Oral Answers to Questions
William Bain Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Ministers promised to cut the waiting period for assessments for PIP to 16 weeks by the end of the year, but will they apologise to 900 people in my constituency and the hundreds of thousands more across the country who have been left to wait for months on end in severe financial hardship?
Mr Harper
I am happy to do so. I have said before that that is not acceptable; I made it clear during my first time at the Dispatch Box. I am happy to say that the Government should have made sure that we did not make that mistake. People should not have had to wait that long. I am making sure that we are doing something about it, as has the Secretary of State, so that people will not have to wait for such a long time in the future.
Jobs and Work
William Bain Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have been troubled, particularly in the past few months, by the growing disconnect between the politics in this House or the constitutional politics of the referendum in Scotland and the real-life experiences of our constituents. With wage growth yet to take hold in any sustained way after the longest period of falling real wages in our history, and with productivity remaining weak and investment low, it is no wonder that claims made by Ministers in this House about a recovery for all count for so little with real Britain.
This Queen’s Speech was this Government’s last opportunity to deal with the huge underlying problems in our society that mean, as the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), admitted in a rare bout of candour from this Government, that ordinary people are not experiencing any kind of recovery in their living standards. The failure of this Government over the four Queen’s Speeches of this Parliament will make even worse the sense of alienation that people feel in communities up and down this country.
However, my discussions with 2,500 constituents on the doorstep in the past month have shown me that people have not given up. Civil society is helping to fill the yawning gaps that this Government are leaving—for example, with the explosion in the use of food banks. They need and deserve a Government who are listening, have a plan for change and are in touch with their lives.
Just as it was Labour in opposition in 1945, 1964, 1974 and 1997 that offered hope that Britain could be better, so it falls to Labour Members now to speak up for the millions of ordinary people who yearn for change and yearn for them to be their voice. In this debate, let us be the voice for the 1.4 million people in this country, including the 120,000 in Scotland, who work part time but need full-time work because of declining wages. Let us be the voice for the tens of thousands of young people suffering for years on end from mass unemployment whom I have encountered in my constituency in the past few months. Let us be the voice for the low-paid and low-skilled workers who need a workplace skills revolution to boost their wages now and to secure greater prospects for the future. Let us be the voice for the 5 million people in this country who go to work and do the right thing, but take home less than the living wage—working longer and longer hours, but finding less and less to show for it.
Mr Steve Reed
My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the living wage. Will he join me in congratulating the six boroughs in London—all of them Labour—that are already living wage employers, and in welcoming Croydon’s intention to join them, now that Croydon also has a Labour council?
Mr Bain
I am most happy to congratulate Labour borough councils up and down the country on those efforts. That shows what Labour can do when it has power. It also shows the difference between the values of Labour and the Scottish National party at Holyrood, which had the opportunity to extend the living wage several weeks ago, but failed resoundingly in that task.
With three in 10 of my constituents who are in work taking home less than the living wage, a Queen’s Speech for the many would have changed the remit of the Low Pay Commission to raise the minimum wage in line with trends in average wages for the next five years.
A Queen’s Speech for the many would have begun the task of reorganising the banks to ensure that they serve ordinary people and businesses, not the other way around. There should be new challenger banks to introduce more competition in the retail banking sector; new regional banks to support SME lending, as the Sparkassen have done for decades in Germany; a national investment bank, modelled on the successes in Germany, France, the United States and South Korea; and an unshackled green investment bank that is able to drive investment in the renewables sector, with the potential to create tens of thousands of skilled jobs in our economy.
To secure fairness for the disadvantaged, there should have been a Bill to raise the taxes on bank bonuses to help pay for a jobs guarantee for long-term unemployed young people and other jobless people, who are crying out for the opportunity to work and who have been let down so badly by this Government and their Work programme. Perhaps when the Prime Minister was trying to rock the boat with Chancellor Merkel and the Swedish and Dutch Prime Ministers over the EU the other day, he should have taken a steer from them about how jobs guarantee policies in Sweden have benefited employers, given opportunities to young people and helped the public finances.
With 1.4 million people in insecure jobs with no guaranteed hours, a Queen’s Speech for the many would have offered the right to defined working hours after a short period in a job. People in Glasgow have told me about the uncertainty that a lack of guaranteed hours is causing them—uncertainty in their family finances, uncertainty over whether they can pay the bills and uncertainty in planning for a decent future.
