Women’s State Pension Age: Ombudsman Report
George Howarth Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I, too, thank the Backbench Business Committee for enabling the debate to take place. I suppose that I should congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on her opening speech, and I do, but I caution her that using it to promote division in the House of Commons is not the way to advance the issue. If she is serious about it, and if she has listened to all the speeches that have been made so far, she will know that there is consensus in the House. Our efforts need to be put into finding a way to move that forward.
I will be brief. The case for righting this injustice is convincing. Although the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s inquiry noted that,
“timely and accurate information was available about changes to the number of qualifying years needed for a full State Pension as a result of the 2014 Pensions Act”,
it did find,
“maladministration in DWP’s communication about the 1995 Pensions Act”.
In addition, the report found that,
“maladministration in DWP’s complaint handling caused complainants unnecessary stress and anxiety and meant an opportunity to lessen their distress was lost. For some complainants, it also caused unnecessary worry and confusion.”
That is pretty clear about the extent of the maladministration. In the context of this debate, the ombudsman stated:
“Given the scale of the impact of DWP’s maladministration, and the urgent need for a remedy, we are taking the rare but necessary step of asking Parliament to intervene.”
I stress the use of the word “urgent”, which I will return to and on which several hon. Members have already commented.
I will first say a few words about the women who have been affected by this wholly unfair and unacceptable matter. We need to remind ourselves that the women born in the 1950s did everything required of them to ensure that reliable arrangements were in place when they reached pensionable age. That is the crux of the matter. I strongly believe that we as Members of this House have a responsibility to accept our duty to remedy the situation.
To return to the ombudsman’s emphasis on the word “urgent”, my fear is that we will not deal with the situation urgently. Let me be clear: I do not believe that allowing the clock to run down to the forthcoming general election is an acceptable option. My fear was confirmed yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions when, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), the Prime Minister said:
“Following the ombudsman’s multi-year investigation, it is imperative that we take the time to review the findings thoroughly.”—[Official Report, 15 May 2024; Vol. 750, c. 255.]
The problem with that is the facts are already well known, and it certainly does not reflect the ombudsman’s conclusion about the urgency of the issue.
I will make a suggestion that I urge both Front-Bench spokespeople to adopt. I believe that we could do the right thing in this Parliament if the Government and Opposition parties held talks, convened and chaired by Mr Speaker, with a view to putting a Bill before the House as speedily as possible. I am mindful and supportive of the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) that we could do something seriously before the summer recess.
As other hon. Members mentioned, every generation experiences injustices. In my time in the House, they have included the thalidomide victims, Hillsborough, Primodos, contaminated blood and, most recently, the Horizon scandal. For me, they are all debts of honour that we have a duty to redeem. I suspect that a majority of Members of the House would agree, so please let us have the opportunity to do so.
Several hon. Members rose—
Paul Maynard
I am grateful for that contribution. I heard the hon. Gentleman make those comments in his speech as well. I am trying to remember the precise figures, but I cannot, so I will write to him. More generally—this point is often made to me by pension experts—the international numbers are not directly comparable because each welfare system is entirely different, particularly in the public-private split in how pension systems are funded. To say that one percentage is generous while another percentage is not generous is not quite the point. I shall write to him none the less, because I think that he will find the fine print useful for his future contributions.
Sir George Howarth
The Minister said that the Government are to give the ombudsman’s report serious consideration before they decide what to do. How long does he think that process will take?
Paul Maynard
If I may, I will answer that in a moment, because I will now turn back to the report. In laying the report before Parliament, the ombudsman brought matters to the House’s attention, making it clear that Parliament has a role in responding to the report. The Government intend to engage fully and constructively with Parliament. I view this debate as a crucial part of that process.
I remind the House about what the ombudsman’s report says—and indeed does not say. The ombudsman has looked not at the decision to equalise the state pension age but rather at how that decision was communicated by the DWP. That is important to understand, as the motion calls on the Government to
“deliver prompt compensation to women born in the 1950s who had their State Pension age raised.”
Importantly, the ombudsman’s report hinted at the Department’s decisions over a narrow period between 2005 and 2007, and their effect on individual notifications. The ombudsman has not found that women have directly lost out financially as a result DWP actions. The report stated:
“We do not find that it”—
the DWP’s communication—
“resulted in them suffering direct financial loss.”
