Oral Answers to Questions

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

Since we came into office, interest rates have been cut five times, helping businesses and households. According to Lloyds, business confidence is at a nine-year high, and there is to be much more private investment, including the £150 billion announced during the recent state visit. Add to that the trade deals that the Conservatives could not secure—there are reasons to be optimistic about the future of the economy and I hope the hon. Lady shares them.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

8. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to reduce the number of children in poverty.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State co-chairs the ministerial child poverty taskforce, which is leading our work across Government to develop the UK-wide child poverty strategy, which will be published later this year. We are considering all available levers to give every child the best start in life, building on work that is already under way across all four nations. Ahead of publication, the Government have already taken action for the whole UK, including introducing a fair repayment rate and improving the adequacy of the standard allowance of universal credit from April 2026.

[Seamus Logan]

The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that because of this Government’s policies—especially the two-child cap—more than 100 children are dragged into poverty every day. That equates to almost 3,400 children between now and the Chancellor’s autumn statement at the end of next month. Here is a lever: as child poverty in Scotland is falling, why does the Minister not finally listen to reason by scrapping this cruel policy? Why is he waiting? Why does he not just act now?

[Andrew Western]

This Government are acting now. We have already announced that all children in families in England that are in receipt of universal credit will receive free school meals, lifting 100,000 children out of poverty. We have capped the cost of school uniforms, and introduced a new crisis and resilience fund. Our Child Maintenance Service reforms will lift 20,000 children out of poverty, and much more will be done when the child poverty taskforce reports later this year.

Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) on securing this debate and on her tremendously eloquent speech, which removed much of what I had to say. In all honesty, though, eloquent speeches are just not going to cut it; they simply will not do the trick. We need action.

I note, with the exception of those present, the absence of so many Labour MPs who, as others have said, stood holding placards in support of the WASPI case. Where are they today? Do they not understand the sense of betrayal, the sense of breach of promise and the breakdown of trust? That is a problem that many of them will face in due course. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) spoke of accountability. Well, there is accountability, and it will come at the next election, when people have a chance to pass their verdict.

I will not repeat many of the things the right hon. Lady said, but I do want to highlight a couple of points. The PHSO said:

“some women lost opportunities to make informed decisions about their finances.”

The ombudsman also said that Parliament should

“identify a mechanism for providing appropriate remedy for those who have suffered injustice”.

When the Budget was announced, there were great expectations that there would be something in it for the WASPI women. There was nothing—nothing—even though the DWP accepted the PHSO’s findings and apologised not once, but twice. If someone takes my wallet and I discover that and I come to them, does anyone think an apology will suffice? No. I want my wallet back. That is the point: an apology just will not cut it.

A great number of women affected by this mal-administration are my constituents and there are many thousands across Scotland. I participated in the debate on 17 March—in fact, I mentioned the WASPI women’s case in my maiden speech. I believe the hon. Member for Salford spoke straight after me, and that the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) was also present. Many others have a much longer record than I do of campaigning on this issue.

I do not want to go on too long, because many of the points have already been made, but I want to highlight one last thing. The most distasteful aspect of this profound failure of the UK Government was the photograph of the current Secretary of State for Work and Pensions posing with WASPI campaigners, smiling and holding a sign pledging,

“I will work with WASPI to identify and deliver a fair solution for all women affected”.

That is, frankly, shameful.

There is one get-out—in fact, there are a number of ways in which this can be redressed, but here is one. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) will tomorrow re-present his Women’s State Pension Age (Ombudsman Report and Compensation Scheme) Bill. If Members have not signed that Bill in support of it, they have an opportunity tomorrow. We in the SNP understand the issues that are involved here. We will continue to support and speak out against this injustice. I thank Members for listening to me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

The right hon. Gentleman has been a Member of this House for much longer than me, so he knows how this works. Parties set out their manifestos, and I am sure that if he looks at the Labour party’s 2024 manifesto, he will find there different words from the ones he has just shared with the House.

The Government agree that letters should have been sent sooner. We have apologised, and we will learn the lessons from that. However, as hon. Members and campaigners on this issue are well aware, we do not agree with the ombudsman’s approach to injustice or to remedy—and neither, reading carefully between the lines of the speech from the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), do the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman spoke very eloquently, as always.

