Women’s State Pension Age: Ombudsman Report

Peter Aldous Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee on granting it. The purpose of the debate is to consider the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report of 21 March and how best to implement its recommendations.

In brief, the following issues arise from the report. First, the PHSO found that in 2005, the Department for Work and Pensions,

“failed to take adequate account of the need for targeted and individually tailored information”

to be shared with women affected by the changes to the state pension age. That amounted to maladministration and resulted in the six complainants whose cases were considered not being able to do things differently or make informed, mitigating decisions. The PHSO concluded that they should be compensated for that.

Secondly, the PHSO took the highly unusual step of laying its report before Parliament, due to its concerns that the DWP would fail to provide a remedy. Although the PHSO has put forward a suggestion as to what the compensation should be, it has asked Parliament to intervene to agree a mechanism for remedy and to hold the Government to account.

Thirdly, the PHSO points out that it is “extremely rare” for an organisation that it investigates not to accept and act on its recommendations. It makes the observation that a failure to comply with its recommendations represents a constitutional gap in protecting the rights of citizens who have been failed by a public body and in ensuring access to justice.

My interest in the injustice arises from the fact that, for approximately eight years, as regular as clockwork, constituents have been highlighting to me the enormous challenges and hardship that they have faced and endured. For the past four years, I have had the privilege of co-chairing the all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality for women with, first, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and, more recently, the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey). I take the opportunity to thank our predecessors, the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton).

It is important to thank the PHSO for its work and the duty that it has carried out. It has received criticism for the time that it has taken and for the narrow remit of considering six cases that some are concerned do not fully reflect the injustice that 1950s-born women as a whole have had to endure. However, it would have been very easy for the PHSO to have decided that this was not a case for it to investigate. Instead, it has not shied away from the past. The investigation has taken a long time because it is complicated and there was a need to get it right.

The PHSO has provided us with a snapshot. It is up to us—Parliament, Government and the DWP—to extrapolate and put right a problem that may well extend much more widely. To do that, the PHSO has provided some guidelines that we need to follow. Parliament should take immediate steps to find a resolution for those who do not have time on their side. Each case should be considered on its own merits. Finite resources are not an excuse for failing to provide a fair remedy. If Parliament chooses to do nothing, that will undermine the ombudsman. The Department for Work and Pensions should respect what Parliament recommends. There must be a commitment from Government to take on board the PHSO’s findings and to work collegiately with Parliament in finding and then implementing a fair and just remedy.

A wider issue that needs to be considered, perhaps in the first instance by the right hon. Member for East Ham and his Committee, is the breakdown in communication and implementation of policy in the DWP, going back over 30 years. I accept that the Department’s remit is large, challenging and complicated, but the PHSO highlights repeated failures in the Department’s communication of state pension reforms.

[Sir John Hayes]

We must not let cause become more important that effect. As my hon. Friend described, it is right that we look at why and how this happened, but what really matters is what happened, because what the WASPI women need is action quickly. If we were to spend a great deal of time looking at the genesis of the issue, I am not sure that quick action would be delivered, so I endorse what the right hon. Member for East Ham said about establishing criteria that can be effected with reasonable speed.

[Peter Aldous]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that point, which he makes quite well. I am diverting slightly from the main cause and theme, but I think he and I are on the same page.

As I said, I am concerned about repeated failures in the Department’s communications. Only last Saturday, a constituent highlighted to me how the introduction of the new state pension penalises those women born in 1951 and 1952. The End Frozen Pensions campaign points out that 85% of frozen pensioners did not know of the policy’s existence prior to moving abroad.

[Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)]

On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?

[Peter Aldous]

Very briefly, because this is a side issue.

[Sara Britcliffe]

The report acknowledges that the DWP is now modernising its system so that people are informed, but does he agree that moving to a modernised system might pose a risk, specifically to pensioners who are digitally excluded, that something similar could happen again in future?

[Peter Aldous]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is a side point to the main point, but nevertheless the PHSO has pinpointed that issue. These are debates for another day. I suspect the right hon. Member for East Ham and his Committee need to look at these issues in more detail, but the PHSO has shone a spotlight on a wider problem.

