Housing and Social Security

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

I want to place on the record my apologies for disappearing from the debate last night: I had a meeting with the Brexit Secretary, and that was unavoidable. I echo the comments made by Government and Opposition Front Benchers yesterday in offering their sympathies and condolences to all those who have died, been injured or been terribly affected by the horrendous recent events in Manchester and London.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck). She quite rightly said that the hon. Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad) has had the most extraordinary introduction to her career as an MP. She has conducted herself extremely well, and I commend her for her maiden speech. I also commend my hon. Friends the Members for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) and for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) for theirs. All three have made a very fine start to their parliamentary careers, and I am sure that we will hear much more from them in the future.

Mr Speaker, you and I were elected 20 years ago. I am proud to return to the House as the Member for North Shropshire, with a record number of votes and a record percentage of the vote. I put that down partly to my very clear line that I want decisions about our laws and our money to be taken in this place by directly elected politicians. I am very proud to follow my predecessor—the, sadly, late John Biffen—who voted against the European Communities Act 1972, and it is tremendous to be present for a debate on a Gracious Speech that states, among its first lines, that we will repeal the European Communities Act. We will be delivering what 17.4 million people voted for, which happily was announced on my birthday at about this time last year.

Members on both sides of the House had better realise that for the first time, a massive vote in a referendum has gone against the wishes of the establishment. That is a constitutional novelty and all of us in this House had better wake up to the catastrophic damage that will be incurred to the integrity of the whole political establishment if we do not deliver.

I am delighted to say that in the election, 85% of the electorate voted for the Conservative party and the Labour party, both of which said in their platforms that we will honour the vote, we will leave the European Union, we will leave the single market and we will leave the customs union. The Liberals, bravely and quixotically, said that they would not and did extremely badly. They got only 2.4 million votes. I believe that we have a very clear mandate in this Parliament to deliver. The Gracious Speech makes it clear that that is what we will do.

About three years ago, I made a speech saying that we should nationalise the acquis. That was my expression for adopting the whole corpus of European law and filleting it at a later date. The idea goes right back to the reception statute of Virginia of 1776, the reception provision of the Delaware constitution of 1776, the moves to make Australia and New Zealand independent, the Irish Free State Constitution Act 1922 and the Indian Independence Act 1947, all of which adopted existing UK law but said that from the stroke of midnight, any further provisions made in this Parliament would not apply.

That is effectively what we will say. We are going to take back control of our laws for the elected Members of this House. We are going to take back control of our money. There is much debate among Members from every part of the House. Every one of us knows how we would like to spend public money in our constituency. Happily, we will have £10 billion, which is our net contribution, to play with. We can decide in this House what to do with it. If we make bad decisions, we will get kicked out and people who might make better decisions about money will replace us.

Leaving the single market will deliver on the political imperative and the economic imperative. Opposition Members rightly say that we should have a Brexit for jobs. They go on about the single market, but do they realise that in 1999, 61% of our trade went to the EU, today it is 45% and in a few years’ time it will be 35%? The growth is in trade with the rest of the world. That is where our future lies. That is why I am delighted that we will leave the customs union. The Secretary of State for International Trade is in the States at the moment.

The EU is pathetic at striking trade deals around the world. I was involved in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations with Secretary Vilsack in the States. The whole £100 billion deal was stuck on the Greek definition of feta. The EU moves as slowly as the lamest donkey in the caravan. We can now do trade deals with countries that are hungry to trade with us. That is the future. Do not forget that that will help many in the developing world. It is a disgrace that because of the common external tariff, Germany earns $3.8 billion from coffee and the whole of Africa, where they grow the stuff, earns only $2.4 billion because of the tariffs on worked coffee. Ending that would bring huge benefits, probably bigger than many aid budgets.

Looking quickly to the clock, Northern Ireland brings all this together, with the need for seamless borders and trade that is as free as possible. Critically, we have the ability to bring that about with modern technology. Today, 10,000 trucks will go from Canada to Detroit and they will not stop. With automatic number plate recognition and electronic invoicing, problems at the border are surmountable.

I will speak rapidly about the right of abode. I am delighted that the Prime Minister will make a commitment today on the 3 million EU citizens and the 1 million UK citizens.

Lastly, it is tremendous to see in the Queen’s Speech that we will have a UK agriculture policy and a UK fisheries policy right out to 200 miles, decided by elected politicians in this House. I support the Gracious Speech.

[Mr Speaker]

I do hope that, with the passage of time, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire will learn to overcome his natural shyness and to tell us what he really thinks.