Given the increasingly skewed jobs market and the lack of skilled service, construction and manufacturing jobs, a Queen’s Speech for the many would have contained measures to boost exports, which remain desperately weak, and to boost investment by businesses, particularly in research and development.
For a stronger recovery that reaches every part of these islands, we need a Queen’s Speech that expands opportunity, boosts incomes and cuts inequality. We need a fresh start and a new Government to replace this tired and clapped-out coalition—a Labour Government for the many, by the many and of the many.
Oral Answers to Questions
William Bain Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Esther McVey
I agree with my hon. Friend. New enterprises are starting up because of the new sense of confidence and optimism in the economy. The extra support that we are putting in place—checking business plans and providing support through mentors—is really paying dividends.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Some 180 young people in my constituency have been out of work for one year or longer. Can the Minister explain to the young man I met two weekends ago—he has been out of work for 18 months and is desperate to find a job—how the Government were so quick to give the banks a tax concession in the Budget, but are so slow to introduce a proper jobs guarantee plan for young people across the country?
Esther McVey
I would like to have a word with the young chap you are talking about, because I would like to give him hope and optimism, which is something that you are distinctly not giving—[Interruption.] I apologise, Mr Speaker. I do not mean your good self: I mean the hon. Gentleman. That young chap needs hope and optimism, and he needs to know what is happening in the rest of the country, because other people are getting jobs. Youth unemployment—including long-term unemployment—has gone down, and if the young chap sticks with it and gives it a go, he will get there in the end. That is the best news that I can give him. It is far better under this Government than it was under the Labour Government, when youth unemployment went up by 45%.
Food Banks
William Bain Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. While we all applaud and thank the food banks, the volunteers and the people who donate food, that is not how our basic needs should be met. The basic need for food should be met through wages and a social safety net when it is needed. The basic need for housing should be met by our wages or by a social safety net when it is needed. The basic need to be able to heat one’s home and turn on the lights should be met by having a decent wage or a social safety net when it is needed.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Has my hon. Friend seen, as I have, the study by the Children’s Society showing that under this Government the real value of the adult national minimum wage is 50p an hour less than it was when Labour was in office? Is this low pay crisis not one of the key drivers of the explosion in the use of food banks?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The national minimum wage was one of the proudest achievements of the previous Labour Government. It lifted millions of people out of poverty pay, the majority of them women, and employment increased when Conservative Members said that unemployment would increase as a result. We also know today that the real value of the national minimum wage has not kept pace with average earnings or with the rising costs of energy, food prices and everything else, and so people who are in work are increasingly having to turn to food banks to be able to make ends meet.
Although we welcome today’s unemployment numbers, we know that a record number of people are working part time who want to work full time, and that for 41 of the 42 months that this Prime Minister has been in office, prices have risen at a faster rate than earnings. For all those reasons, my hon. Friend is right to point to the problems with the minimum wage, which has not kept pace with the rising cost of living and is not even being enforced. With more than 5 million people being paid less than a living wage, we know that we need to redouble our efforts to ensure that more people can support themselves and their families, rather than having to turn to food aid.
Seventy years ago, William Beveridge spoke of the five giants that he said a civilised country must overcome: squalor, ignorance, want, idleness and disease. Under this Tory-led Government, those giants are rearing their ugly heads again. We need a Labour Government to slay them.
Oral Answers to Questions
William Bain Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Webb
I make no apology for defending consumers against an abuse that has gone on for far too long, with people buying annuities where they will get their money back only if they live until they are 90 or beyond. The Financial Conduct Authority, which was created only about six months ago, has already reported on annuities and will bring forward further proposals. We are working with our colleagues at the Treasury who lead on these matters to make sure that this issue, which has gone long unaddressed by successive Governments, is finally tackled.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
8. What assessment he has made of the effect of universal credit on work incentives for lone parents.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
Universal credit fundamentally simplifies support for working lone parents and our analysis shows that UC will create positive work incentives for lone parents.
Mr Bain
But does the Minister not accept that research for Gingerbread shows that two in every five lone parents will lose out in cash terms under universal credit, with lone parents in work fighting an uphill battle to make work pay beyond 20 hours a week? Are not this Government not only botching the introduction of universal credit but breaching the Secretary of State’s pledge that UC would make sure that work paid for each and every hour that people work?
Steve Webb
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring to the Gingerbread report, which I have here. It says:
“Universal credit increases the financial pay off from working of single parents”.
Disabled People
William Bain Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hoban
I want to move on. I have been very generous in giving way to the right hon. Gentleman, as he acknowledged.