The final report does not say that all women born in the 1950s will have been adversely impacted, as many women were aware that the state pension age had changed. The stage 1 report found that between 1995 and 2004, the DWP’s communication of changes to the state pension age reflected the standards that the ombudsman would expect it to meet. That report also confirmed that accurate information about changes to the state pension age was publicly available in leaflets, through the DWP pension education campaigns and DWP agencies and on its website. However, when considering the Department’s actions between August 2005 and December 2007, the ombudsman came to the view that they resulted in 1950s-born women receiving individual notice later than they might have done had different decisions been made.
I welcome the wide-ranging contributions from Members on behalf of their constituents.
In-work Poverty
George Howarth Excerpts(11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. I will impose a four-minute limit on Back-Bench speakers. In view of the number of people who are standing, I may have to lower it again.
Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. I do not want to be unkind to the hon. Lady, but in the previous debate, I did point out to an hon. Member that to arrive at the end of the debate and intervene is not necessarily the right way to go about things. If she insists, she can, but I just say that. I call the Minister.
Guy Opperman
Our commitment to protecting the most vulnerable is reflected in the action that we have taken over the past two years as people continue to face cost of living pressures, which are clearly evident and are fundamentally derived from the impact of the covid pandemic and the subsequent war in Ukraine, and the impact of that on energy and other costs.
Overall, in 2023 and 2024, we are providing total support worth more than £94 billion to help people with rising bills. That is an average of more than £3,300 per household. Last year, we made cost of living payments of up to £650 to over 8 million low-income households. This year, eligible households will continue to receive additional payments of up to £900. The first £301 payment to 8.3 million households—this support is worth more than £2.5 billion in total—has recently been paid. Further payments will be made this year. In addition, over 6 million people across the UK on eligible extra cost disability benefits have been paid a further £150 disability cost of living payment.
The practical reality is that we have made progress. In 2021-22, 1.7 million fewer people were in absolute poverty after housing costs than in 2009-10, including 400,000 fewer children. Furthermore, there are now nearly 1 million fewer workless households than in 2010. That is why, with more than 1 million vacancies across the UK, our focus is firmly on supporting people in work, and our core jobcentre offer provides a range of options, including face-to-face work coach support and help to boost interview and employment skills.
The taper has been changed, which I believe is very much of assistance. We have taken decisive action on making work pay by cutting the universal credit taper from 63% to 55% and by increasing the universal credit work allowance by £500 a year, allowing households to keep more of what they earn. The national living wage has increased by a record level of 9.7% to £10.42 per hour from this April, which represents a rise of more than £1,600 in the gross annual earnings of a full-time worker.
To help people to progress, we are extending the support offered by our jobcentres to low-paid workers, so that they can increase their hours and move into better-quality jobs. There are two key measures: the in-work progression offer and the increase in the administrative earnings thresholds in universal credit. The in-work progression offer is now live across all jobcentres in Great Britain. We estimate that about 1.4 million low-paid claimants are eligible for work coach support.
I am conscious of time, and I want to address a key issue. Legitimate points were made on the cost of living and earnings, but I am pleased that, today, the Department for Work and Pensions raised the amount that working parents on universal credit may claim for childcare. This is up to £951 a month for one child and £1,630 for two or more children. That is an increase of approximately 47% on the previous limits, which were £646 and £1,108 respectively. That is a massive increase in childcare support for working parents and of massive assistance to those who work. I hope that the House will welcome that.
The Government are also helping eligible parents to cover the costs for the first month of childcare when they enter work and as they increase their working hours. In addition, the House will be aware of the expansion of the 30 hours of funded childcare that the Government originally introduced in 2017, extending the entitlement to eligible working parents for children aged from nine months old to when they start primary school. That will remove one of the largest hurdles that working parents face by giving a huge boost to the amount of funded childcare that they can access, saving them about £6,500 a year.
Taken collectively, we have heard loud and clear that there is a need for a better amount of support for this particular childcare. In respect of this point, we will provide £204 million of extra funding for local authorities to increase the hourly rates that they pay providers, and make sure that rates continue to go up each year.