Personal Independence Payment: Regulations

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, I point out that there are 10 other Members who wish to make speeches in the debate, including the Minister who will wind up. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) is being very generous, not only with her own time, but with time that would otherwise be available to others. I know she will want to tailor her contribution accordingly.

[Mr Jones]

I advise my hon. Friend not to put much credence in planted Whips’ questions from Tory Back Benchers. Another element of concern relates to people whose mental health condition worsens when they have a failed assessment. In some cases, they end up going into hospital, which is another cost for the NHS.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I very politely suggest to the House that, although we will not at this stage have a formal time limit on Back-Bench speeches, if each Back-Bench contributor feels able to confine himself or herself to five or six minutes or thereabouts, everyone will get in? We will start with the sage from Swindon: Mr Justin Tomlinson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I please ask hon. Members now to stick to five minutes each, otherwise either a Member who wants to speak will not get in, or there will not be time for a proper ministerial response, about which hon. Members would understandably, but too late, be the first to complain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Lady is making a good speech, and she makes some valuable points about PIP, but it has got nothing to do with the regulations we are talking about today.

[Mr Speaker]

The Chair has to make a judgment about pertinence and at this stage I am content with my own judgment. If the hon. Gentleman is not, I shall do my best to bear that burden with such stoicism and fortitude as I am able to muster.

[Nusrat Ghani]

We have heard experiences of where PIP is not working, but I wanted to share experiences of where it is working, as it is important to hear them, too. The point I was trying to make is that we have got many more people with disabilities going back into work, but I want to make sure that we campaign hard for those who have sight loss to ensure that they have those opportunities, too. Half a million more people are benefiting from opportunities to secure work. We have half a million more people who can support families and loved ones; half a million more people are supporting themselves, their communities and the economy. I thank the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth for giving us the opportunity to reflect on that and, no doubt, welcome those figures as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I advise the House I would like the Minister to have 10 minutes in which to reply, so she needs to be on her feet at four minutes past 5.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I want to start by thanking the Minister. Last Wednesday, as I was coming down the escalator, she, in a large crowd of people, was coming in the opposite direction and let us know in no uncertain terms that we should leave the building. I thank her for that.

Moving on to the debate, I thank my staff, who, like others, have a 100% success rate in the appeals that we have taken up in our office. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for facilitating this debate—or, in fact, forcing it on the Government. The Government should have facilitated it in a timely manner, and they stand condemned for failing to do so in spite of a cross-party request that they make time available. I am pleased that the original prayer that we tabled with the support of the main Opposition party has led to the successful securing of this debate under Standing Order No. 24, thanks to the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams).

As Members have said, PIP helps disabled people to meet some of the costs related to their impairment or condition, and the Government have a stated intention of securing parity of esteem for physical and mental health. How does stopping people with mental health problems securing extra support through PIP for their journey—that is activity 11, I believe—help to achieve parity of esteem?

The Government claim that they are simply affirming what was originally intended in the legislation. I dispute that, and the evidence backs me up. Members have quoted what the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) said about that, particularly the phrase that

“PIP is designed to assess barriers individuals face, not make a judgment based on their impairment type.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2012; Vol. 540, c. 232W.]

Lord Freud said:

“One of the big differences between ?the personal independence payment and DLA is that the personal independence payment looks at the person’s ability to plan and execute a journey, not just at their physical capacity.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 February 2011; Vol. 725, c. 9.]

Those examples alone demonstrate that the Government’s intention was to allow people with mental health problems to receive PIP to assist them if their mental health meant that they could not travel without assistance. If the Government want to change the law because of the extra costs associated with funding parity of esteem, so be it, but let us have proper scrutiny, a proper debate and a proper vote, not this piece of parliamentary jiggery-pokery.

[Mr Speaker]

We are most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I advise the Minister that she should sit down no later than 5.13 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Lamb]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You rightly ensured that the Minister had enough time to answer questions, but none of what she is saying is about the key issue in the regulations.

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman must seek to intervene if he can and pursue other mechanisms if he cannot.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I am coming on to the regulations, but I think that the key to this whole debate is that people are questioning the parity between mental health and physical health. I point out to the House that mental health was never more prominent on any previous Government’s agenda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In an earlier intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), I forgot to mention an indirect interest: my wife sits as a tribunal judge. I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has made the position clear and he has done so very quickly, and the House will have noted that.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I apologise to you and the House for inadvertently misleading it during my Adjournment debate last Thursday on the Ratty’s Lane incinerator? I said that in 2012 Hertfordshire County Council objected to 46 of Veolia’s HGV movements a day, and that the company was now proposing 212 HGV movements a day. That figure was provided to me by Veolia on 4 March 2016, but I have since discovered that the actual number is 268 HGV movements a day. [Interruption.] Nothing Veolia tells me turns out to be the reality of the situation, but I owe it to this House to do my homework more thoroughly, so may I apologise to you again, Mr Speaker, for misleading this House and to my esteemed colleagues in this place, who indicate that they share my sense of outrage?