Let us look at what the ombudsman said when it made its decision to lay the report before Parliament. It was not looking ahead to what a future Government might do; it knew that the then Conservative Government would have come to a similar conclusion. Hon. Members should remember that the long debate over those years between the Government and the ombudsman was held in private, so the ombudsman was aware of the approach of the Government, to whom it was talking in a way that those of us outside Government at the time could not have known.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) and the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) asked about the decision not to accept an ombudsman’s findings. They are right to say that it is unusual, but it is definitely not unprecedented. I should spell out that the Government have accepted other ombudsman findings since, so it is not right to say that this is some kind of fundamental break in the approach by Government.

[Seamus Logan]

Earlier, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) warned us that we might simply see the Government Front Bencher regurgitation the Government’s views today. Can the Minister clarify whether he has been sent here to defend the indefensible, or will he give us something new today?

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Gentleman is welcome to choose his tone; I will continue to the end of my comments. My job is to come and explain the Government’s decision, and to be held accountable for it. That is what I am doing today, and what I will continue to do over the course of my remarks. It is right that the Government are then asked questions about their decision; that is the nature of this democracy, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said.

An important consideration in the Government making this decision was that evidence showed that sending people unsolicited letters is unlikely to affect what they know. That is why letters are sent only as part of wider communication campaigns. This evidence was not properly considered by the ombudsman. Another consideration was that the great majority of 1950s-born women were aware of the state pension age changing, if not of a change in their specific state pension age, as several hon. Members have pointed out. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford mentioned the statistic of 43%, referring to the 2024 rather than 2023 survey. However, as she will know, that refers to all women, including some women as young as 16; if we look at the cohort of women born in the 1950s, the figure is far, far higher. On those and other grounds, we rejected the ombudsman’s approach to injustice and remedy.

Members will be aware that litigation is live, so I will not go into lots more detail on the research evidence, which is the core of that litigation. I will just say two things: first, our decision was based on published research reports, which were robust and met professional standards; secondly, the same awareness research, which the right hon. Member for New Forest East disparaged, was used by the ombudsman.

PIP Changes: Impact on Carer’s Allowance

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to underline again the hugely important contribution, not least economic contribution, made by carers. The consultation is under way, and it will run for a full 12 weeks from the time when all the accessible versions of the Green Papers are published, which will be in early April. I would be very grateful if she encouraged the organisations that she is working with to respond to that consultation, and I would also be very interested to hear and see her response to it. We will take those contributions extremely seriously as we finalise the details of these proposals.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

Before I put my question to the Minister, I am sure that the House will want to join me in offering condolences to Keith Brown, our deputy party leader, on the death of his wife Christina McKelvie, who was a very distinguished and long-serving Member of the Scottish Parliament and a Minister.

The impact assessment snuck out yesterday under cover of the spring statement confirmed what the SNP has been warning about for some time. Labour’s austerity cuts will have a devastating effect, with the poorest and most vulnerable in society forced to foot the bill for the Chancellor’s incompetence. Some 150,000 people will be affected by the changes to carer’s allowance, but also—at an absolute minimum—250,000 people, including 50,000 children, will be forced into poverty. These are very modest assessments; I heard the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) give a figure of 400,000 people. Labour promised that it would improve living standards, but with the full extent of the damage now spelled out, does Labour’s promise not lie in tatters? What will it take for the Government to change course before irreversible harm is done?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I echo the hon. Gentleman’s condolences. The figures were certainly not snuck out yesterday; I do not think anyone can accuse the Office for Budget Responsibility of sneaking them out. They were published on the day of the spring statement, as they always are and always have to be. Let me make it clear that spending on the personal independence payment will continue to increase above inflation. It will not increase as fast as it would have done if we had done nothing, but the advantage is that the funding for that benefit will be sustainable, and that is vital because so many people depend on it. It is not going to be means-tested and it is not going to be frozen. It will be there for the long term.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the petitioners and the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for bringing this debate here today and leading it.