The aims of the APPG that I co-chair with the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles are threefold: first, to represent those women who have been treated unjustly by the short-notice changes to the state pension age, 280,000 of whom have died, according to WASPI, since the start of the campaign; secondly, to develop and promote policy solutions to support 1950s-born women and their families who do not have access to their pension and are facing mental and physical health consequences; and thirdly, to feed the views and experiences of 1950s-born women into future policy decisions relating to state pensions and welfare.

Over the years, the APPG has had regular evidence-gathering sessions with various representative groups, and we have considered policies and initiatives to best help and assist them. In January 2022, the APPG made its own submission to the PHSO about the level of compensation that should be provided. I give special thanks to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish for the work that he and his office did putting that together. Based on the evidence presented to us from across the UK, we reached what, for us, was the logical conclusion that level 6 of the PHSO’s compensation scale should apply. Subsequently, we refined that recommendation by proposing that compensation should be provided in a bell curve, with those who received least notice of the longest postponement receiving the most compensation, and those who received longer notice of shorter increase receiving lesser sums.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

May I take the opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for his key role in the APPG? I put on the record the dignified and well-informed views of local WASPI co-ordinators in my part of the world, Shelagh Simmons and Sal Robinson. We heard an intervention suggesting each case should be judged on its individual circumstances. I can see the merit in that, but it would have a devastating effect on the speed with which we would come to conclusions. What balance does my hon. Friend think should be struck on those two factors?

[Peter Aldous]

My sense is that there is a need to strike a balance, as the PHSO says. A way forward is beginning to emerge from the work of the APPG and the Select Committee, and I will elaborate on that.

Since the PHSO published its report on 21 March, the APPG has sought to play its role, as part of Parliament, in finding a fair and just mechanism, as quickly as possible, as the PHSO asked Parliament to do. The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles and I wrote to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and we have subsequently met the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who is now back in his place. I thank him for the hearing he gave us.

Last Tuesday, the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles and I appeared before the Work and Pensions Committee —likewise, I am grateful to the right hon. Member for East Ham and his colleagues for the fair and full reception they provided. We are holding our own evidence sessions with the various representative groups; the first three sessions took place on Monday and there are more to follow. This is a complicated matter. While the APPG is yet to reach a settled and final recommendation about the form a compensation mechanism should take, it is fair to say that ideas are fast evolving and are pointing in a direction.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Will the hon. Gentleman advise the House, as well as WASPI women in West Dunbartonshire and across the UK, on whether one of those recommendations will be for a ministerial apology, on behalf of the Department, for where we are now?

[Peter Aldous]

PHSO suggests an apology from the DWP should be encapsulated in what it comes up with as a way forward. The DWP’s own guidelines include an apology as well.

I will focus on the form of compensation redress, which is emerging in a little more detail. While the PHSO has suggested that compensation should be paid at level 4 on their scale, there is disquiet among those affected that that is too low and that level 6 should apply, in line with the APPG’s recommendations. The PHSO comments that a flat rate is easiest to implement but not perfect, and that there may well be a need for a balancing act, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) suggested in his intervention.

The PHSO also suggests that the National Audit Office may be able to provide guidance on how to structure a compensation scheme. The WASPI group has emphasised, as we have heard, the need for speed, simplicity and sensitivity, and it recommends that the DWP should bring forward proposals for a financial redress scheme to Parliament before the summer recess. It also proposes that higher payments should be targeted at those most impacted.

The Work and Pensions Committee is to be commended for getting out its recommendations in less than 10 days after its evidence session. It also asked the Government to bring forward proposals for the summer recess. It, too, proposed that payments should be based on the extent of change to an individual’s state pension age, and the notice of change that they received. It adds that there should be some flexibility for individuals to be able to make the case for a higher level of compensation based on experiencing direct financial loss.