We all know that some disabled people face extra costs as a result of the impact of their disability. The main source of financial support, disability living allowance, has not been fundamentally reformed since 1992. Our welfare reforms presented an opportunity to start afresh, keeping the best elements of DLA that people value, but bringing the benefit up to date to make it fit for the 21st century. The personal independence payment—PIP—is easy to understand and administer. It is financially sustainable and more objective. It will be better targeted on those in most need. Throughout the whole development, we have consulted widely with disabled people and have used their views to inform policy design. We have continued to listen and consult, ensuring that these reforms continue to be shaped by the views of disabled people themselves. In other words, reform is not static and this Government are committed to listening and acting where change is required.
Instead of simply cutting money from everyone, we chose the more difficult but principled option of modernising the benefit and focusing support where it is most needed. PIP will be awarded on the basis of a fair, consistent and objective assessment which will enable us to target support on those who face the greatest barriers to independent living. More than one fifth of PIP recipients will get both of the highest rates, worth £134.40 each week, compared with only 16% on DLA. That demonstrates that we are focusing support on those in most need.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept the figure in the Demos and Scope study which indicates that 3,000 households could be affected by six individual welfare changes and lose as much as £4,500 a year? Does not that cumulative effect on living standards create the need for a cumulative assessment of what welfare reform is doing?
Mr Hoban
The hon. Gentleman illustrates in that question the impossibility of the task suggested in the motion. He has focused on one area. He has not taken into account tax changes, changes in fuel duty, the additional money that we are spending on improving access, the pupil premium or the changes that we are making to social care. To do an assessment properly—to look at that level of detail—as the motion suggests, involves looking across the whole of Government in a way that no Government have done before. It is the complexity of the issue that defeats specialist bodies trying to assess the full impact.
We did hear two bits of policy from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill. He backtracked on the spare room subsidy but he also talked about care. We are constantly looking at ways of joining up and simplifying care. We have made fundamental reforms to improve systems and bring spending under control. The Care Bill goes much further than ever before in giving disabled people real control. We are taking practical and far-reaching steps—for example, extending personal budgets for health and care, introducing a new duty on local authorities to co-operate, and introducing education, health and care plans for our children and young people. We will bring forward proposals in the autumn to improve employment support for disabled people.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about a new single personal budget, but as usual there is no detail. He said nothing about how it will be funded—a point proved by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard)—nothing about whether it will be means-tested, and nothing about whether local and national systems will be integrated. Will the right hon. Gentleman abolish PIP, for example? He told us nothing about how such an assessment would work, and nothing about the data-sharing issues that clearly arise. It is very clear that that is yet another kite flown by him with no information, no detail, no substance—again, three years in opposition completely wasted, with no fresh ideas.
We are clear that this Government always inform their decisions with equality analysis of policy changes, as required by the Equality Act 2010. All major welfare reform changes have been accompanied by a published equality impact assessment and these are updated if impacts change. I reiterate that a cumulative impact assessment would be so complex and subject to so many variables that it would be meaningless, helping neither individuals nor policy makers, and it would soon be incorrect and out of date. This may be something that the right hon. Gentleman wants to push, but it has not been done by any Government.
The Treasury does publish a broad-brush cumulative analysis of all tax, benefit and public service reforms at every fiscal event. This is a coalition initiative and something that the previous Government did not do. It is by its nature broad-brush, aimed at checking the broad distributional impacts of Government policy. It is not possible to do a meaningful breakdown for the disabled population. That is exactly why the previous Government did not do it. That is why I encourage my hon. Friends to vote against the motion. They know that it cannot be delivered. I urge them to support the amendment, which sets out what the coalition Government have done in office. We have acted to build a modern system of financial support for disabled people, acted to strengthen employment support and acted to provide better care for disabled people. We are delivering real reform for disabled people.
Fiona O’Donnell
As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is a wide range of views on how we provide services for people with disabilities.
Fiona O’Donnell
I will deal with the question from the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys first.
That wide range of views includes people who think that adults and children with disabilities and special needs should be shut away from society and protected, and those who think the complete opposite—that they should be fully integrated into society. There can also be a degree of tokenism, and we sometimes hear terms such as “real inclusion”, “rehabilitation” and “normalisation” being used. I do not agree with the stand that those people take. I note that the hon. Gentleman, in asking his question, did not answer my question to him.