[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.)

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) on the campaign that she has run with the Public and Commercial Services Union and local residents to keep open the Eastern Avenue jobcentre, which serves both our constituencies. Will the Minister confirm that the only reason for closing Eastern Avenue is to save money, and that if it closes, extra capacity will be needed at Cavendish Court and Woodhouse jobcentres? In the light of that need for extra capacity, will he produce figures showing whether there will actually be any net saving as a result of the closure of Eastern Avenue?

[Mr Speaker]

It is very cheeky to ask three questions even when asked with the skill and confidence of the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Damian Hinds]

I hope that I can provide the hon. Gentleman with some comfort. First, let me say that saving money is not a bad thing in itself; it is a good thing, and this overall programme will save some £180 million nationwide. That means that we can reinvest in frontline staff, which will have the biggest effect on helping people to return to work. As for the specific case of Sheffield, the changes will increase the utilisation of the entire estate from 51% to 69% when some of the business moves, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, to the other two sites.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)]

The hon. Lady will of course be aware that tax credits fall within the remit of Her Majesty’s Treasury, and I will be happy to ensure that that is raised with the relevant Minister.

[Mr Speaker]

Forgive me, I could not hear the Secretary of State and did not lip read effectively, but I now realise at what he was hinting. No doubt an answer will be furnished in due course.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

T7. Has any of the team seen today’s news about the one-hour-a-month contract offered by Santander bank? Will the Minister guarantee that under no circumstances will any job like that ever be advertised in a jobcentre in this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Time is against us and we must hear the voice of Batley and Spen.

[Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

A constituent of mine, whom I have spoken of before, lost her job on Christmas eve. She is denied universal credit because she is over 60 and she is denied jobseeker’s allowance because her husband has a small private pension. This couple’s lives have been thrown into financial turmoil. Does the Minister agree that it is time the Government paid some compensation to this constituent, as she has paid in all her life?

Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Member trustees—

“(1) By a date to be set by the Secretary of State in regulations, approved Master Trust Schemes must ensure that at least a third of the trustees of the scheme are Member Trustees.

(2) Member Trustees must be individuals who are—

(a) members of the Master Trust scheme; and

(b) not members of senior management of a company that is enrolled in the Master Trust scheme.

(3) Member Trustees must be appointed by a process in which—

(a) any member of the scheme who meets the condition in subsection (2) is to apply to be a Member Trustee,

(b) all the active members of the scheme, or an organisation which adequately represents the active members, are eligible to participate in the selection of the Member Trustees, and

(c) all the deferred members of the scheme, or an organisation which adequately represents the deferred members, are eligible to participate in the selection of the Member Trustees.

(4) Member Trustees should be given sufficient time off by their employer to fulfil their duties.

(5) For the purpose of this clause “senior management”, in relation to an organisation, means the persons who play significant roles in—

(a) the making of decisions about how the whole or a substantial part of its activities are to be managed or organised, or

(b) the actual managing or organising of the whole or a substantial part of those activities.”

This new clause requires Master Trusts to make provision for some form of member representation within Master Trusts.

New clause 3—Member representation and engagement—

“One year on from the registration of Master Trusts by the Pensions Regulator, the Government will fully review member trustee representation, member engagement and annual member meetings.”

This new clause requires the Government to set up a review into member representation and engagement within Master Trusts.

New clause 4—Requirement to hold an Annual Member Meeting—

“(1) The trustees of an authorised Master Trust scheme must hold an annual meeting open to all members of the scheme.

(2) The Master Trust must take all reasonable steps to make the meeting accessible to all members, this includes making arrangements for—

(a) scheme members to observe the meeting remotely, and

(b) scheme members to submit questions to trust members remotely.”

This new clause requires Master Trusts to hold an Annual Member Meeting, and sets out ways to ensure members are properly given the opportunity to be involved.

New clause 5—Excluded groups—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months from the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent, establish a review of participation in Master Trust schemes.

(2) The review must consider what steps can be taken to increase the participation in Master Trust schemes by the following groups—

(a) carers,

(b) self-employed,

(c) workers with multiple employees, and

(d) workers with annual earnings below £10,000.

(3) One of the options considered by the review to improve participation must be changes to the terms of auto-enrolment.”

This new clause enshrines the requirement on the Government to do something specific for currently excluded groups.