Clear parameters as to the form that the compensation should take, I sense, are rapidly evolving. Parliament, in the past two months since the PHSO published its report, in its various different guises is playing its role to the full. I would suggest that now is the time for the Government to step up to the plate. A mechanism should be put in place before the summer recess. I acknowledge that the matter is complicated, and that there is a need for contemplation and reflection, but we should have in mind that the most notable achievement of this Government is that, under enormous pressure in a very short timescale, they put in place a furlough scheme that saved hundreds of thousands of jobs and got us through covid. There is no reason why the Government cannot move with such speed and alacrity again. I would add that failure to comply with the PHSO’s recommendations would be almost completely unprecedented over the 70 years that the ombudsman has existed and would drive a coach and horses through what is an integral part of our parliamentary system of democratic checks and balances. In conclusion, I support this motion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Aldous Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I can save the Minister replying. The question is only about filling job vacancies in Sittingbourne and Sheppey, not the rest of the world. Let us move on. That was a good effort but, out of 10, I would give it one.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

12. What steps he is taking to reform the welfare system.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

18. What steps his Department is taking to reform the welfare system.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)]

On reforming welfare, we are increasing the incentives to work and increasing the disincentives not to work or to engage with the system, and we are looking to better target help for those who need it most.

[Peter Aldous]

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. I recently discussed the consultation on changes to the personal independence payment with Waveney SHIMS—Suffolk Help in Multiple Sclerosis—our local MS support group. It highlighted the need for a more targeted and fair approach for those with fluctuating conditions, which should include the scrapping of the 20 metre and the 50% rules, and the need for assessments to be carried out by those qualified and with a full understanding of neurological conditions. Could he confirm that the review will take these matters into consideration?

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and considerable interest and knowledge in this area, and for the discussions he has held with me on these matters. As he will know, we are currently going through a 12-week consultation on how PIP can be reformed. I certainly subscribe to the view that we want to examine the issue of one size fits all and whether there are better ways of looking after people.

Women’s State Pension Age

Peter Aldous Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality for women.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his statement. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is itself WASPI, having been conceived in the 1950s. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a failure by Government to comply with its recommendations would be almost completely unprecedented over the past 70 years, and would in effect drive a coach and horses through an integral part of our system of democratic checks and balances? With that in mind, will he confirm that his Department will work in full haste with Parliament to agree a mechanism for remedy? Will he outline the work he is carrying out to address further concerns that have been raised over systematic failure by the DWP over several decades to properly communicate future pension changes?

[Mel Stride]

At the heart of this matter is the imperative to ensure that we fully and carefully examine the findings contained in the report. I will not be drawn today on where we may end up in respect of those findings, but I assure my hon. Friend that we will engage fully and constructively with Parliament on these matters.

State Pension Changes: Women

Peter Aldous Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered compensation for women affected by state pension changes.

I thank each and every Member who has come to speak in the debate, and I am greatly encouraged that they have, as are those from the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign in the audience today, who are here to ask us, as MPs, to speak for them.

This is not an issue that any of us is unaware of. My emails in the last few days have been incredible. People do not understand the unfairness of what has happened, so let me take a moment to put the issue into context and to set the scene—I am conscious of time, Sir Gary, and I gave you a commitment earlier that I would give everyone else a chance to contribute.

The WASPI women are the generation of women born in the 1950s who have been adversely affected by the changes to the state pension age in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They argue that they were not given adequate notice of transitional arrangements to adjust to the increase in their state pension age from 60 to 65 or 66, depending on their date of birth. That is the crux of this debate.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate and for the great work he is doing. Unfortunately, Sir Gary, I have to leave early, so I will not be making a speech. The hon. Member said that the so-called WASPI women “argue” that they were not properly advised and informed, but the stage 1 report produced by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman actually confirmed that they were not properly advised and informed.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that, and he is absolutely right. I will come to that point and confirm it. The issue is all about fairness and equality, but, with respect to the Minister and the Government, they have fallen down on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I do agree with that. The Minister is obviously taking copious notes, and the civil servants have not had their heads up since the debate started, so I suspect and hope that they will have the answers we need.

The Government must adopt a flexible and tailored approach to restitution, based on the needs and preferences of the WASPI women. They should consult the women and their representatives to design a system of recompense that is fair, transparent and accessible. I call on the Government and the Minister to consider the PHSO’s recommendations when it publicises its final report on the financial remedy for the women in due course. If they do that, we will have taken a step in the right direction. The PHSO has indicated that it will consider the impact of the changes on the women’s standard of living, health and wellbeing, as well as the availability and adequacy of alternative sources of income and support.