The Government are committed to tackling poverty, both in and out of work. We are focusing on making work pay and on progression opportunities. We will ensure that everyone has the opportunity to move into a job where they can realise their potential.
Pension Funds: Financial and Ethical Investments
George Howarth Excerpts(5 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, in view of the importance that people rightly attach to this issue, a large number of people want to speak. Accordingly, I will have to impose a time limit on speeches of five minutes. I may have to reduce that later.
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry; the hon. Gentleman has exceeded his time limit.
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I join others in congratulating the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) for his efforts to bring this important debate to the House. I found his five points interesting and inviting.
The question we are looking at today might seem divorced from the emergency that Parliament has rightly declared in respect of climate change, but in fact it cuts to the heart of the issue. There is a causal and consequential link between finance and the environment, as we have heard, as well as environmental implications of investment strategy and supply chains.
As Members will be aware, article 2 of the Paris agreement states the need to make
“finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.”
The fact that it is not merely ethically and environmentally better but more financially prudent to move away from fossil fuel investments is a welcome sign that the systemic change we need is slowly coming together. Along with an ever-growing number of MPs from all parties, I signed and fully support the Divest Parliament pledge. Parliament must lead the way, lead the debate, lead by example and lead by action.
If we are to achieve a net zero target before 2050, we require not only political will but the active support of all sectors of society. The low-carbon sector and its supply chain now provide nearly 400,000 green-collar jobs in the UK—more than aerospace—and are growing considerably faster than our main economy, with estimated potential exports of more than £60 billion by 2030. Lord Deben, chair of the Committee on Climate Change, said that the CCC had been deliberately cautious in drawing up its 2050 target and had deliberately excluded the impact of technological innovations, as we heard earlier, which could hasten the UK’s progress towards a net zero target in ways that cannot currently be anticipated. So our progress in meeting our environmental targets directly depends on the prosperity of our green economy.
We know that the personal is increasingly becoming the political, and vice versa. Few things would more erode the channels of communication between Parliament and the public than our asking one thing of them while tacitly endorsing something else ourselves. We cannot just talk the talk; we also have to walk the walk. If we are to work alongside our constituents and harness their energy in eliminating net UK emissions, it is vital that we divest the parliamentary pension fund of fossil fuel investments. I therefore welcome the recent pledge by the fund trustees to
“prepare a climate change policy”
and to “show ambition” in formulating a responsible business plan that is in line with the principles being discussed today. As we have heard, this is not just about the parliamentary fund but about the broader symbolic implications of such a step.
The Governor of the Bank of England and the Environmental Audit Committee have publicly warned of the dangers of over-exposure to carbon assets in the light of the international drive towards net zero. Hon. Members will be familiar with the 2006 Stern review and the pivotal role it has played in shaping understanding of the interaction between climate change and the economy. Lord Stern recently suggested that the economic models under which current projections are produced systematically underestimate the economic implications of climate change and its effects. A study published last year by the co-director of the Oxford University climate econometrics project describes the catastrophic economic consequences of a 2° C jump in the global temperature, and how, beyond that headline figure, the poorest countries will suffer the direst economic effects.
Since the introduction of auto-enrolment in 2012, the percentage of UK workers in a pension scheme has mushroomed. Ignoring the effects of investment strategies really is disastrous short-termism. The parliamentary fund needs to demonstrate the beautiful truth that long-term measures to mitigate climate change and long-term investment strategies are not incompatible—far from it. In fact, they can form a fabulous virtuous circle, and one that I hope will be beneficial to us all.
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. To give people time to adjust their speeches, I say now that I will reduce the time limit to four minutes after the next speech.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. To get the three remaining speakers in and leave enough time for the Front Benchers, and a moment of two at the end for the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey), I shall have to reduce the time limit further to three minutes.
Pension Equality for Women
George Howarth Excerpts(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris
Absolutely. There are a number of options. There are things that the Minister could do immediately to mitigate and alleviate the worst hardship that is being suffered. This is a matter of concern throughout the House, as is demonstrated by the number of signatures to the early-day motion, and representations have been made from every UK nation and region, as well as every political party in the House.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is doing a good job in making his case, but may I put to him the words of a retired teacher from Knowsley who was born in July 1954? She says:
“The boy I sat next to in school was born in November 1953. We left school at the same time and began to pay our NI and income tax at the same time but he receives his state pension on his 65th birthday. I have to wait 10 months beyond my 65th birthday. How can that be fair”.
