Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]

Debate between Ian Blackford and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 22nd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mhairi Black]

Does my hon. Friend agree that by missing this opportunity the Government are wilfully ignoring it, much like they are ignoring the WASPI women themselves?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We do not discuss new clauses that have not been selected. We have to deal with what is before us and that is the new clauses on the selection list. I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to stay in order by dealing with those, not those that have been omitted.

[Ian Blackford]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I am happy to receive the guidance that you have given me. I simply wanted to put on record that we had missed the opportunity to debate the measures today. I know that we will have the opportunity to raise these two issues again, so I will skip on without making any further reference to them.

The SNP believes that we need to look holistically at the problems inherent in the system and build on opportunities such as auto-enrolment. Only by giving pensions thoughtful consideration can the Tories get this right. With alarm bells ringing about the injustices facing the WASPI women, and concerns that we could see another hike in the state pension age, even the idea that the Government are contemplating reviewing the triple lock post 2020 is deeply troubling. If I may say so, we know that only by delivering an independent Scotland can the SNP deliver dignity in retirement.

I turn to amendment 5, which would mean that the financial sustainability of the scheme funder had to be taken into account when assessing the financial sustainability of a master trust scheme. The Association of British Insurers has told us that insurance companies already hold a very significant amount of capital under the European regulatory framework for insurance, solvency II. In our view it would not be reasonable, nor is it necessary, for insurers to be required to hold separate or additional capital on top of that to meet their new obligations as master trust providers under the Bill. We would like to hear assurances from the Government that insurers will be exempt if they already adhere to FCA and PRA regulatory and financial sustainability requirements.

Amendment 6 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 7 makes provision for the Secretary of State to define “restricted activities” by regulation, including a list of specific activities restricted to minimise the risk of loss by master trust scheme funders. Through these amendments, we acknowledge that there may be circumstances in which the scheme funder requirements in the bill should not apply. The amendments state that the requirements need not apply to firms whose activities are already restricted by virtue of existing regulation.

The ABI has said that, in particular, the Prudential Regulation Authority rules mean that insurance activities of the scheme funder that are not directly related to the master trust scheme are transparent and do not threaten the solvency or sustainability of the master trust. The ABI says:

“This is a sensible and pragmatic approach”.

It would be useful to understand what additional requirements will need to be met for firms to be exempt from the scheme funder requirements. It would also be helpful to gain an assurance that the Government are committed to working with the industry throughout the development and consultation process for the regulations.

Amendments 8 and 9 provide the Pensions Regulator with an alternative to stopping payments to the schemes under section 5(b) of a pause order. Amendment 9 is consequential on amendment 8. The Bill creates a new power enabling the Pensions Regulator to make a pause order requiring certain activities to be paused once a trust has experienced a triggering event. That includes accepting new members, making payments, accepting contributions and discharging benefits. The TUC is concerned about the impact of a pause order on a member’s savings because there are no mechanisms in place to allow ongoing contributions to be collected and held on behalf of a saver. We contend that it is unacceptable for a member to be penalised, and in effect to lose wages in the form of employer contributions, because of events out of their control. The Society of Pension Professionals has said that it will be necessary to ensure that the period of effect of a pause order cannot start before the trustees actually receive notification of the pause order. That would mean that any contravention could occur only after the trustees are were receipt of the order. Without this, they argue the trustees could be in breach of a pause order, through no fault of their own, if a direction is not complied with during the period between the date on which the regulator makes the order and the date on which the regulator notifies the trustees of it—for example, if new members joined the scheme in that period contrary to a direction under clause 32(5)(a).

The Government should clarify whether they intend to take action to protect savers now, as we are disappointed that our amendments were defeated at earlier stages. I look forward to hearing the Minister respond. We have sought to work constructively with the Government to enhance the Bill, which we broadly welcome. We affirm our position of wishing to work with the Government where we can to create an environment in which workers can have faith and trust in pension savings.

We should all desire to develop a landscape in which pension saving is encouraged, allowing us to ensure that all our pensioners—from both their own provision and the state pension—have dignity and security in retirement. The Bill helps us along that road, as far as the regulation of master trusts is concerned. There is more to do to enhance auto-enrolment, and I look forward to working with the Government to take steps to include those who are currently excluded from pension savings, particularly the self-employed and many part time workers, especially women.