The claim the Government have made is that 90% of affected women knew of the changes to their state pension age. That survey was not representative of the affected cohort: around 200 women born in the 1950s were asked, out of a total sample size of 1,950 people. I ask the Minister, as the WASPI campaigners ask, is it fair to let the DWP mark its own homework? I also ask him to explain why the Government have taken the almost unprecedented step of ignoring the independent findings of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

Several hundred women in my constituency, along with thousands of other women in Scotland, signed the petition to introduce a compensation scheme—almost 160,000 women signed it across these islands. I am sorry if I sound angry on this auspicious day—and I wish everyone here, including you, Sir Edward, as well as people watching at home, a very happy St Patrick’s day—but I am angry, and I reflect the anger of the WASPI women. It is the human aspect of this decision that so sticks in the craw: pensioners seem to be singled out to take the hardest cuts of all. Many WASPI women have written to me talking of losing family and friends who never lived to see them get justice for their loss.

This was a Government elected—many of its Members in Scottish constituencies—on promises of change. Yet all we see is a series of broken promises: national insurance rises, the family farm tax, pensioners in fuel poverty, the Scotch whisky industry, energy prices and the two-child cap. Last July, SNP supporters lent Labour candidates their vote. They believed the promises that were made. “Read my lips,” said Anas Sarwar, “no austerity under Labour.” Yet what we see is attack after attack on the most vulnerable people. Here we have the WASPI women—people who many Labour candidates stood and had their photographs taken with, holding placards promising their support, and this Government have spurned them. Well, hell hath no fury; the WASPI women will not forget that, along with all the other broken promises.

I have heard many Scottish Labour MPs speak today, but when they had the chance to support our motion, only one voted with us. The 2026 Holyrood elections are just around the corner, and although 2029 may seem a long way off, voters—just like the WASPI women—will not forget Labour’s broken promises. I say to the Government: give the WASPI women the justice they deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Mr Stringer, and I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for leading today’s debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I look forward to hearing her closing remarks.

Questions about when each of us can draw our pension are hugely important and so are related questions about how we spend our latter years, including when we can retire. Therefore, it not surprising that this petition has garnered so many signatures, nor that this debate has brought so many spectators and hon. Members to Westminster Hall today. Of course, none of us needs to come here to have those conversations. We have them every week precisely because they matter so much.

I have declared an interest on this issue before: my aunt in Aberystwyth sees herself as a WASPI woman. Just two weeks ago, I met Georgina Kettleborough at Burlais primary school. She has supported children for over three decades in the canteen and throughout the school and is about to retire at the age of 69. I hope we can all join in congratulating her on that milestone, as we join my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) in congratulating his mother on her birthday.

Georgina’s retirement comes several years after she was entitled to her state pension because working in the school is such a big part of her life. People will not be surprised to know, however, that she would have preferred to receive her pension earlier. Everyone will understand that. Who would not feel that way—especially women from a generation that suffered such significant disadvantage in the labour market and elsewhere, as the hon. Members for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) and for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) spelled out?

However, the ombudsman did not investigate the decision of the Conservative Government to increase the state pension age for women in 1995 or that of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition Government to accelerate those increases in 2011. I make that point because several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), have referred to the desirability of those original decisions. That is not to downplay the significance of those decisions —far from it. SPA equalisation was a very large and important change, and the acceleration was opposed by my party for the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson). But the ombudsman did not investigate the legality or merits of those decisions. Instead—I should note that the WASPI campaign is clear on this point—the sole focus was on how those changes were communicated by the Department for Work and Pensions.

The ombudsman looked at six cases that it said reflected the range of issues and the injustices raised. It concluded that the DWP provided adequate and accurate information on changes to the state pension age between 1995 and 2004. However, it also found that decisions made between 2005 and 2007 led to a 28-month delay in sending out letters to women born in the 1950s. The ombudsman says that those delays were maladministration, as almost every hon. Member who spoke today reiterated.

We respect the work of the ombudsman, its independence and the work it does, a point many hon. Members have raised. In this case, we agree that the letters should have been sent sooner. We have apologised and we will learn the lessons. However, as everyone in this room is well aware, we do not agree with the ombudsman’s approach to injustice or remedy. Many hon. Members have asked whether that invalidates the role of the ombudsman, including my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey). My strong view is that it does not. It is, rightly, rare, but not unprecedented, for a Government to take that view.