Fiona O’Donnell
No, I have given the hon. Gentleman one opportunity to answer it. He had seven minutes in which to put the record straight, but he did not do so. I am going to make some progress now.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions does not like it when the human cost of the changes he is making are brought to his attention. We saw just how angry he can get when Owen Jones presented him with some case studies on “Question Time”. That is what this debate is about. I found it incredibly moving when my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) asked her question of the Prime Minister today and described someone calling her office who was feeling suicidal because of the impact of the changes. I am not for one minute suggesting that Ministers are wilfully causing that kind of suffering and harm, and, at times, I defend them in that regard. However, I get very angry e-mails using language that is inappropriate, even when attacking the Government, and the Government are going to have to acknowledge at some point that there is a very different feeling out there of the kind that we have never seen before. We are hearing that from Welfare Rights, from Citizens Advice and from the people who contact us and come to our surgeries. I would never have believed that, as a Member of Parliament, I would have to put in place procedures for my staff to deal with a constituent whom they believe to be at risk of taking their own life. At some point the Government are going to have to respond to that, not with anger but by taking seriously the impact of these changes on people with mental health problems.
I hope that the Minister will talk today about mental health champions, which were introduced as a result of the review, and that she will tell us what impact they are having. How is she monitoring them? I think that we have two for the whole of Scotland. Is there evidence that they are making a difference?
Mr Bain
Is not the whole point of this debate to point out that we need the necessary information in order to see the impact of the benefit changes. Did she see the recent comments from Scope, which indicated that as a result of the changes to employment and support allowance and to the disability living allowance, some 26,000 people could lose between £17,000 and £23,000 over five years? Do not those people deserve the relevant information, and do not we all deserve a cumulative impact assessment?
Fiona O’Donnell
As ever, my hon. Friend makes a valuable contribution to the debate.
I freely admit that I want this Government gone; that is my agenda. It is not a narrow political agenda that has brought all those organisations and disabled people to the House today to make their views heard. They are saying that, as the Government press on with the changes, they need the relevant information. Councils, medical services, social workers and disability organisations also need that information so that they can respond and support people adequately through this process.
Remploy
William Bain Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Esther McVey
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Yes, that budget was protected in the spending review and we have committed to £350 million to support disabled people into work. That money has got to be best spent on people—not on failing businesses—to support them into work.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
The loss of a further five Remploy factories in Scotland will be a devastating blow to disabled people in Scotland. Does the Minister not accept that, with the National Audit Office now conducting an inquiry into the shambles of a tendering process at the Springburn factory in my constituency, with growing evidence of asset-stripping and of confidential contracts signed on this Government’s watch between Remploy and private companies, this Government have sold the jobs of disabled people down the river?
Esther McVey
I ask the hon. Gentleman to be very cautious with the words he throws around the Chamber, many of which are inaccurate. He is correct to say that more information has gone to the NAO about the health care business and the commercial process that was undertaken, but the NAO will then just be considering whether it wants to take this further and look further into the programme. There has been no asset-stripping. There has been full governance and procedure in this commercial process, undertaken by an independent panel and by KPMG. Remploy is a legal entity in its own right and it is the legal steward of what goes forward. I warn the hon. Gentleman to be very careful with his accusations.
Oral Answers to Questions
William Bain Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
The bedroom tax is causing councils enormous financial strain, as it is for hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people across the country. On 11 June the pensions Minister told me that the Government are not making monthly checks on how much discretionary housing payment money councils are spending. What will happen to hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people when the money runs out?
Steve Webb
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentions the support we give to local authorities through discretionary housing payments. We constantly hear that it is not enough, so he may be startled to learn that in the year just ended, 2012-13, over 300 local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales sent us back money totalling over £11 million because they could not spend it.
Pensions Bill
William Bain Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Increasing dignity in retirement, respecting the contributory principle in our social security system and reducing poverty among the elderly are all marks of a good society. In our consideration of the Bill tonight, some of those principles, which were also followed by previous Governments, have been referenced. The previous Labour Government, whom I supported, began the process of auto-enrolment for work-based pension schemes, which will eventually encourage 11 million people to save for a secure second pension. That Government also made substantial progress in halving rates of relative pensioner poverty, with as many as one in six of my constituents seeing significant increases in their living standards as a result of expanding pension credit.
Nevertheless, a great and growing number of our constituents who are approaching the state pension age or are just above it want to continue working. If we are to see an increase in the UK’s employment rate, providing work incentives through the tax and benefit system for this group of people will be essential too. If the current working-age population are not to experience a triple whammy—facing continued weakness in the value of real wages for the foreseeable future while taking most of the burden of fiscal consolidation now and much lower levels of retirement income than they would aspire to—it is vital that we reform the state pension and encourage pensions saving through occupational and other similar schemes.
