Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Debbie Abrahams and Roger Gale

Report stage
Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

There is clearly a great deal of good in the Pension Schemes Bill; that is why it went through Committee relatively easily. I do not wish to be a dog in the manger about that, but instead to recognise the good in the Bill. I shall focus on the issues raised in new clauses 22 and 24.

I do not pretend to be expert in these matters, but I do know injustice when I see it. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I fought for many years for the uprating of frozen pensions for ex-pat citizens overseas. That is a shame from which the reputation of this country will take a long time to recover, and I fear that we are about to endorse yet another such shame.

There is absolutely no doubt in most people’s minds that the Pensions Act 1995 was flawed. This issue is an unintended consequence that was not foreseen. That it has taken this long to get to grips with it is wrong, but we now have the opportunity to set things right. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), in an excellent speech, set out the stall very clearly indeed. I have huge sympathy with her new clause. Were it to be called, I would vote for it without any question.

The right hon. Lady made it very plain—it is indeed very plain—that there is no suggestion that any redress should be retrospective; there is no question of any vast back payments to those whose pensions have been affected. I listened carefully to what the Minister said about retrospection—by the way, I agree that retrospective legislation normally ends in tears—but the proposed measure is not retrospective in that sense.

We come to how to get this right. It seems to me that the Government’s proposals are hugely complicated—unnecessarily so—and do not actually do the job. New clause 24, tabled by Opposition Front Benchers, who I know have put a lot of effort into trying to get this right, gives a get-out in the form of a lack of surplus, which I believe would enable those companies that have neglected their duties until now to carry on neglecting their duties. For that reason, my personal preference is for new clause 22.

I represent the remains of the Pfizer empire in Sandwich. Not entirely surprisingly, I have therefore a significant number—one is a significant number, by the way—of constituents who were affected by the pre-1997 section in the 1995 Act. I find it quite appalling that companies of size and international importance that have been named today—including Pfizer in my own constituency, which is a good employer—should have put themselves in the position that they are in when in some cases, for up to 25 years, pensioners have not been rewarded in the manner to which I believe them to be entitled. As I say, for my money, Pfizer is an excellent company. It does good work and is a good employer, but somewhere along the line, in the back office—probably in the United States—a decision was taken not to uprate pensions. That is quite simply wrong.

While I understand that the Minister comes to this issue with a reasonably open mind and a good heart, I do not think that his proposal does the job and I am not certain that the Opposition Front-Bench amendment does the job. I believe that new clause 22, in the name of the hon. Member for Llanelli, would do the job. I hope that further and very serious consideration will be given to adopting that resolution.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I rise in support of the Government’s new clauses, particularly those that relate to the pre-1997 pensionable service indexation where scheme rules allow. That will mean that pensioners whose pension schemes became insolvent through no fault of their own and that have failed to keep pace with inflation will have that rectified. As I mentioned yesterday in my speech on the Budget, that will benefit more than 250,000 Pension Protection Fund and financial assistance scheme members.

I pay particular credit to the Pension Action Group, the PAG. It was formed in 2003 following the collapse of the Allied Steel and Wire pension scheme, which left thousands of workers without employment or their promised occupational pension. They are not covered by the Pension Protection Fund, which was introduced by the Pensions Act 2004 for members of defined benefit schemes whose employer went bust after 6 April 2005. The Pensions Action Group campaigned first for the financial assistance scheme to be set up for members of schemes that went bust, then for improvements to FAS benefits to bring them into line with those of PPF members.

In the last Parliament, members of the Pensions Action Group gave evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee on the hardship experienced due to the policy of not indexing pre-1997 benefits. As a relatively new Select Committee Chair, I remember hearing from them at a separate meeting, and it was so moving. Within weeks, unfortunately, different members were dying because of their age. Benefits were not going to their families, and they were not going to have the benefits that we see rightly being given to this group.

FAS members did most of their service before 1997, and most were in schemes that provided for indexation on all members’ pensionable service. Non-indexation of FAS compensation meant that the average award—about £2,700—was progressively lower than the amount expected from the original pension schemes. Terry Monk told the Committee that

“people should get what they paid for—end of story.”

Richard Nicholl said that

“people paid extra effectively, for full indexation…it is only fair that it goes to those who have paid for it.”

I pay credit to the Deprived Pensioners Association, which gave evidence to the Committee about the impact of the non-indexation of pre-1997 on PPF members. Having heard their evidence, the Committee recommended that the Government legislate to allow both compensation schemes, FAS and PPF, to provide indexation on pre-1997 benefits where scheme rules allowed.

I am incredibly grateful to the Pensions Minister for listening and to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who came to the Committee a couple of weeks ago and listened to concerns from members, including the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling). What has happened is right, and I reiterate my thanks.

