those who worked for Ford.

I am surprised at Ford’s intransigence in not recognising its moral duty to act decently. I know that business can be very cynical—Bob Dylan used to say that money shouts—but one would have hoped that there was still a sense of decency, and that this company would be prepared to consider the position of a small group of people who, although they have fought magnificently, will always be the Davids in this David and Goliath battle.

Like my hon. Friend, I find it sad that nothing has moved forward since the last debate, in which I was unfortunately unable to participate because I still wore the shackles of ministerial office. It seems that if we are not careful and if Ford is not prepared to regain its sense of decency, the matter may have to be resolved in the courts, which I do not think is in anyone’s interests, especially given the time scale.

It appears from all the evidence that even if, back at the turn of the century, Ford was following what other companies were doing and removing its suppliers from its direct control by creating new companies, the hands of Visteon, a company created to be independent from Ford, were tied from the outset. I understand that Ford had a virtual monopoly over the parts coming out of Visteon, and was thus in a position to drive down prices unilaterally. There was no proper, vibrant, functioning market, and that is not in any independent company’s natural interest. I also understand that Visteon had to buy its materials from the Ford foundry in Leamington, although they could have been obtained elsewhere at a more competitive and lower price. Once again, Ford seems to have kept Visteon’s hand behind its back and thwarted any opportunity that it might have had to develop as a vibrant, successful company.

I find it incredible that when Ford was keen to create Visteon and cast it aside, in effect, from Ford itself, those who worked for Ford and were going to be employees of the new Visteon were advised that the Ford European works council agreement guarantees that

“Visteon employees transferring their past service benefits to the Visteon Fund will receive the same benefits as at Ford, both now and in the future for all their pensionable service.”

Beyond that, employees were encouraged to join the Visteon scheme and transfer their pensions with statements such as:

“Your accrued pension rights will be protected.”

To me, and probably to all those people who were about to become Visteon employees, those were cast-iron, concrete statements of fact that gave them protection.

We also have to remember that this is not some plan to change pension arrangements in the future. I accept that many private companies over the last decade—as well as Government, and including Members of this House—have been changing their pension arrangements because it has been found that the existing arrangements are too expensive in the current economic climate. They are moving to salary-average schemes, but that is always for the future. They do not start tinkering with the commitments, the payments, the arrangements and the deals that have been done in the past. These changes are for the future. That is not what has happened to the Visteon pensioners, however. Their pensions—that they took out in good faith, and that they believed were safe and secure for all their pensionable life—have now, because of what happened to Visteon in 2009, been noticeably, and in some cases severely, cut by this cynical operation to create a new company independent of Ford.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point, particularly on this issue of the assurances that were given to Visteon pensioners. He, like me, will have received the Visteon action group briefing so he is clearly familiar with this quote:

“Your accrued pension rights will be protected.”

It was also stated that “not only” would their pension be “secure” but it would be in their best interests to “transfer” their pension and their pension benefits were “guaranteed”. People were not being greedy or stupid; they were acting in the best interests of their families and themselves on the best available advice, and it is morally repugnant for a company to walk away from those assurances now, when they were either delivered by that company or were vetted by that company before being delivered.

[Mr Burns]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point because he is absolutely right. There were no weasel words. There were no cop-out clauses or any excuses that could be made that people had misunderstood what had been said to them or the commitments that had been given to them. They were, in so far as anything in life can be, cast-iron guarantees that those people, who in most cases had worked so loyally for so long for Ford, would have their pensions guaranteed. Having met a number of them, including constituents of mine, I have no doubt that they feel as though they have been kicked in the stomach because of what has happened to them and that they are having to suffer through no fault of their own.

That is why I say that Ford—and in particular Ford in the United States of America, which I believe is leading Ford in the UK on this issue—should sit down and quietly consider their conscience again. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) says, “If they’ve got one,” and I can understand why he says that because it does seem that they are without conscience. Of course companies have a responsibility to their existing work force and their shareholders to make a profit, but this is even more important: “You don’t make a profit if you don’t have a loyal, hard-working and decent work force.” If the company is prepared to see some of its work force treated like that, despite the cast-iron guarantees that it gave them, we have to wonder what kind of conscience it has.

I hope that the company will think again as a result of this debate and of the lobbying by Members on both sides of the House, by the trade unions, by the action group and by others, and that it will not consider drawing the matter out even longer, because, sadly, some of those pensioners will die during that time. I hope that the company will do the decent thing, the morally right thing, and restore those pensions to the people who should never have had them taken away from them in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

May I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) on securing this debate? We have heard unanimity across the House on the issues at stake.

I have been struck by the strong sense in the contributions to this debate that Ford has a moral responsibility to take seriously the issues that have emerged since Visteon’s collapse. That point has been put across eloquently by Members from across the House. That moral responsibility comes from the fact that Ford workers, who had given many years of service, believed that their pensions were safe. Some of those workers are with us today. Members from across the House have made the point that Ford is a blue-chip brand with a long track record in the UK. For those reasons, this case has continued to arouse strong feelings on both sides of the House.

I ask hon. Members across the House to reflect on how one ensures that companies engage in and understand their responsibilities beyond the bottom line. Another way to describe a moral responsibility is to say that companies, corporations and those that employ people in our country have obligations beyond just the maximum profit they can make. That is certainly what the workers at Ford always felt, and they were assured—and felt assured—that in transferring their pensions to Visteon, their accrued rights would be protected.

It is important to add and iterate—I suspect the Minister will want to reflect on this—that at play here is the wider issue of what happens when occupational pension schemes get into trouble and it is discovered that they are sponsoring an employer that is going under. The previous Government, reacting to the Visteon case and to other well-known examples, created the Pensions Regulator and the Pension Protection Fund. I suspect the Minister will want to say something about the interaction between those institutions—not just the pensions landscape as it sits now, but as it relates to Visteon pensioners. Indeed, he recently proposed an amendment to the Pensions Bill so that the cap on payments under Pension Protection Fund regulations can be raised. I understand that there are Visteon pensioners who will benefit from that—those who might have retired before Visteon collapsed, but who have long years of service with Ford and then Visteon—but it is not a solution for all those pensioners.

A significant question that has been raised by Members across the House concerns what the Government can do and need to do to ensure and underpin occupational pension arrangements. The Pension Protection Fund and Pensions Regulator are central to that, and if I remember rightly, the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock said that the Government can do more on the cap and the need for proper independent advice on transfers.

Pensions are a complicated business, and during pension transfers from one company to another, employees inevitably depend on the advice they are given from what they understand to be expert sources.

[Mr Simon Burns]

I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I should be grateful to know what his message is to Ford about this unacceptable situation.