Does she not sum up the position very well?
Grahame Morris
Absolutely. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House can give many examples of WASPI women who have come to their surgeries, written to them and sent them e-mails. Every day I receive heartbreaking letters and e-mails from women in my constituency and further afield who have been suffering extreme hardship.
Grahame Morris
Absolutely. These women are falling off the edge of a cliff owing to the lack of transitional relief. There are many examples of women who made plans to retire at 60 to care for elderly relatives, and of women who worked in arduous, physically demanding employment who really cannot work beyond 60. This huge injustice affects 3.8 million women in this country, and it really needs to be addressed.
Mr Howarth
My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. To support that point, I shall quote a woman from Knowsley who was born in June 1955:
“My elderly mother had a stroke and I subsequently became her full-time carer. The last 10 years of her life were particularly difficult as she needed 24-hour care, provided by me. My own health has suffered greatly due to the added pressure and I now find myself unable to work due to ill-health and, at an age when I should now be receiving my state pension, I am forced to attend regular appointments at the DWP and medicals to ascertain my entitlement to ESA. This is soul destroying”.
Work Capability Assessments
George Howarth Excerpts(6 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Linden
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I am glad that his office was able to help on that occasion, as mine was in the case of my constituent David Stewart. It is all well and good that as Members of Parliament we can intervene in individual cases, but so many people are affected throughout the entire process that our being able to help on a one-off basis is not good enough.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a fluent and powerful case. Does he agree that if there is a review of the process, two things need to happen? First, in clear, medically proven cases of mental illness, the medical evidence should be accepted without face-to-face examination. Secondly, the assessors and decision makers should be appropriately trained in mental health.
David Linden
I am grateful for that intervention, which leads me on to the recommendations of the Rethink Mental Illness report. The first is:
“A major reform of the PIP assessment and the WCA for ESA is needed. This should result in both assessments reducing the distress caused to people affected by mental illness and that better reflect the realities of living with a condition of this type. Such reform would reduce the need for appeals and the associated costs to the DWP and HM Courts & Tribunals Service”.
The second recommendation is that, as the right hon. Gentleman argues,
“The Government should review the way in which people with mental illness are assessed. Where clear medical evidence exists that claimants have severe forms of mental illness, they should be exempt from face-to-face assessments. Where face-to-face assessments are necessary, claimants should be encouraged to seek support from carers, friends or family members.”
I have seen numerous examples of friends, family members and carers being taken along, only to be told that they are not allowed to help.
The third recommendation is:
“All assessors and DWP decision-makers should be appropriately trained in mental health. The scandal of inappropriately trained and experienced assessors making critical decisions about the lives of people affected by mental illness must end.”
One case study in the report caught my eye, and I want to share it with the House. James, who was 53, had a work capability assessment with a physiotherapist after he lost his job because of depression—not that I can see the connection between physiotherapy and depression. This is his testimony:
“The assessor wanted yes or no answers to various questions like ‘can you leave the house?’ I tried to explain that some days I can leave the house or answer the door, and other days it’s not possible because of my mental health, and the response from the assessor was ‘is that a yes or a no then?’
I have no problem when people don’t understand mental health; it’s when they have an opinion on something they don’t know anything about.
There weren’t any specific questions exploring my mental health. At the end of the assessment, the assessor asked me to touch my toes, and I felt that the whole assessment was set up so people with mental illness fail.”
Supported Housing
George Howarth Excerpts(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
That is true, and my hon. Friend is another of the House’s experts in this area. However, it is also the case that the housing benefit element of the costs of supported housing is designed to cover the housing costs and the management of housing costs, not the personal or support care costs.