New clause 6—Exit fees—

“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations restrict or set limits to exit fees paid by members of a Master Trust scheme.

(2) For the purposes of section (1) “members” includes past and current, active and deferred members.”

This new clause makes provision for the Secretary of State to restrict exit fees paid by Master Trust schemes’ members.

New clause 7—Asset protection for unincorporated businesses—

“The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision to amend section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 in order to protect unincorporated businesses who are at risk of losing their personal assets including their homes.”

New clause 8—Review of actuarial mechanisms for valuing pension scheme liabilities—

“Within six calendar months from the day on which this Act comes into force, the Secretary of State must conduct a review of the actuarial mechanisms used to value pension scheme liabilities under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995.”

New clause 9—Non-associated multi-employer schemes: orphan debt—

“The Secretary of State must, by regulations, exclude from the calculation in section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 the orphan debt in any non-associated multi-employer scheme.”

Amendment 5, in clause 8, page 5, line 41, after “scheme” insert “or scheme funder”.

The financial sustainability of the scheme funder must be taken into account when assessing a Master Trust scheme’s financial sustainability.

Amendment 6, in clause 11, page 8, line 1, leave out subsection (b) and insert—

“(b) either the only activities carried out by the body corporate or partnership are activities that relate directly to the Master Trust scheme, or if the body corporate or partnership carries out activities other than those defined as “restricted activities.””

This amendment allows for exceptions to the requirement that a scheme funder must only carry out activities directly relating to the Master Trust scheme for which it is a scheme funder.

Amendment 1, page 8, line 13, at end insert—

“( ) A minimum requirement of annual reporting of administration, fund management costs and transaction costs for each asset class, drawdown product and for active and passive asset management strategies.”

This amendment would introduce annual reporting and inclusion of transaction costs requirements for Master Trusts.

Amendment 7, in clause 10, page 7, line 23, at end insert—

“(6A) The Secretary of State may by regulations define “restricted activities” and these regulations must set out activities that a scheme funder cannot engage in to minimise risk of losses or liabilities which might deplete or divert its financial resources.”

This amendment makes provision for the Secretary of State to define “restricted activities” by regulation, including a list of specific activities restricted in order to minimise risk of loss by Master Trust scheme funders.

Amendment 2, in clause 22, page 16, line 28, after “employers” insert “and scheme members”.

This amendment ensures that scheme members are told of triggering events as well as employers.

Amendment 4, in clause 31, page 23, line 16, leave out paragraph (d).

This amendment removes the part that allows Master Trusts to halt making payments to pensioners in the event of a pause order.

Amendment 3, page 23, line 27, at end insert—

“(f) directive that employers will retain both their own and employee contributions pending resolution of the pause order.”

This amendment requires employers to hold onto employee and employer contributions during a pause order.

Amendment 8, page 23, line 27, at end insert—

“(f) a direction that further contributions or payments to be paid towards the scheme by or on behalf of any employers or members (or any specified employers or members) are collected and held in a separate fund until the conclusion of the pause order;”

This amendment provides the Pensions Regulator with an alternative to stopping payments to the schemes under subsection 5(b) of a pause order.

Amendment 9, page 23, line 39, at end insert—

“(7A) The Secretary of State may by regulations set conditions on the terms of a separate fund used for purposes under section 5(f).”

This amendment is consequential to amendment 8.

[Alex Cunningham]

Generally speaking, this is a good Bill, and it goes a long way to properly regulating master trusts and looking after the interests of the pension scheme members. Sadly, it does not address the WASPI issue, which we raised on Second Reading and in Committee, as it has been ruled out of scope of the Bill. However, I am pleased to report that Stockton Borough Council backed the WASPI women. Tory councillors abstained on the vote, so clearly they are not very happy with the Government either.

There are a number of aspects of the Bill that could still be improved and that could better protect and inform scheme members. Sadly, after the Commons Committee stage, it was clear that we had failed to convince the Government of that, but having reviewed the Minister’s arguments we still believe that a number of issues need to be covered on Report this afternoon.

New clause 1 returns to the issue of a funder of last resort for master trusts. Contrary to the written statement from the Under-Secretary of State for Pensions, which we received on Monday, the removal of this clause is significant, and I was surprised that he felt that it was not. This new clause looks to ensure that, in the event of a master trust failing, there is a funder of last resort— somebody in place who guarantees that scheme members are not left out of pocket through no fault of their own. This would, in effect, act as a final underpinning of the promises that have been made to scheme members, giving them recourse to a legally established funding organisation committed to making good on scheme member dues. When this was debated in Committee, the Minister refused to back this most sensible of additions to the regulations of the Bill, arguing that it would place an unnecessary additional burden, that the new regulatory regime was sufficient to make the risk of collapse absolutely minimal, that existing master trusts would pick up any scheme members affected by their master trust failing, and that the Government were consulting the industry on the creation of a panel of white knights, who would commit to stepping in to ensure that all scheme members are protected.