In closing, although I welcome the Bill, I reflect on the fact that it was necessary for me to put down a prayer last night on frozen pensions after the Government again brought forward a statutory instrument to freeze the pensions of hundreds of thousands of British pensioners who are being denied their full rights. In pushing the measure through, the Government have denied Members of this House the right to debate the matter. I encourage all hon. and right hon. Members to sign early-day motion 1097. I hope that if we can, as I believe we can, demonstrate broad cross-party support against this measure, the Government will have the grace to bring forward a debate on this matter before recess. This early-day motion has already been signed by Members from six parties, including the Government party. I encourage them to listen to us on this matter, as part of proceedings on the Bill.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Ian Blackford and Lindsay Hoyle

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 6th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. I have to say that I have great respect for you as the Chairman, but I hope you can understand the frustration that we all feel that only two SNP Members have been called to speak in this debate, which is important for the future of Scotland and our position within Europe. I am asking what you can do, Mr Hoyle, to make sure that the voice of the people of Scotland is heard correctly in this debate. It has not been heard this evening.

[The Chairman]

I assumed my place in the Chair, and I have tried to ensure that a second SNP voice was heard, and we were listening to that. That is what I agreed to, and that is what I have done. In fairness, I think the SNP has done better than it was going to otherwise, in which case, let us hear what the Minister has to say.

Backbench Business

Debate between Ian Blackford and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 1st December 2016 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Now that the House has unequivocally declared that this matter was not considered in the Westminster Hall debate a couple of weeks ago, what mechanisms are open to us to make sure that we can have a debate in this place so that Members can be heard and we can stand up for the 2.6 million WASPI women?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I presume that the hon. Gentleman might have raised the issue at business questions, and there is always the opportunity at the next business questions to highlight the result. Actually, there was a debate here yesterday, so the debate has already taken place. However, it is not for the Chair to decide future business; it is for the Government to decide. I am sure that through the hon. Gentleman’s good offices, the matter will not rest there. I am sure that he will be pressing once again for another debate.

State Pension Age: Women

Debate between Ian Blackford and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are being traduced by the hon. Gentleman. For clarification, this matter was in our manifesto, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will correct what he has said.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I think we all know that that is not a point of order, but, not to worry, it has been put on the record.

Autumn Statement Distributional Analysis, Universal Credit and ESA

Debate between Ian Blackford and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

While half of me is loth to continue this debate, I want us to be clear. We have here an economic crisis brought about by political instability caused by the rupturing of unions between countries. So for the hon. Gentleman to argue that Scottish independence would not have had similar disastrous effects for the Scottish economy is, frankly, disingenuous.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I remind Members to be cautious with the language they use. Also, I do not want this to degenerate into a debate about independence, and I know that the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) wants to get back to his brief and not to be tempted by those who want to go out fishing today. To those Members intervening, I say this: when your speaking time is reduced to four minutes, do not blame me.

[Ian Blackford]

I will take your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I only say to the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) that she has demonstrated once again that Better Together is still alive and well—and how did that work out for the Labour party in Scotland?

I will return to the issue we are dealing with. We have inflation created by Brexit and a falling the pound, and the result of this failure will be a fall in living standards for many of our poorest—falling living standards brought to you by this Government. On top of the benefit cuts next year, the Prime Minister is sleepwalking into a perfect storm for low-income families, rather than living up to her promise of delivering for just-managing families. The UK Government must use the autumn statement to end their austerity obsession and instead bring forward an inclusive programme that will truly support low-income families and their children.

The UK Government’s U-turn on tax credits last year was simply a delaying tactic that kicked cuts to universal credit further down the line. The Government should take the opportunity to reverse the cuts to universal credit work allowance in their autumn statement. The original intention of universal credit was to increase work incentives and make sure that, as the Government put it, work paid. On top of damning economic forecasts, however, which will push up the cost of living, the work allowance cut will simply push more working people into poverty. It has slashed the income of working universal credit claimants. The IFS has calculated that in the long term more than 3 million working families will lose an average of more than £1,000 a year as a result of the work allowance cut.

House of Lords Reform and Size of the House of Commons

Debate between Ian Blackford and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On Monday, I asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign and whether the Government were going to take mitigating measures to compensate the worst-affected women. He responded that the Scottish Government could use their powers to compensate them. At the end of questions that day, I raised a point of order. I was generous in my choice of language and suggested that perhaps the Secretary of State knew something that we did not—namely, that powers over pensions were coming to Scotland. I asked the Secretary of State, through the Chair, if he would correct the record, knowing full well that section 28 of the Scotland Act 2016 specifically excludes the possibility of the Scottish Parliament having competence over pensions. I was somewhat enraged to receive a letter from the Secretary of State this afternoon which assures me that his statement was correct. We all know that people spin from time to time, but that is disingenuous to say the least, and the Secretary of State should really come clean and recognise that he has misled the House. I ask for your support as to how we can—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. First, we should not say that a Member is disingenuous or that they have misled the House. Let me see if I can be helpful here. Obviously there is a disagreement over the views and the interpretation, and I think that there is a way to deal with this—[Interruption.] Just bear with me. This could be helpful. You know me better than that. Give me a chance. There is a way to deal with this through the Procedure Committee, but it might be better to have a face-to-face debate in Westminster Hall. Why not put in for an Adjournment debate where this can be settled in the best possible way?