Welfare Reform (People with Disabilities)

Debate between Debbie Abrahams and Roger Gale

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I indicate to Members now, to allow them a little preparation, that I intend to impose a five-minute limit on Back Bench speeches. Six hon. Members from various parties have indicated a desire to speak: if you can manage it in less than five minutes, it will help others. That will leave about five minutes each for Opposition Front-Bench speeches and for the Minister.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I was discussing the experiences of disabled people, 90% of whom have worked. For people with disabilities, the experience of an interview can be particularly discouraging.

People with disabilities should be able to access the same opportunities as everyone else, including being able to use their talent and skills to the best of their ability. No one should feel that they are unable to reach their potential or that their hopes and dreams do not matter. The Government have cut the support for disabled people that allows them to live as normal a life as possible, but they have failed to provide meaningful support to help disabled people into work and enable them to thrive, thereby protecting them from leaving the labour market prematurely.

Having just one disability employment adviser for 600 disabled people is quite shocking and reveals the Government’s priorities. Similarly, there is chaos, and inadequacies, in the specialist employment support service Access to Work, which last year supported just 35,000 disabled people into work and at work. That just does not cut it. What happened to the money de-invested from Remploy, which was meant to be reinvested in Access to Work?

The extra costs commission analysed the additional costs faced by disabled people and found that on average they spend an extra £550 per month on costs associated with their disability. By contrast, in 2015-16 the average award of personal independence payment or disability living allowance was £360 per month. On top of this, as I mentioned earlier, Scope has estimated that 600,000 fewer disabled people will be eligible for support. Couple this with the £3.5 billion cut to social care and it all adds up.

It comes as no surprise that people with disabilities are twice as likely to live in persistent poverty as non-disabled people: 80% of disability-related poverty is caused by extra costs. This has implications for disabled people’s families as well, because a third of all families living in poverty include one disabled family member.

George has a mild learning disability. He has suffered with a bad back since an accident a few years ago and can no longer do the heavy lifting work that he used to do when he worked in a warehouse. George works 12.5 hours a week as a cleaner in a local college, but wants to work more to earn working tax credit. He said:

“Hopefully I might be able to find another job or increase the hours with the job I’ve got. Next year I might have a word with my supervisor but everyone is short of cash at the moment so I’ll have to wait and see!”

For now, he relies on employment support allowance to top up his wages. He lives a modest life. He attends a local self-advocacy group, where he receives additional support when he needs it, and meets up with friends and family when he can. He certainly does not have cash to spare. Without ESA he could not afford to get out and about and would risk becoming very isolated. He has been in financial difficulty in the past, and it was only because of the support he got from the self-advocacy group that he managed to keep his own home—he was under threat of being made homeless. George is lucky. Unfortunately, thousands of people do not have the benefit of the support that he has.

I am sure it has not escaped your attention, Sir Roger, that more than 336,000 people have signed a petition calling on the Government to publish data on the number of people on incapacity benefit and ESA who have died since November 2011. This petition was started followed a ruling by the Information Commissioner on 30 April compelling the Government to publish these data in 35 days, including the number of those who died following being found fit for work.

Last week there was an amazing sequence of events. On Monday, the Secretary of State told me that he could not publish these data because they were not kept, and told me to stop scaremongering; on Wednesday, the Prime Minister said that they would be published; and this was swiftly followed by the Government saying that they were appealing against the Information Commissioner’s ruling, stating that publishing these data would lead to “probable misinterpretations” and “was too emotive...and wasn’t in the public interest”. What an absolute shambles! I could not disagree more. This is definitely in the public interest. As a former public health academic, I am more than aware of the strict criteria for establishing causality, but there are no grounds for not publishing numbers of actual deaths as well as the Government-proposed standardised mortality ratios, including those who died within six weeks of being found fit for work. Will the Minister now confirm when these data will be published?

At the same time, following on from Select Committee on Work and Pensions inquiries into sanctions beyond Oakley, I should be grateful if the Minister confirmed when the Government will publish redacted information on the circumstances of the deaths of claimants who died while sanctioned, and what changes the DWP instigated in the light of reviews of these deaths. It is notable that, since the Government’s new sanctions regime, the rate of sanctioning of people on IB and ESA has doubled. Will the Minister also confirm whether the significant surge in suicide rates for both men and women since 2010—but particularly for working-age men—is being analysed by the DWP? I thank my former public health colleague Ben Barr for providing me with these data.

My final comments relate to next week’s Budget. There is much concern that the Government may once again target disabled people. Will the Minister pledge today that there will be no further erosion of support for disabled people, including taxation of universal disability benefit or restricting the Motability scheme, which enables over 56,000 to keep their job? He did not answer the questions I asked him during our previous exchange on the PIP process, so I should be grateful for a yes or no answer today.

Being disabled is not a lifestyle choice. I am proud of the principles underpinning our model of social welfare, where any one of us is afforded protection should we fall ill or become disabled, but it is at risk from this Government. I urge the Government not to take any further steps along their regressive path.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

The debate will end at 5.55 pm. I shall have to call the Front Benchers to speak not later than 5.40 pm.