Sometimes there is a confusion of those issues, but there should be no confusion for the Minister or the Government. In their own review in 2011, they listed the main reasons behind the costs of supported housing, where housing costs are often greater than those for general needs housing, saying that they included
“providing 24 hour housing management cover…providing more housing related support than in mainstream housing…organising more frequent repairs or refurbishment…providing more frequent mediating between tenants; and…providing extra CCTV and security services”.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) is absolutely right, and I am sure that the House will look forward to hearing her speak, and that she too will welcome the Prime Minister’s partial announcement today.
For all of us in this House and, in particular, for the 700,000 people who currently have their homes in supported or sheltered housing, what the Government do instead matters a great deal. The devil is always in the detail and the funding. We are told that we will have to wait until next week for the detail, so let me turn to funding. The previous Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, now the deputy Prime Minister, said in a written ministerial statement in September 2016:
“we will bring in a new funding model which will ensure that the sector continues to be funded at current levels”.—[Official Report, 15 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 37WS.]
That is simply not true. Total funding is only protected in year one, 2019-20. In year two, the sector faces a funding cliff edge with cuts of more than £500 million scheduled from April 2020. Government Members are right to look puzzled and a little alarmed. This has not been mentioned by Ministers and it is only evident in the small print of the Treasury’s fiscal reports. If Members look closely at the Treasury documents, as I have, they will see exactly what the Government plan.
On page 87 of the Budget 2016 Red Book, table 2.2 shows that the Government scored cuts to supported housing spending of £390 million in 2020-21. Following the pledge by the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to protect funding, page 12 of the Treasury’s 2016 autumn statement policy costings report reflected the commitment that overall funding for supported housing will be the same in 2019-20. However, it also confirmed that the amended policy announced by the right hon. Gentleman will
“generate additional savings in subsequent years as it is applied to the stock of supported housing tenants”.
In other words, that includes all current supported housing tenants and not just, as originally planned, the new ones. It shows additional cost cuts in 2020-21 of £160 million. Of course, that was updated in the Budget 2017 Red Book to £165 million. As well as the £390 million of cuts already announced, therefore, there will be a further cut in 2020-21, the second year of any new system.
The upshot is clear: Ministers have lined up costs for this programme. And they have lined up cuts of over half a billion pounds for year two of any new system they put in place, and further cuts after that. This is a funding cliff edge for existing supported housing and it entirely demolishes Ministers’ claims that they will protect supported housing. Will the Minister confirm today that the Government will make good this funding gap in full, so that the Prime Minister’s pledge this morning to the House in Prime Minister’s questions can be properly honoured?
In our motion, we say the Government should adopt a system that
“safeguards the long-term future and funding of supported housing.”
I want to set out four tests for the Government, which explain what we mean and how we will judge the detail of any plans for change. First, any new funding system must reflect the real cost of running supported housing. Secondly, any new funding system must be needs-led and be able to deal with increases in demand and need for supported housing, not subject to arbitrary cash limits such as departmental revenue spending. Thirdly, any funding model for the future must take account of the particular needs of very short-term accommodation, including homeless hostels and women’s refuges—this is one of the very serious failings with universal credit. Fourthly, and most importantly, any new funding system must not lead to the closure of any vitally needed supported housing.
This is a Government with no majority or mandate for domestic policy, because this is not covered by their deal with the Democratic Unionist party. It is Britain’s first minority Government for 38 years. As a Parliament, and as Members on all sides, we are still coming to terms with the much bigger role and much stronger say we have in Government policy decisions. The influence—[Interruption.] The Minister snorts, but the truth is that the influence of Members from all sides has had a very significant bearing on the policy on supported housing. It has been very significant so far, but there is a good deal more to do. I trust that Ministers will see this debate as another important contribution.
John Healey
I will. I was just about to finish, but I will give way to my right hon. Friend.
Mr Howarth
Good timing on my part! I suggest to my right hon. Friend that a fifth test might be in order: would any new Government scheme enable more supported housing to be built, thereby releasing family housing for those in housing need, while also saving money on care home costs further down the line?
John Healey
My right hon. Friend is right; perhaps that should be a fifth test. Certainly the first part of any fifth test must be whether, when the Government announce their plan, all the schemes halted in the last couple of years then get the go-ahead.
Finally, Parliament, the housing sector and the Government must together sort out a good long-term system for supported housing. I hope that our motion and this debate can be the basis for just that.