Two important considerations when making that decision were that the evidence shows that sending people unsolicited letters can be ineffective, which is why it is part of a wider communication campaign on every issue where it is used today, and that the majority of 1950s-born women were aware of the fact that the state pension age was changing, if not of their specific state pension age. The ombudsman assumed that sending letters earlier would have changed what women knew and how they acted.

[Seamus Logan]

Can the Minister explain his assertion that the majority of women were aware of these changes?

[Torsten Bell]

I will come to exactly that point shortly.

The 2014 research was not properly considered by the ombudsman. The same research is now the subject of live litigation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) noted. In addition, there was considerable awareness that the state pension age was increasing. Research from 2004 used by the ombudsman shows that 73% of people then aged 45 to 54 were aware that the state pension age was going up. Further research from 2006 reinforced that finding and was given to and used by the ombudsman. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) focused on the widely used 43% figure, but that figure refers to all women, including some aged 16 at the time of the survey, not just those who were affected by the state pension age changes.

Support for Pensioners

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing this important debate.

Adequate Government support for pensioners is vital to ensuring dignity in old age. Indeed, the mark of a civilised society is the extent to which it looks after vulnerable people. Many, many pensioners have only the state pension as their main source of income. The UK Government’s recent action to cut support for pensioners has rightfully been met with anger. Labour MPs, including all Scottish Labour MPs, voted to cut the winter fuel payment for 900,000 Scots. Weeks later, Scottish Labour MSPs voted against an SNP Government motion demanding that the UK Government reverse the introduction of means-testing of the winter fuel payment. Now Anas Sarwar claims they are going to deliver it if he is elected next year. Pensioners do not have time for that kind of Scottish Labour false promise while their benefits are being cut.

Ministers point to the uptake in pension credit as some sort of mitigation for the cut in the winter fuel payment, but it seems ridiculous that the cut was not delayed to allow for a longer uptake campaign. I hope the Minister will tell us, because I do not understand yet, what the trade-off is between the revenue raised by the cut in the winter fuel payment and the uptake of pension credit. If the uptake increases to, say, 50% or 60%, what does that do to the money that the cut is supposed to be raising?

If the Government had delayed the cut, that would have ensured that pensioners do not miss out and would have reduced the number of pensioners going cold this winter. I come from one of the coldest parts of these islands. Hon. Members have probably heard of Braemar, which is often said to be one of the coldest parts of the UK. It is in the north-east, close to Balmoral, the King’s private estate. Many, many pensioners in the north-east are feeling the effects of this cold winter. I totally endorse the comments that were made about the impact that has on people’s health, the increased admission rate to hospital, the increased number of delayed discharges, and the increased number of avoidable deaths.

In the general election, Labour was elected on a platform of change, but I and many voters had no idea that that change would be to cut the winter fuel payment for pensioners. I am old enough to remember previous Labour Governments, and I do not recognise this Government as a real Labour Government. They just do not seem like the kind of Government I was expecting.

At least one colleague in this Chamber was with me when we had a debate on fuel poverty in England. We heard about all sorts of measures that the Government could be taking, such as social tariffs, social prescribing and, perhaps more importantly, some form of windfall tax on the obscene profits that energy companies are making—I think the figure cited was £423 billion or something of that order. A windfall tax on that level of profit would absolutely dwarf any saving from the cut to the winter fuel payment.

In contrast to the UK Government, the Scottish SNP Government will provide universal support through the introduction of the pension-age winter heating payments next year, which will ensure a payment for every pensioner household in the winter of 2025-26. Pensioners in receipt of a qualifying benefit such as pension credit will receive that benefit at a rate of £300 or £200, depending on their age. Meanwhile, all other pensioners will receive £100 from next winter, providing them with support not available anywhere else in the UK. The SNP Government in Scotland have shown that the UK Government’s choice to cut the winter fuel payment was wholly political. For reasons that I do not understand, they chose to punish pensioners, especially those just above benefit thresholds.