The Government should also ensure that the restitution is delivered promptly and efficiently—do both those things—and ensure that the women are given clear and accurate information and guidance on how to claim and receive their compensation. The Government should monitor and evaluate the implementation of the restitution scheme and its outcomes, and adjust the scheme if necessary to ensure its effectiveness and fairness.

The third principle of compensation is reconciliation. It is a word often used in society, but reconciliation is what we want here. That means the Government should foster a positive and constructive relationship with the WASPI women and their representatives, and address the underlying causes and consequences of the changes to the state pension age. Reconciliation is important for healing the wounds and divisions caused by the changes and for building trust and co-operation between the Government and the women. Reconciliation is also a way of preventing similar injustices from happening in the future, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) referred to. If we do it right now, it will be in place for the future and will ensure that the pensions system is sustainable and equitable for all.

The Government should engage in a dialogue and partnership with the women and listen to their views and concerns. They should involve the women in the decision-making and policymaking processes related to the pensions system and ensure that their voices and interests are represented and respected. The Government should recognise and celebrate the contribution and achievements of the WASPI women, and support their empowerment and participation in society. They have done so much, and we salute and thank them for that.

The Government should address the broader issues and challenges that affect the pensions system and the ageing population, such as the adequacy and security of pension income, the availability and affordability of social care, the quality and accessibility of health services, the diversity and inclusivity of the labour market, and the promotion and protection of human rights. The Government should adopt a holistic and long-term approach to those issues, and seek the input and collaboration of the WASPI women and various stakeholders, including other pensioners, workers, employers, civil society and the public.

Compensating 3.8 million WASPI women is not only a matter of rectifying past injustices, but a recognition of the hardships they have endured due to the sudden and unexpected changes to their pension entitlements. Importantly, it is a recognition of the place in history held by this wonderful post-war generation of women from all communities across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I was hesitating before intervening on the hon. Gentleman—

[Jim Shannon]

I have not finished.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. Everyone calm down. This is an intervention.

[Peter Aldous]

I apologise. I was hesitating before saying anything because I did not want to stop the hon. Gentleman in his flow setting out what Government need to do. Does he recognise that there is a vital and pivotal role for Parliament to play when we receive the ombudsman’s final report in considering it and making recommendations to Government, which the Government should then properly and fully respond to so as to uphold the office of the ombudsman?

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Aldous Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

We are getting Britain working, unlike the Opposition, under whose last Administration unemployment increased, youth unemployment went up by 40%, some 25% more women were unemployed and 1 million people or thereabouts were stuck on long-term benefits for almost a decade. That was a disgrace.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

T4. Sizewell C will provide an enormous number of job opportunities in Suffolk. Will my right hon. Friend outline the work that the Department for Work and Pensions is doing to ensure that local people have every opportunity to work on the project and acquire the necessary skills?

[The Minister for Employment (Jo Churchill)]

Like my hon. Friend, I am excited about the jobs and opportunities at Sizewell. Local jobcentres have been engaged with Sizewell C, and I understand that a local partnership manager will be designated to promote opportunities, and to find people for 1,500 apprenticeships and thousands of jobs. We will invest in local skills through sector-based work programmes and the like.

Coastal and Rural Communities: Employment

Peter Aldous Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, Dr Huq, to serve with you in the Chair.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) on securing this debate and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.

Also, it is great to see the Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard)—here in Westminster Hall today, as well as the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), who represents the Opposition, and the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar), who represents the Scottish National party. I have to confess that I was not really expecting to see them, which probably indicates the problem that we have, in that there is some uncertainty as to where the issue we are discussing—employment in rural and coastal areas—best fits. Actually, it is an issue for the whole of Government, and one of the points that I will hopefully make today is the systemic approach that we need, because there is always a danger that if we leave this issue to one Department, even though it relates to a whole host of Departments, nothing actually happens.