I am glad that we have the Minister on record saying that there is no chance of a master trust going bust under the regulatory regime that this Bill creates. It is clearly a gamble that he is willing to take. Opposition Members are not prepared to gamble with people’s pension savings. In order to best protect scheme members, we need the strongest possible regulatory environment in place. Unlike the Minister, we are not content to leave things to chance.

We have support from the industry itself for these proposals. For example, the chair of the Standard Life master trust has called on the Government to be the funder of last resort, because

“their policy foul-ups have allowed the proliferation of unsustainable Master Trusts.”

It is interesting that the Minister plans for a panel of white knights. Does that suggest that he does accept that there is a chance that a master trust might slip through his regulatory regime and leave scheme members unprotected? If he does, why not go the whole way and put the proper guarantees in the Bill? There is simply no guarantee that another trust will choose to pick up one that is failing. Why would it? What obligation does it have and why would it be in its interests to do so? Yes, there have been a few pragmatic actions in this area, but nothing is guaranteed.

We all know that the pensions industry and the financial services industry have seen plenty of failures. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what happens if a large master trust fails and the data are in a mess and take months to cleanse before getting members transferred to a new scheme. We cannot simply hope that another trust will just pick that up. Instead, we must intervene now to ensure a proper back-up plan. The Government must prepare for the worst-case scenario, and nothing I have seen so far convinces me that Ministers are doing so.

We need a funder of last resort because we must be able to predict what could happen, even if there is only the slightest chance of it happening, and ensure that we have a plan of protection in place. I ask again: why will the Minister not provide people all over this country with a 100% assurance that the Bill without this provision is enough to protect members. If he is to ignore our sensible new clause, he must guarantee that no master trust will be in a situation in which it has failed and has insufficient resources to meet costs. In the absence of greater clarity, it is essential that this new clause is in the Bill.

I now turn to new clause 2 and the issue of member-nominated trustees for master trusts. I remind the House that all the investment risk lies with the member and not the sponsor or the provider of the scheme, and they should therefore have representation at decision-making levels of the scheme. The Pensions Act 1995 introduced the requirement for company pension schemes to have member-nominated trustees. If the scheme’s sole trustee is a company, including the employer rather than individuals, scheme members will have the right to nominate directors of that company—member-nominated directors. The Pensions Act 2004 enshrined the right to have at least one third scheme member trustees of a trust-based scheme. The Pensions Regulator is clear that master trusts are covered by this legislation, which is why some already have member-nominated trustees. What the regulator offers in explanation is that there are exemptions that can be taken by master trust, giving the reasoning that having a pool of members greater than a single employer-based scheme poses problems of choice. We find that an inadequate reason for exemption. The greater the number of members, surely the bigger the pool of choice.

We do not agree that independent trustees can adequately represent the fiduciary interests of members if they have no stake in the investment process. What is more, they are paid and chosen by the master trust. This exemption seems like a convenient way of denying the right to representation by those who do have a material interest in the performance of the master trust. We have returned today with an amendment that seeks to give scheme members the law to which they should be automatically entitled. In these circumstances, my references to MNTs apply equally to MNDs.

The Association of Member Nominated Trustees is adamant that master trusts must be obliged to have member representation on their boards. However, it is no surprise that a master trust is lobbying against that. Such companies are mostly profit-making entities. However, it is in their own best interests that they have scheme member representation to win the confidence of the scheme members. The role of the MNT and the trustee boards is sometimes underplayed or undervalued. The Association of Member Nominated Trustees said:

“Members are particularly comforted by having an MNT presence for their scheme. It helps them to feel reassured their retirement interests are truly being met and understood most importantly, but also that they aren’t being ripped off in excessive costs and charges.”

They are the only ones who have no personal interest or gain; their only interests are those of the member. ShareAction also agrees that savers should be able to subject decisions made on their behalf to a healthy degree of scrutiny and challenge.