As already said, another failure of pensioner support from the UK Government—both Labour and Conservative, I must add—was on WASPI compensation. I was shocked to see that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who happily posed for a photograph with WASPI women while in opposition, ignored them and the ombudsman report, which demanded compensation, as soon as she came to power.

Other policy decisions are hurting pensioners. For example, the employer’s national insurance contribution charges are leading to reduced third-sector service provision. The farmers family tax is leading to higher prices at the supermarket, and that hits the most vulnerable people in society, including pensioners.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the important role that third-sector organisations play in our society. Was he as shocked as I was to learn from Marie Curie cancer care not only that the increase in national insurance will cost it several million pounds a year, but that the winter fuel allowance is being taken from 44,000 terminally ill pensioners?

[Seamus Logan]

I completely agree with the hon. Member —that is absolutely shocking. I was not aware of that particular statistic, but I have spoken several times on the Floor of the House about the plight of hospices. Only this morning, I heard from Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland, which is facing a cut of £250,000 as a result of those extra employer’s national insurance contributions. That association does not yet know what the impact of that cut will be, but the two people on my call this morning might well lose their jobs. We are speaking here about nurses and other support workers who provide essential support to people after a stroke. That is the impact of those national insurance changes on such organisations.

I will wind up by simply saying—as I said earlier—that to me, all of this shows that this Government fundamentally do not understand the situation of so many pensioners throughout the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for setting the scene incredibly well. I hate to say this, and apologise for doing so, but I am disappointed that no Labour Back Benchers are present because, as the Minister will know, my allegiance lies to the left of politics. That is who I am, but the party that I expected to be the party of conscience is no longer that party. I spoke to my friend, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan), before I rose to speak. I am very conscious that it is not Opposition Members that put it into law that the winter fuel allowance would be withdrawn from pensioners; it is Government Members. That is incredibly disappointing for me. The party of conscience, as I saw it, is no longer the party of conscience. I say that with deep regret, but I say it honestly, because that is how I feel, and I have to put it on the record.

Although the previous Government did it, we will take the credit for it. Remember that the DUP was in partnership with the Conservative party. As part of that deal, we secured the triple lock on pensions for our people. Everybody gains from that. To be fair to the Labour party, it is committed to it, and I do not see any changes coming in that regard—at least I hope to goodness that no changes are coming. For a certain period of time, that helped to keep pensioners out of poverty due to cost of living increases, not least the ever-escalating fuel bills. Even the triple lock cannot keep up with prices.

Poverty among older people is the highest it has been since the 2008 recession. Northern Ireland, where oil instead of gas is more often used to warm houses, has seen sharp price rises. Indeed, I understand that 68% of houses in Northern Ireland depend on oil. Over the past three years, National Energy Action has experienced a significant rise in the number of households seeking emergency support because high energy prices and wider cost of living pressures mean they can no longer afford to keep their homes warm and safe.

That is something to which I can testify. Many people get food bank vouchers from my office in Newtownards. My constituency had the first food bank in all of Northern Ireland. A good thing about the food bank is that it brings together the churches, individuals and organisations that wish to help. Sometimes we can focus on the dire need, but we should also focus on the fact that it brings good people together to help. There is a goodness out of it, and one that I am pleased to support. My office is the biggest referrer for food bank vouchers in the whole of the constituency. The food bank does wonderful things and helps people in their hour of need.

[Seamus Logan]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the wonderful work that food banks do, but does he agree that it is a source of shame to this country that food bank usage is growing?

[Jim Shannon]

Yes, it is disappointing, and I cannot ignore that fact. I always like to think that good people come together, reach out and try to address those issues, but the hon. Gentleman is right that they should not have to.

In September 2023, NEA undertook a Northern Ireland-wide representative survey to assess the impact of energy prices on households. The survey found that 41% of households in Northern Ireland were spending at least 10% of their total household expenditure on energy costs, and were therefore in fuel poverty. The continued pressure on household budgets has led to a rise in detrimental coping mechanisms. Those systems that should be in place to help are clearly unable to. For example, 19% of households told the survey that they had gone without heating oil, gas or electricity in the past 24 months because they were unable to afford energy. One in 10 households admitted to skipping meals to ensure they had enough money to pay for energy. Others have referred to that.