I believe there is enormous potential for job creation in rural and coastal communities. There are the obstacles that my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn outlined, but there are also tremendously exciting opportunities, and if we do not adopt that overall approach that I mentioned, we are in danger of not taking them.

The focus of my contribution today will be on the coast in my area, centred on Lowestoft, which is the principal town in the Waveney constituency, and the village of Corton in the north and the villages of Pakefield and Kessingland to the south.

In its October 2020 analysis of coastal communities, the Office for National Statistics split towns on the coast into two categories: first, seaside towns, with a tourist beach and visitor attractions; and, secondly, coastal towns, focused on ports and related industrial activities. I was about to say that the Lowestoft area is unique, in that we fall into both of those categories, but so does Ynys Môn, as my hon. Friend so greatly articulated.

In Lowestoft, we have a port founded on fishing and with a current focus on low-carbon energy, and a magnificent sandy beach. Lowestoft is also the gateway to the Norfolk and Suffolk broads, and to two of the most popular visitor attractions in the east of England: Pleasurewood Hills; and Africa Alive.

Like most coastal communities, we have challenges to overcome, but as I have already said there are also some great opportunities, which, with the right policies and the right seedcorn investment, we can unlock, primarily for the benefit of local people but also for the benefit of the whole of the UK.

I specifically highlight the opportunities presented by the UK’s transition to low-carbon and renewable energy sources, which puts Lowestoft and the whole of the East Anglian coast in the vanguard of the UK’s energy supply system. In 2022, East Anglia’s renewable and low-carbon energy portfolio powered the equivalent of 32% of UK homes. It is estimated that by 2035, that figure could rise to 90%. That dramatic transformation presents both the Suffolk coast and Lowestoft with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to drive inward investment, to create exciting and enduring careers, and to play a major role in delivering the UK’s net zero goals.

These are great opportunities not just in Lowestoft but all around coastal Britain, but, as I have mentioned, there are significant obstacles to overcome. Coastal towns are more likely to have high levels of deprivation, and I am afraid that is the case in Lowestoft. Many of the jobs are seasonal, leading to fluctuations in employment opportunities throughout the year. Limited infrastructure and poor connectivity hinders job creation; coastal communities are invariably at the end of the line. Climate change, floods and coastal erosion can have a devastating impact on communities and businesses, particularly in the tourism sector. That has been experienced in recent weeks all along the Suffolk and Norfolk coast, and I shall return to that subject in a few minutes.

The seedcorn investment made by Government in the Lowestoft area over the past decade or so makes an impressive list, and it will help sustain and create new jobs. The Gull Wing bridge over Lake Lothing in the middle of the town is nearing completion. The Beccles loop on the East Suffolk railway line has facilitated the reintroduction of an hourly service from Lowestoft to Ipswich. The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science—the Government marine scientist agency—has new offices and a refurbished laboratory in the town. There is the energy skills centre at East Coast College. There are two heritage action zones, one focused on the High Street and the other on London Road South. In Lowestoft itself, CityFibre has installed a full-fibre broadband network. The Jubilee Parade seafront is to be redeveloped, and work is starting on the various projects in the £25 million towns deal, which will help regenerate the town centre and its surrounding area.

Private sector investment and job creation is following the seedcorn funding, with projects such as the ScottishPower Renewables operations and maintenance base in the Hamilton dock, and the Associated British Ports Lowestoft eastern energy facility. That investment is welcome, and will bring enduring and positive benefits. However, I will make a general observation on the enormous opportunity to create jobs in coastal Britain. Although there are a number of funds to support regeneration—and they are well listed—I sense that there has been a lack of strategic overview. More specifically, we have not realised the full benefit of two initiatives.

First, one of the enterprise zones set up in 2012 was the Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft enterprise zone. It has been incredibly successful in that it has created more than 2,000 skilled jobs and secured over £245,000 million-worth of inward investment. However, in Lowestoft, it is in need of some relatively minor adjustments to remove land that is not coming forward for development and replace it with land around the port that is ready for redevelopment. Unfortunately, the Government have been reluctant to sanction that change, which may well be because their focus is now on freeports and investment zones. I am due to have a meeting in the next few weeks with the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), who I think is the Minister with responsibility for enterprise zones, but I urge the Minister here today to reinforce that message and take it back to him.