Universal Credit Roll-out
George Howarth Excerpts(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I hope he will not take offence, but if he does, it is just too bad—[Laughter]—when I say that he has expressed, with his characteristic force and insistence, and no little eloquence, his opinion; however, there is not an automatic link between the two phenomena that he has described. There could be such a link, but it is not automatic. The hon. Gentleman’s mind has raced ahead.
Mr Speaker
I am saving the right hon. Gentleman until last, because he is so senior.
Mr Howarth
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You have been admirably clear about the obligation that rests with the Government to address the situation they now find themselves in. Even if that is not cutting a Minister’s salary for not responding, should there not be in our Standing Orders some provision whereby there can be a penalty for simply refusing to respond to the will of this House?
Mr Speaker
It is open to the House to look at its Standing Orders, and potentially to revise them, at any time; that is not for the Chair. I completely understand the sentiment the right hon. Gentleman has expressed, but I leave that to colleagues. I have tried to be absolutely fair on this matter: this motion does matter; it is important; it was passed. As a matter of fact, however, it is not binding. That is the situation.
I simply say to those who are concerned about a statement that there may be a statement tomorrow, and there are means by which people who want to procure a statement can seek to do so if none is proffered. That is just a statement of the facts. The Chair is not seeking to deliver any change tonight or make any commitment. It is not for me to do that. It is for sensible parliamentarians to talk to each other, to reflect on what has happened, to have a regard to the reputation of the institution, and to act accordingly. People are perfectly capable of understanding the significance of what I have said and of deciding, individually or collectively, how to respond, possibly as early as tomorrow.
State Pension Age for Women
George Howarth Excerpts(6 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Guy Opperman
In May 2017, Mr Briggs launched the “Commit and Publish” campaign, challenging employers to monitor the age of their workforce and publish figures by the end of 2017. A significant number of companies have already bought into that, including Aviva, Barclays and the Co-op. I assure colleagues that I will be assisting Mr Briggs in pursuing that campaign with all the rigour that I brought to my campaign for the introduction of the living wage.
In February 2017, the “Fuller Working Lives” strategy was launched on a cross-Government basis. I urge colleagues to read it, because if we are frank, an assertion has been made in the debate that the Government are doing nothing to try and encourage persons who are prior to pensionable age into employment. There are a number of different matters, which I have set out, and those are particularly set out in the “Fuller Working Lives” strategy.
Guy Opperman
I will not, because I have a lot of points to make. The strategy aims to increase the retention, retraining and recruitment of older workers, and bring about a change in employers’ perceptions and attitudes—surely something that we would all endorse and wish for. We know that many people approaching the state pension age want to continue working or would like to be in work, and we have changed the law to abolish the default retirement age. I do urge colleagues to read the strategy.
After extensive debate, the 1995 Act changed the 55-year-old status quo by equalising pension ages for men and women at 65, with that change taking place between 2010 and 2020, depending on age. That statute was debated at length, and the changes were then the subject of widespread advertising, debate, leaflets, letters and 16 million state pension forecasts.
I am not here to criticise the 1995 to 1997 Conservative Government, nor the 1997 to 2010 Labour Government; I suggest that they made real efforts to communicate the change passed by Parliament in 1995. I rely in support of that on what the hon. Member for Easington said when he wrote of the 1995 Act in his blog in June 2016:
“The timescales were such that they gave sufficient time for people to plan for their new circumstances, and legislation was already in place that would have seen the equalised State Pension Age rise…in gradual stages”.
Housing and Social Security
George Howarth Excerpts(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr George Howarth)
Order. Before I call the Scottish National party spokeswoman, I must tell the House that because of the pressure on time and our wish to get as many people in as possible, I shall introduce a six-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches once the next speaker has sat down. That limit might have to be reduced further later, but I hope not. If people stick to the time limits, and if possible even undershoot them, we might be able to stick at six minutes.
Liverpool City Region (Poverty)
George Howarth Excerpts(7 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important contribution. It is a point that I was going to make later in my speech. The coalition Government decided to remove the weighting for deprivation. Every Member who has contributed or is about to contribute has made that very point to Ministers sitting on the Government Benches. If we had had the average cut in Liverpool, we would have an additional £84 million a year, which would make a significant difference to the life chances and outcomes of the people we are elected to represent.