As the Institute for Fiscal Studies established last Friday in its analysis of the DWP’s data on households below average income, there has been a large improvement since the 1970s in levels of relative and absolute pensioner poverty, with the number of pensioners with incomes in the lowest quintile down from 47% in that decade to just 21% in 2011-12. Most of that improvement came with the changes introduced by the previous Labour Government, which made the reduction of pensioner poverty such a priority. Four decades ago, levels of pensioner poverty were between six and eight times higher than those for working-age adults without children, while 40 to 50 years ago, nearly two in five poor people were pensioners. By 2011-12, the latter figure had fallen to just one in five before housing costs and one in eight after housing costs.
Last week’s IFS research also shows why it is right that the Bill should build on the work of the previous Government by encouraging workplace and other second pension saving. Across the income spread for pensioners, income from second pensions has had a big impact on raising overall incomes. Over the past three decades, it has risen from 18% to 36% as a share of total net pensioner income for the richest fifth of pensioners and increased almost sixfold for the poorest pensioners to 15% as a share of total income in 2011-12. That, alongside the increase in the value of pensioner benefits and relatively lower housing costs in retirement as a result of a large increase in the proportion of pensioners owning their homes outright—now as many as three in four—has driven the major decline in relative pensioner poverty. There is also a large group of pensioners over 75, however, who are still the group most likely to be on the brink of falling into poverty. They must not be forgotten in this debate either.
As was said earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), who is no longer in her place, the recent Scottish Widows annual pensions report shows adequate provision for retirement at an all-time low, with just 45% of people able to save enough for their retirement and a fifth unable to make any savings at all for it. That is driven by the unprecedented drop in recent years in real wages and therefore disposable incomes. There is also a gender gap, with women at a bigger disadvantage in pension saving than men. The average worker in the UK wants to retire at 66 ideally, on an income of £25,000 a year, which means savings of £1,000 a month from the age 30—a truly daunting prospect.
In principle, a higher flat-rate state pension set at £144 a week for future pensioners from 2016 is a good idea and reflects the contributory principle. Making some changes to the state pensionable age is sensible, given changing demographics and life expectancy, as well as the changing patterns of people’s working lives, to which I referred earlier. However, the power in the Bill potentially to revise the state pension age upwards every five years is problematic. It has the potential disproportionately to affect poorer communities, which experience lower life expectancy on average, in constituencies such as mine, where there are larger numbers of workers in manual occupations, which are more physically demanding.
There are also problems with how the Bill affects women. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as other hon. Members, have referred to the 700,000 women born between 6 April 1951 and 5 April 1953, including around 600 in my constituency, who, under these proposals, will potentially receive a state pension worth £6 a week less on average than that of a man born on the same day. The Government have also been unduly silent about the 100,000 people who will have to work five years extra to be eligible for the full flat-rate state pension, on the back of 35 years of NICs rather than 30 years as at present.
That is an issue for people working part time in more than one job—they are mainly women—who might be earning below the national insurance threshold in each job and therefore not building up sufficient pension rights. There are 8,000 women working part time in my constituency, with the median wage for this group of workers at just above the living wage. They deserve a guarantee from the Government that they will not lose out disproportionately as a result of these changes. The employment rate among women aged between 50 and 64 has increased by 3.5% in the last few years. I welcome that, but it would be remarkably unjust if they ended up with weaker pension rights as a result, having done the right thing and got back into part-time employment.
Future stages of this Bill’s consideration, should it receive its Second Reading this evening, should deal with how we can help women affected by the abolition of derived rights in April 2016, which will mean that women who have been unable to build up sufficient national insurance credits will lose the right to receive 60% of their husband’s pension—or all of it—should their husband die. By 2020 as many as 30,000 women could be affected by this change alone.
Similarly, the Government should address what will happen for people in their 20s, many of whom will face a lower state pension under this Bill. The Government should face up to what the closure of the state second pension scheme will mean for people, who no longer have a state-backed low-cost option for pension savings. It is inexplicable that the Government have set their face against asking the EU to remove further restrictions on people being able to save through the National Employment Savings Trust. What will the Government do about individuals who would have built up high entitlements under the state second pension, and how will they look after individuals who have only between seven and 10 qualifying years of national insurance contributions?