Secondly, I go back to the coastal communities fund, which ran from 2012 to 2019. It was a great idea, but it was not set up on the right basis and has been discarded too soon. My criticism is that it provided relatively small grants scattered around the UK coast, whereas it should have focused on a smaller number of strategic regeneration projects. It was also wrong to close down the fund in 2019 and subsume it into other funds. A significant part of the income from the fund derives from the Crown Estate’s marine activities, which—in particular, the development of offshore wind farms—are providing opportunities for many coastal communities. The funds generated should be used to help the people in those areas, many of which face deprivation challenges, to realise the most of these opportunities, such as investment in skills and infrastructure.

Turning to skills, investment in education and training is vital if we are to make the most of the job opportunities that are emerging in coastal Britain. In the Waveney area, school performance has generally improved over the last decade. East Coast College is playing a vital role in enabling young and older people to acquire the skills needed in new emerging industries, and the University of East Anglia and the University of Suffolk are fully focused on the needs of local communities and the opportunities and challenges that the region faces. Challenges remain in raising overall attainment, improving special educational needs provision, and recruiting and retaining staff and teachers to work in what can be regarded as a periphery location—we come back to the problem of coastal communities being at the end of the line. An institute of technology would have provided a focus for meeting this skills challenge. It was disappointing that the local bid was not successful, and it is hoped that that omission can be corrected in the relatively near future.

In recent weeks, the threat of coastal erosion along the whole of the Suffolk and the Norfolk coast has come to the fore. It is starkly illustrated in the Lowestoft area, where the construction of the tidal barrage in the outer harbour is now on hold. The innovative Kessingland and Benacre flood defences scheme also has a funding gap, and the rapid erosion of the cliffs at Pakefield threatens not only nearby homes but Park Holidays UK’s adjoining holiday park. Proper coastal defences are vital to provide the private sector with the confidence to invest in new facilities, whether in the tourism, energy, fishing or maritime sectors.

It is not just a question of money; we need to speed up and simplify the process for assessing and approving coastal erosion and flood defence schemes. The floods budget for the six-year period from 2021 to 2027 has been doubled over the previous period to £5.2 billion. We are nearly halfway through this period; the money needs to be out of the door, and work needs to start on projects including the three I have mentioned. That will in turn leverage in the private, job-creating investment that we need.

As I mentioned, a lot of good work is taking place, but I sense that there is a need in Government for a change of mindset to view coastal areas as a great opportunity that, with the right policies and seedcorn investment, can create many well-paid and exciting jobs. Some good initiatives are being pursued, but to maximise their benefit there is a need for a strategic overview of the coast right from the heart of Government. Finally, we need proper investment in coastal defences.

Autumn Statement Resolutions

Peter Aldous Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on his autumn statement, which was well thought through, soundly based and properly reasoned. Post covid, with war in eastern Europe and the middle east and with the ongoing cost of living crisis, his task is an incredibly difficult one. With 110 growth measures, he has rightly recognised the need to boost growth, but as he has stressed, that growth must be secured on sound foundations and must not take the form of a reckless, debt-fuelled rush for growth. There are areas of reform that I believe he should have covered, such as business rates, social care funding and special educational needs. However, this autumn statement is very much a step in the right direction, and provides a platform on which he and the Government can build in the coming weeks and months.

I will briefly cover three areas, the first of which is investment in skills. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor recognises the importance of that investment to improve productivity and secure sustainable economic growth. In that respect, the announcement of £50 million to increase the number of apprenticeships in key growth areas is to be welcomed. However, there remains a need for a long-term strategy to enhance skills. I look forward to an update on the work of Sir Michael Barber, which was announced in last year’s autumn statement; a significant uplift in revenue funding for further education colleges and training providers; and a review of the apprenticeship levy, which was a welcome initiative when it was introduced in 2017, but is in need of reform so that it can perform to its full potential.