The Government talk a lot about increasing aspiration, but some people aspire every day to have enough money at the end of the week to put food on the table and clothes on their children’s backs and to secure a roof over their heads, and not to have to choose between those three at any moment.
I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton said about the Government’s proposed jobcentre closure plans. Liverpool will be hit hardest of all England’s cities by the proposal, which will affect 40% of our jobcentres. I presented a petition last night, on behalf of hundreds of my constituents, against the two proposed jobcentre closures in our area. The issue is very significant, and if the Government are serious about dealing with inequality it does not make sense to treat Liverpool city region in that way.
We should not forget that in 2015, the Tory Government scrapped child poverty targets that were brought in by the previous Labour Government. Ministers no longer have a legal duty to tackle the number of children in poverty. They believe themselves to be essentially unaccountable for their policies, but we will hold them accountable because we meet our constituents and their children in our surgeries every week. We see the faces of people such as my constituent Frank, who, on obtaining custody of his child last year, faced months of delays and administrative errors in trying to have his child benefit and child tax credits paid. That left him financially unable to provide properly for the child placed in his care and plunged his newly reunited family into extreme and abject poverty.
Conservative Members may say, “Well, of course, the poverty target was measuring the wrong thing,” or “Poverty ain’t what it used to be in my day. Children going hungry—now that’s real poverty.” If that is what they say, I would reiterate the significant comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood.
I am conscious that another hon. Member wants to speak, so I shall reflect only briefly on the issue of food poverty, which affects too many people not only in the Liverpool city region but across the country. The Central Liverpool food bank, which unfortunately is one of many in my constituency, has fed a total of more than 43,000 people, including 15,000 children. The number of people having to use the service has increased, because of an increase in the number of people being sanctioned. Many are children. Many people not only are using the food bank in a crisis, but have become chronic users because they cannot put enough food on the table for a sustained period of time.
I have raised the issue of food poverty before. In fact, I obtained the first debate on food banks in this House, in 2012. I also made a film about it called “Breadline Britain”. At that time, only a few hundred thousand people had to obtain emergency food aid. It is worth reiterating the point made earlier: the fact that more than 1 million people have had to get emergency food aid in the past year, in the sixth richest nation in the world. That is a stain on the national consciousness and I am ashamed to live in a country where that is the case. I am frankly appalled and disappointed that the figures are getting larger every year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton mentioned that I have been a long-term supporter of organisations such as Magic Breakfast, which helps schools provide children with breakfast. There are too many reports from teachers—and the number is increasing —of children sitting in school not having had breakfast. If it were not for those breakfast clubs, they would not be able to concentrate and learn properly.
The cuts that have been made are significant. It is not just a question of how much is in the pot; it is also a question of how it is distributed. We have been disproportionately affected because of the removal of the weighting for deprivation. I believe that the Government have washed their hands of the tough choices and passed them on to councils, as in the case of our city region and its people. Our early intervention grant was cut by 44% between 2010-11 and 2015-16. It is worth reminding the House that that grant is intended to support children and those most in need. It is no surprise, given that it has been savaged in that way, that people are struggling to get by.
As I said, it takes only one unforeseen event to push people over the edge into debt. That is why, according to the Children’s Society, nearly 2,500 children in my constituency are living in families that have problem debt. About a third of families with problem debt say that they have cut back on food in the past month. A third have cut back on heating and a third on clothing. Those are the basics of a decent life, and that is what is happening in this country in 2017. The tough choices being made in Britain today are whether to choose food over heating or heating over clothes, or to run deeper into debt. Children in poverty are more likely to fall behind in school, less likely to secure a job and more likely to experience mental and physical illnesses.
It does not have to be like that. We have heard from other hon. Members about the incredible charitable and voluntary sector efforts being made in the city region, but on their own, those valiant efforts are not enough. On behalf of all my constituents, young and old, and the people of the Liverpool city region, I urge the Minister to consider the issue of poverty seriously, and to outline exactly what the Government and his Department will do to address it properly.
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, it may be helpful if I point out that I shall call the first of the Front-Bench speakers at 3.35 pm.