Ensuring effective governance for pension schemes remains a challenge. Although trust-based schemes benefit from a clear governing body in the form of the trustees, there is a clear absence of member-nominated trustees in the majority of master trusts. However, although some companies choose to operate a trust-based defined contribution scheme, most new auto-enrolled members will not find themselves saving into one. Instead, the vast majority of people will find themselves saving into a master trust or a group personal pension arrangement. In those schemes, member representation on governance boards is far more rare. At this point, I wish to refer back to the concerns that the Pensions Regulator made about master trust governance. In January 2013, said:

“We have identified a number of characteristics that, if present, may prevent these schemes from delivering good outcomes. These are: conflicts of interest as a result of the relationship between the provider and trustees; decision-making powers vested with the provider rather than trustees; a lack of independent oversight in some master trusts – unlike traditional occupational DC schemes, member and employer representatives are unlikely to be involved in important decision-making processes”.

Yes, the Bill may go some way to addressing these concerns, but it does not go far enough. We can build greater trust in the system; increase diversity and bring a range of different perspectives and experiences; and highlight areas that are of interest to members. Once again, we find no real impediment to this amendment. The law requiring master trusts to have scheme member trustees applies and exemption does exist, but that need not be required and should, in our view, be overridden.

Continuing with the theme of engaging with members, I will now address new clause 3. It requires that, one year on from the incorporation and registration of master trusts by the Pensions Regulator, the Government will fully review member-trustee representation, member engagement and annual general meetings for members.

The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that there is a review of the new master trust governance and member engagement processes. Pensions Regulator guidance stressed the importance of understanding and engaging with members to define objectives for the scheme and setting an appropriate strategy—for example, the TPR code of practice 13 on governance and administration of occupational trust-based schemes providing money purchase benefits.

TPR has stacks of advice on these issues for master trusts to follow, but we want a commitment from the Government that they will ensure that master trusts are operating in the interests of members and that the potential of a conflict of interest—in other words, the profit motive—does not get in the way. We need to make sure that there is an opportunity for experienced eyes to take a good look at the system a year after its creation. If there are risks, they must be accounted for. One way to do that is to form a Government inspection of the system.

I turn to new clause 4, which requires master trusts to hold an annual member meeting and sets out ways to ensure that members are properly given the opportunity to be involved. It is now common practice for pension funds to hold a meeting with members on an annual basis. Good member communications, provided at the right time and in an accessible format, are vital if members are to engage and make decisions that lead to good outcomes in retirement. In the Committee debate, the Minister suggested:

“Documents relating to the governance of a scheme, such as the trustees’ annual report, the chair’s statement and the statement of investment principles, have to be provided on request.”––[Official Report,Pension Schemes Public Bill Committee; 9 February 2017 c. 118.]

Having to request information about what one is paying for is the wrong way round. Let us not forget that many master trusts are profit making, so members should be given information as a matter of routine and not by request.

An annual meeting for members ensures that trustees and administrators can be made human and accountable rather than being at some distant, bureaucratic and faceless place. Trustee boards should regularly review member communications and, when deciding on the format of communications, take account of innovations and technology that may be available to them and appropriate to their members. That would allow the more engaged members to hear a presentation from trustees and senior executives about how the scheme has managed their retirement assets over the previous year and what plans the scheme has to deliver strategy and manage risk into the future on behalf of members.

Pensions Regulator guidance accompanying its new DC code highlights AMMs as one way in which multi-employer schemes can stay close to members. Through the new clause, master trusts would be brought into line with normal practice in the corporate sector and among the growing number of pension schemes.

I want to return at new clause 5 to the issue of groups currently excluded from master trust saving—specifically carers, the self-employed, those working multiple jobs and people on low incomes. As it stands, the Bill does not expand the successful auto-enrolment policy: that could have made a real difference to a number of groups who, the evidence suggests, are not saving adequately for their retirement. The Minister and I debated this issue in Committee, so I shall return to the issue only briefly.

As I recognised then, the Government have announced a review relating to the operation of auto-enrolment into master trust savings. Currently, however, the scope of that review is too broad, with few specifics set out to keep the Government to their word. The evidence speaks for itself: too many people are not putting enough away to guarantee the secure and dignified retirement that the Labour party has always worked to provide and continues to strive towards today.

Some 37% of female workers, 33% of workers with a disability and 28% of black and minority ethnic workers are not eligible for master trust savings through auto-enrolment, according to the latest DWP statistics. In Committee, the Minister suggested that gender equality was not an issue under auto-enrolment savings; I suspect that he may have been referring to the participation rate among eligible employees, which is fairly equal between genders. The statistics that I have cited, however, relate to those not eligible, and I believe women are over-represented. Perhaps the Minister can look again at the issue and write if he has evidence to the contrary.

On the specific groups, I would like to press the Minister on the issue of carers, who, as we know, make such a vital contribution to our society, public services and economy. In Committee, the Minister suggested that he would like carers to be included under the Government’s review of auto-enrolment, but accepted that they are not currently specified. May I push him to commit explicitly to including carers under the terms of the review now? I am sure that it would be of great comfort to our carers if they knew that their situation was being looked at specifically by the Government.