What arrangements will there be for passported benefits, currently paid under the guarantee credit? This also involves housing benefit and council tax benefit. Can the Government clarify what the system proclaiming these passported benefits will be should the Bill pass? The Government should also clarify a point in the impact assessment, which makes it clear that rather than the Green Paper’s aspiration that these proposals on the state pension age would be cost-neutral, a key driver now is making savings for the Exchequer.
Given the higher national insurance contributions that both employers and employees will have to make to pay for the new flat-rate pension, I hope that the Minister will be able to share with the House in his response what the long-term projections for pension spending as a share of Government and national income will be, to spell out what the Government’s long-term forecast for national insurance contributions receipts will be, and to provide reassurance to the country that the extra contributions people will be expected to make will not simply result in a long-term windfall for the Treasury and long-term pain for local government.
Clause 46, which deals with the Bill’s territorial extent, is important. The Bill applies throughout Great Britain. In other discussions taking place about the future of the United Kingdom, the future of pensions provision is a central issue. My constituents are deeply concerned that plans for Scotland to separate from the rest of the United Kingdom would lead to instability and insecurity in their incomes on retirement. Occupational and second pension schemes have to be fully funded if they operate over state borders within the EU. The level of shortfall in 5,000 UK occupational schemes running a deficit at the moment is, according to the recent Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland report, in the order of £265 billion. More than 11,000 separate occupational schemes are regulated jointly across the United Kingdom and are saved in by millions of people across the UK. People in Scotland deserve answers about the long-term future of pensions.
Mark Reckless
Can the hon. Gentleman be certain that, if Scotland were to become independent, his constituents would receive the pensions they expect, or might they be in a situation that we have seen in the Republic of Ireland, where pensions, including those being paid, have been significantly cut, at least in the public sector?
Mr Bain
Very sadly, I cannot be sure on that point. As I shall come on to say in a moment, further doubt has been cast on the future of pensions by utterances from the Scottish Government today, and the answers that people in Scotland are receiving from them are precious few. With their public face the Scottish Government are promising people more generous social security, while they are planning the precise opposite behind closed doors at the Scottish Cabinet table in Bute House. Despite their panel of advisers last week producing reasons in favour of a UK-wide social security system to share risk even after separation, the Scottish Government said, as reported in The Herald this morning, that should Scotland no longer be part of the UK, they could not guarantee to match the flat-rate state pension at £144 a week and that this Bill’s provisions would no longer apply in Scotland from 2016. What further evidence could there be for people in Scotland that if we want to guarantee the pound in our pocket, our deposits in the bank and now the security of our accrued pension entitlements, the only way to be sure of doing so is to vote to remain within the United Kingdom?
The general principles of the Bill are sensible, but it requires a good deal of further scrutiny to ensure that the losers do not outnumber the winners and that young people, women on low incomes in part-time employment and those in low-paid work do not pay a disproportionate cost for a flat-rate state pension. The Bill could go much further in extending the principle of auto-enrolment to those who earn enough to pay national insurance and in capping pension costs levied by providers. I hope that the Government will be generous enough to consider those points in Committee and on Report. People want long-term pension reform that works. There are good ideas from all parts of the House on strengthening this Bill. The Government should be prepared to listen and act on them, should the Bill receive its Second Reading tonight.
Oral Answers to Questions
William Bain Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Esther McVey
We have supported people with discretionary housing payments amounting to £360 million. The authorities are working with credible landlords. We are supporting those people. Perhaps the hon. Lady could not get an answer to her question because she was looking for something that was not there.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
Today I welcome the step that we are taking to support those suffering from mesothelioma and their families, which is a vast improvement on previous taxpayer-funded schemes. The Mesothelioma Bill will correct the failings of the insurance industry to keep proper records, speeding up tracing and setting up the scheme whereby insurers will make payments to some 300 people a year who cannot trace their past employers’ insurers. The Bill is a laudable and long-overdue step towards redress for sufferers of this terrible disease and I welcome its Second Reading in the other place.
Mr Bain
Seven weeks in, the true devastating consequences of the bedroom tax are becoming clear: claims for discretionary housing payments up 338% in a month, and in Glasgow rising to 5,500, the highest in the entire country. Is it not the case that the Secretary of State has not provided local councils with the resources they need to deal with a crisis of his making?
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
We have substantially increased the budget for discretionary housing payment, so it is not surprising that there is a rising number of people applying for it. My officials are in regular contact with Scottish local authorities to look at the issues there, as well as in other parts of the country. We have formal evaluation over the next year and two years, and we are monitoring the situation on the ground to see how these reforms are working.