Secondly, we need to continue to protect the most vulnerable. Covid’s tail has been harsh and long and, along with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, has created the kind of cost of living crisis that we have not seen for 100 years. Last year and this year, the Government have stepped up to the plate to support people. As such, many of last week’s announcements are to be welcomed, including increasing the national living wage, increasing all working-age benefits in full by 6.7%, boosting pensions by 8.5% in line with the triple lock, and significantly increasing the local housing allowance.

There is no doubt that there is both a skills shortage and a skills mismatch in the UK at present. It is in that context that I am supportive of the back to work plan, which the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions went through earlier. However, I emphasise two notes of caution. First, the deficit in investment in skills and training that has been prevalent for most of this century means that a lot of people are a long way from the workplace. We should not underestimate the challenge of equipping those people with the skills they need to first hold down jobs, and then embark on rewarding career paths. Secondly, there are people—those with deteriorating neurological conditions, for instance—who are very worried about the forthcoming review of the work capability assessment. We must do all we can to support them through what will be a period of upheaval, and ensure that we avoid situations where those who are palpably unable to work are asked to do so under the threat of sanction. My concerns have been allayed to a large degree by what my right hon. Friend said in his opening speech, but it is important to emphasise those points.

Thirdly, in the east of England and particularly along the Suffolk and Norfolk coast, there is enormous potential for long-term, rewarding jobs in the low-carbon energy sector. In that context, last week’s various announcements to promote the renewables sector are very welcome. What I would emphasise is that to make the most of that great opportunity, it is vital that as the Government implement their levelling-up agenda, the east is not overlooked. In his speech, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced some new investment zones to follow on from those that were revealed in the autumn statement, none of which was in the east of England. We have a successful enterprise zone in Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth, and I hope we can look at reinvigorating it.

My final point on the need for levelling up in the east of England is that we are the lowest-lying region in the UK, and we have a long and porous coastline. That means that we are particularly vulnerable to flooding and coastal erosion, which are being accelerated by climate change. In recent days, many homes have disappeared over the cliff in Pakefield in my constituency. That has brought despair and desperation to many, and moreover creates risks from dangerous cliffs and the exposure of world war two sweeper markers, which have been detonated today. Thanks are due to the emergency services for all that they are doing, working in appalling conditions to keep people safe, but communities are at severe risk—not only Pakefield, but communities right up and down the Norfolk and Suffolk coast.

Over the course of the next few weeks, we must look very closely at the coastal protection budget and its operation. I urge my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to liaise very closely with my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), who is getting up to speed with his new and challenging brief at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Aldous Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point, and take the opportunity to remind the House and all employers to think about job design, flexibility and inclusive recruitment, because that will make a difference. With regard to eligible claimants moving back into work, they can receive support for up-front childcare costs through the Department’s flexible support fund. Claimants can also receive support for up-front costs if they increase their hours and take on an additional job. Payments can be made direct to the childcare provider, and we are working on further guidance on that.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

16. What steps he is taking to help tackle the disproportionate impact of the cost of living crisis on people with a disability.

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Tom Pursglove)]

As I said earlier, six million people receiving an eligible disability benefit received a £150 disability cost of living payment last year and will receive a further £150 cost of living payment later this year. This is in addition to other Government support, such as up to £900 for those on a qualifying means-tested benefit.

[Peter Aldous]

The £150 disability cost of living payment is indeed welcome, but those living with a disability spend more on heating costs, as they are invariably less mobile and spend longer, if not the whole day, in their home. As the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) have mentioned, Parkinson’s UK estimates that additional cost at £1,200. Will my hon. Friend set out what the Government are doing to provide advice and help those with a disability to bridge that funding gap?

British Sign Language Bill

Peter Aldous Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd February 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

It is an honour and a privilege to serve on the Committee. I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for West Lancashire for championing the British Sign Language Bill.

As the Member of Parliament for Ynys Môn, I am learning Welsh, because it is the language of the island and of my constituents. I have seen first hand how important it is to be able to communicate with my community in a common language. Making BSL an official language of the UK recognises the importance of BSL as a common language for our deaf communities. Around 70 children on Anglesey are registered as deaf or hard of hearing, and the Bill will improve their life chances. On behalf of those children, I say diolch yn fawr.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Miller.