Personal Independence Payments

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mrs Mary Glindon.

[Mary Glindon]

Further to a previous question, Muscular Dystrophy UK has said today that figures show that 900 mobility vehicles a week are being removed from people due to the PIP reforms but that many of the vehicles are subsequently returned on appeal. Will the Government ensure that a mobility vehicle cannot be taken away from any individual until there is a final decision on their eligibility for the enhanced rate?

Personal Independence Payments

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

Let me deal with some of the detailed points raised by the hon. Lady. Incidentally, we are appealing the judgments, but because of the lack of clarity that would be caused by leaving the current regulations in limbo following the upper tribunal’s decisions, it is better to move quickly. I should also say that the tribunal has itself said that the assessment criteria are not clear. If the tribunal believes that, I am more than happy to accept it—indeed, I am grateful to it for telling us that the criteria are not clear—so I am now taking the opportunity to clarify the existing regulations.

The hon. Lady talked about the effect on disabled people. I absolutely agree with her that that is the central core of what we are trying to do. I point out to her that over two thirds of PIP recipients with a mental health condition get the enhanced rate daily living component, compared with just 22% who used to receive the highest rate of DLA care. That is why PIP is a better benefit than DLA. That happened previously under the existing regulations, and I am now restoring that situation.

The hon. Lady’s questions were predicated on this being a cut. It is simply not a cut; it is not entirely honest of her to say that it is a cut. If she looks at the facts of the case, she will recognise that people claiming PIP—specifically those with mental health conditions—have been and are better off with PIP. We are making the benefit clear. We are making the change so that the benefit is paid as it has been since it was first introduced, which is better for people, particularly those with mental health conditions.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I respect the cut and thrust of debate, but there can be no accusation of dishonesty in this Chamber.

[Damian Green]

I will happily withdraw—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is quite sufficient. No further explanation is required. I am very grateful to the Secretary of State, and deeply obliged to him.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

I welcome the fact that the Government are now, rightly, spending a record amount to support those with long-term health conditions and disabilities. If the Government were to decide to increase that amount yet further, surely that should be done in conjunction with charities and stakeholders, utilising their expertise, rather than on an ad hoc basis dictated by the courts?

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

The equality analysis is available. I can only emphasise to the hon. Lady’s constituents—[Interruption.]—and indeed to those of the shadow Secretary of State, who is chuntering from a sedentary position, that this is not a change in policy or a cut. Nobody will receive less benefit than they were originally awarded by the DWP. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

There are people on both sides who are chuntering from a sedentary position, which is certainly not something I ever remember doing myself when I was on the Back Benches.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I remember that you sat next to me on those Benches, Mr Speaker.

We have an excellent Secretary of State, probably one of the most caring in the Government, and I am sure that what the Government are doing is correct. As the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) said, however, Members have the opportunity today to highlight the fact that the process of assessment is not working for a number of our constituents. I am fed up with seeing every week a constituent who clearly should have been awarded PIP but is not getting it. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more on how we are going to improve that situation?

Intergenerational Fairness

John Bercow Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

As far as I can see, there are four more would-be Back-Bench contributors. I should have thought that we will need to start the Front-Bench wind-ups no later than 6.30 pm. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) might want to make a two-minute wind-up.

[Frank Field]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

No—well, the wind-ups should certainly start no later than 6.30 pm.

Social Security and Pensions

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2017, which was laid before this House on 16 January, be approved.

[Mr Speaker]

With this we shall consider the following motion:

That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2017, which was laid before this House on 16 January, be approved.

[Caroline Nokes]

With the leave of the House, and as you have indicated, Mr Speaker, my remarks will cover motions 3 and 4 on the Order Paper. In my view, the provisions in both orders are compatible with the European convention on human rights.

I will first deal with an entirely technical matter that we attend to in this place each year and that I do not imagine we will need to dwell on today. The Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2017 provides for contracted-out benefit schemes to increase members’ guaranteed minimum pensions that accrued between 1988 and 1997 by 1%.

The Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2017 reflects the Government’s continuing commitment to increase the basic and new state pension with the triple lock by 2.5%, to increase the pension credit standard minimum guarantee in line with earnings, and to increase benefits to meet additional disability needs and carer benefits in line with prices. The Chancellor reaffirmed this Government’s commitment to the triple lock for the length of this Parliament in his autumn statement on 23 November last year, ensuring that the basic state pension will continue to be uprated by the highest of earnings, prices or 2.5%. This year, the increase in average earnings and the increase in prices were less than the baseline of 2.5%, meaning that the basic state pension will increase by 2.5%. From April 2017, the rate of the basic state pension for a single person will increase by £3 to £122.30 a week. As a result, the basic state pension will be more than £1,200 a year higher from April 2017 compared with April 2010. We estimate that the basic state pension will be around 18.5% of average earnings—one of its highest levels relative to earnings for over two decades.