[Ian Blackford]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your advice, but there is an important issue here. The Secretary of State is giving a level of competence to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government that they do not have, and it is important that we in this House have the opportunity to call him to account. I say clearly that he was wrong and that he should correct the record.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I understand that he says he is wrong; the hon. Gentleman has made that point. What I am saying is that a face-to-face debate would be a much better way to put the case and get the answers. That is the way forward. There is also the option of the Procedure Committee, but I think that a face-to-face debate would be a much better way to set out categorically where the answer lies.

EU Membership: Economic Benefits

Debate between Ian Blackford and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

The right hon. Gentleman is making some very powerful points. May I remind the House that we are still living with the consequences of the financial crisis in 2007 and 2008? We have the answer to the question he is asking: the stock market has fallen by £80 billion in the past few days as investors recognise the risk to this country if we have a Brexit vote next week. That is the start of the tsunami that he is talking about. Why would we risk the prosperity of the United Kingdom and, indeed, of Europe by taking such a rash action?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Interventions must be short to give everybody a chance to speak.

English Votes for English Laws

Debate between Ian Blackford and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

I am delighted to try to assist the Leader of the House in that task. There is a very simple answer, which would take away a lot of the angst. If we want fairness and English votes for English laws, the solution is very simple: bring forward legislation for an English Parliament. That is what we would consider as fair. The point that the right hon. Gentleman has to address is that we were all elected on 7 May with equal rights, so why is that—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Let me help the House by explaining that 23 people wish to speak and the two Front Benchers need to speak, so we must have short interventions.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Ian Blackford and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 9th July 2015 Commons Chamber

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

One of the things that we hear about in the Budget is the importance given to increasing productivity, but if we are to increase productivity, we need incentives for investment in the economy. The Government are incentivising those who have financial assets by changing the inheritance tax rules to benefit the type of people who sit on the Government Front Bench. That is the reality of what they are doing. If we want to make sure that work pays, we need to drive investment in the economy, and we need incentives for business to do so. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I certainly think that we have got the message. Can we have short interventions? I have a lot of speeches to get in, and someone cannot intervene on a Member who is intervening.

Tax Credits (Working Families)

Debate between Ian Blackford and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

The problem with the Government’s suggestion that cutting tax credits will lead to higher pay is that the labour market is weighted in favour of the employer, rather than the worker. The only way to restore wage growth across the board, especially in the private sector, is through the expansion of collective bargaining. We simply cannot have wage growth in a country where the erosion of trade union rights is right at the top of the Tory agenda. The Government are doing the exact opposite of what they intend, which is to get people back to work and on decent pay—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Order! Honestly, we must have short interventions. I want everybody to get to speak. Interventions are not meant to be speeches. We have to help each other today because a lot of people wish to speak. The shorter the interventions, the more people we will get through.

[Ian Blackford]

I agree with the gist of what the hon. Lady said. We need to ensure that there is proper protection for trade union rights throughout the UK.

The Resolution Foundation, which has been much commented on, has assessed the proposed plans. It found that more than two thirds of the families affected—2.7 million of them—would be in work. Working families with two children would lose up to £1,690 a year. Almost two thirds of the cut would be borne by the poorest 30% of households; almost none of the cut would fall on the richest 40% of households.

A poll by YouGov and The Sunday Times the other week found that there was opposition across the UK to cuts in tax credits, and that the opposition was highest in Scotland: 56% of Scots are opposed to the cuts and only 37% are in favour. Clearly, there is public opposition to any attempt to target tax credits, and that opposition is strongest in Scotland.

The Tory assault on the welfare system is already pushing more and more people, particularly thousands of children, into poverty. There are worrying links between welfare reform and food bank use. The Trussell Trust has reported that 117,689 people picked up a three-day supply of groceries from Scottish food banks in 2014-15, including 36,114 children. That is eight times the number of people who were helped just two years ago. Given the social harm that is already being done by Tory welfare cuts, the future damage that could be caused by gutting tax credits is unthinkable. The Tories’ plans, and the high degree of uncertainty about the future of that lifeline support, demonstrate the need for full powers over Scotland’s welfare system to be in Scottish hands, not those of the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.