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Lancashire on sponsoring the Bill, and on defying gravity and conventional wisdom. The normal advice we give to constituents and non-governmental organisations is that if Members are in the top five in the ballot, they have a chance, God willing, but if they are No. 20 they have no chance whatever. The fact we are here today is a tremendous tribute to the hon. Lady’s sterling efforts and those of my near neighbour, the Minister, who has worked with her. What they have done is brilliant.

I will not detain the Committee for long, but I want to pick up on an issue raised by the hon. Member for West Lancashire in her opening speech—she got to the nub of the issue very quickly—when she said that one aim of the Bill is to give deaf children equal access to the education that they need. That campaign is close and dear to the hearts of my constituents, Ann and Daniel Jillings.

Over the years, Daniel has met a number of Ministers to make the case for the GCSE in British Sign Language. I know it takes time to get the curriculum right, but it is taking rather a long time. The pilot by Signature was carried out in 2015, and we are now seven years on. Daniel will soon be leaving school and he will not be able to take the GCSE in BSL while at school. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to emphasise to the Department for Education the need to get on with this. It will mean a great deal to people such as Daniel. It will give them an opportunity, as well as helping the hon. Lady achieve an early win, dare I say it, for the objectives of the Bill.

I will not speak any longer, because time is of the essence—not just today, but for the remainder of this Session. We need to get the Bill speedily through this place and on to the other place.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

It truly is a delight to serve under your chairmanship on this important Bill, Mrs Miller. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for West Lancashire and, surprisingly for me, the Minister. They have worked so closely together to make this happen, and I think deaf people across the UK, including in Scotland, will be extremely pleased about the Bill. It was very important that the hon. Member for West Lancashire said that this is the first step, which it is.

The hon. Member for Waveney talked about qualifications. In Scotland, we have a Scottish Qualifications Authority qualification in BSL from level 3 to quite high up—I cannot quite figure out how high it goes, but it is there and is happening. In Scotland, we have lots of public presentations where signage is just there—it is not unusual—and it is really good that this is happening across the UK.

I will not take up much more time, but I know deaf folk in Motherwell and Wishaw, especially those in the Lanarkshire Deaf Club, will be absolutely delighted about the Bill, which is a first step. Let us keep going, and let us keep the pressure on, on behalf of folk who are deaf.

Social Security and Pensions

Peter Aldous Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

Although it is necessary to approve the orders before the House, this debate also provides the opportunity for us to highlight the serious challenges that currently face the most vulnerable in society as a result of inflation rising to levels we have not seen for decades.

Back in September, there was a recognition that the consumer prices index would probably rise above 3.1%, but not that it would rise to 5.4% in three months or to the 7% currently predicted and that may be reached in the next few months. At that time, there was probably a consensus view that the significant rise in earnings, of the order of 8%, was an anomaly resulting from the reopening of the economy and the relaxing of covid restrictions. Set in that context, one could understand why it was financially prudent to suspend the triple lock for one year. Five months on, it appears not to be an anomaly and not to be a one-off.

I recognise the measures in place to support the poorest pensioners that my hon. Friend the Minister outlined, but the Government must be prepared to provide more targeted assistance. Back in September, I supported the retention of the £20 universal credit uplift. I feared that covid would have a long and vicious tail and was concerned that the withdrawal of the uplift would hit a lot of people very hard. Subsequent events have shown that the uplift should have been retained. Universal credit has the advantage that its infrastructure is in place and up and running, and that it is targeted at the poorest and helps people to stay afloat and not spiral into destitution.

In the context of the annual uprating of universal credit having been frozen for four years prior to the pandemic, the increase before us is helpful, but it neither makes up for the ground lost in the past nor provides adequate support for the most vulnerable in the immediate future. Again, I recognise the other support measures that the Government have introduced—including the increase in the UC taper rate, the increase in the work allowance and the household support fund—but the cost of living crisis is currently the most serious challenge the UK faces and the Government must do more in terms of targeted assistance to protect those for whom the most immediate outlook is bleak. In that context, I welcome the Minister’s assurance that the Government are keeping the situation under close review. Last week’s announcements were welcome, but I sense that they were too broad and too shallow, and that more deep and carefully directed support will be required.