Last year, the Government introduced the new state pension for people reaching their state pension age from 6 April 2016 onwards, making the system clearer and providing a sustainable foundation for private saving. The Government have previously announced that the triple lock will apply to the full rate of the new state pension for the length of this Parliament. This is the first year that the new state pension will be uprated. As a result, the full rate of the new state pension will also increase by 2.5% this year, meaning that from April 2017 the full rate of the new state pension will increase by £3.90 to £159.55 a week—around 24.2% of average earnings.

We are continuing to take steps to protect the poorest pensioners, including through the pension credit standard minimum guarantee, the means-tested threshold below which pensioner income should not fall. The pension credit standard minimum guarantee will rise in line with average earnings at 2.4%, meaning that from April 2017 the single person threshold of this safety net benefit will rise by £3.75 to £159.35. Pensioner poverty continues to stand at one of the lowest rates since comparable records began.

On the additional state pension, this year state earnings-related pension schemes, the other state second pensions and protected payments in the new state pension will rise in line with prices, by 1%. The Government will continue to ensure that carers and people who face additional costs because of their disability will see their benefits uprated in the usual way, so disability living allowance, attendance allowance, carer’s allowance, incapacity benefit and the personal independence payment will all rise in line with prices, by 1%, from April 2017.

In addition, those disability-related and carer premiums paid with pension credit and working-age benefits will also increase by 1%, as will the employment and support allowance support group component and the limited capability for work and work-related activity element of universal credit.

This Government will be spending an extra £2.5 billion in 2017-18 on uprating benefit and pension rates. With the guaranteed minimum pensions increase order we continue: to maintain our commitment to the triple lock for both the basic and the new state pension for the length of this Parliament; to increase the pension credit standard minimum guarantee by earnings; and to increase benefits that reflect the additional costs that disabled people face as a result of their disability, and carers’ benefits, in line with prices. That includes increases to the disability living allowance, attendance allowance, carer’s allowance, incapacity benefit, the personal independence payment and disability carer premiums.

I commend the orders to the House.

Point of Order

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I understand that the point of order flows directly from a question, so, exceptionally, I will take it if it is brief.

[Kate Green]

I am very grateful, Mr Speaker. I wish to follow up the answer that the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work gave me a few moments ago about the work-related activity component of the employment and support allowance. The Minister said that no one would be affected by the change before the summer, but the DWP website says—and, indeed, I think we always understood—that it will take effect in April. I wonder whether you, Mr Speaker, will invite the Minister to clarify or correct the record.

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

It is not a matter for the Chair, but the Minister is literally itching to appear at the Dispatch Box.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I am happy to clarify the position. The policy change will happen in April, but it will not start to have an impact on people until later in the year because of the process that they will be going through. However, all the elements of the personalised support package, and all the other things that we are seeking to do to help with individuals’ liquidity, will be in place by April.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I do not agree with the hon. Lady that the measures are punitive. To take just one of the two that she brought up—bereavement payments—as she knows, this measure is bringing three payments into one. The original system was devised for a world in which women often would not work at all and so needed lifelong support, rather than the extra support that they will be offered after such a tragic event. I think she will find that the new system is much fairer and more effective at providing support when it is most wanted.

[Mr Speaker]

Andrew Rosindell—not here.

[Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

T9. Does the Minister agree that it was important to introduce the cap on out-of-work benefits to deal with the excesses of a system that used to see a single household being given £100,000 a year in housing benefit?

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I am not remotely surprised—

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister is not responsible for the presence of Liberal Democrat Members. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman wants to ventilate, I am sure he will do so.

[Damian Green]

I am grateful for your advice, Mr Speaker, because I would be horrified if I were responsible for the attendance record of Liberal Democrats. I am happy to agree completely with my hon. Friend about the long-term economic plan. Our labour market is in its strongest position for years, which is a tribute to a successful economic policy for the past seven years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Single-sentence questions, I hope. Alison Thewliss.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I am astonished that the Secretary of State said that the rape clause was not punitive, given that, in their response to the consultation, the Government said that many respondents considered it

“unacceptable for Government to ask women to re-live the ordeal of a rape just in order to make a claim for benefit.”

Will the Minister and the Government accept that the policy is simply unworkable, and absolutely despicable?