The pensioners I speak to are vulnerable, have complex health needs and have disability issues. Sometimes they have no family. As others have said, they have to look after themselves, but they are unable to. That dismays me greatly. Data shows that close to one in five households over over-60s are now in such severe fuel poverty that their homes are being kept in a condition that “endangers the health” of the inhabitants.

What happens when someone cannot heat their house? The house deteriorates, the mould grows and the damp grows. It is a fact: people have to have a level of heat in their houses; otherwise, they will deteriorate. That is an impact that is perhaps not often seen. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East will remember the debate this morning in which a constituent was mentioned: an elderly person, over 70, who was living in a house with a leak in the roof. He did not have the ability to fix it, had no family to fall back on and did not qualify for any grants for it. The deterioration of houses cannot be ignored.

Fuel poverty among pensioners is dangerous and must be addressed. I recently went to the home of a lady who was applying for attendance allowance. I am no better than anybody else, but I know how to fill in forms—I know how to do all the benefit forms, and I have done them for umpteen years; I know how they work, and I know the right words to say on behalf of a deserving constituent. When I was on the election trail in July, going round the doors, I acquired between 80 and 90 attendance allowance forms. Those constituents did not qualify for pension credit, but we were able to get them on to attendance allowance, as I will explain with one of my examples. Those forms take at least an hour to fill in, and I have a staff member who does nothing but fill in forms five days a week—sometimes six.

Let us be honest: I am no spring chicken any more. I am a pensioner and I will be reaching quite a significant figure shortly, but I am pretty strong. I think I am strapping, although I am not sure whether my wife agrees—she is the one who really matters. I know that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East has a great interest in shooting; I could probably stand shooting for the best part of the day in cold weather, as long as the pheasants and the pigeons kept coming over my head.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

I want to make a bit progress, and then I will take some more interventions.

I will be updating Members later this month on the impact of the campaign so far. The hon. Member for South West Devon asked about constituency-level data on winter fuel payments. We will be publishing that in the usual way in September. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) asked about the DWP and councils working closely together to drive pension credit uptake. He was completely right to do so. I will write to him on the specific point he raised, because it is not true, but on the generality, he is completely right that the onus is on the DWP to work with councils, and on councils to work with the DWP.

Wider support is also available for pensioners: direct financial help through cold weather payments in England and Wales, and help with energy bills through the warm home discount, which we expect to benefit over 3 million households, including over 1 million pensioners, this winter. The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) and several others raised the need for energy efficiency in homes. They were completely right to do so, but I note very gently that there was a 90% fall in energy efficiency installations in the early years of the previous Government. Someone wanted to “cut the green”—and that was the result. We are trying to do better than the previous Government did on that front.

We are committed to maintaining the triple lock on the state pension throughout this Parliament. The hon. Member for South West Devon rightly noted that that was introduced under the previous Government.

[Seamus Logan]

The Minister promises to maintain the triple lock, but the Government have broken promises on WASPI women and on farmers, so how can anybody believe that they are going to keep their promise on this?

[Torsten Bell]

We will be maintaining the triple lock throughout this Parliament, as promised in our manifesto. In April, the basic and new state pensions will increase by 4.1% and 12 million pensioners will see a concrete increase—whether Members believe it or not—of up to £470.

Several Members mentioned the need for long-term planning. That commitment to the triple lock means that spending on the state pension is forecast to rise by over £31 billion this Parliament. At the individual level, that translates into the new state pension being on track to rise by up to £1,900 a year, and the basic state pension —the pension that is relevant to those who hit the state pension age before 2016—by £1,500. But the last 15 years tell us that we need to do more for pensioners.

Social Security Benefits

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

I endorse the warm words of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), in paying tribute to the Minister, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) and the work he has done in previous Parliaments. As a recently elected Member, I was not in the House then, but I was aware of the work being done. Some of the contributions we have had in this debate so far have been extremely powerful. The quality of the debate seems to be in inverse proportion to the number of Members present.

I rise not to oppose these orders but to focus specifically on the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025, or GMP. The order gives applicable pension schemes the percentage by which they need to uprate GMP entitlement built up between 1988 and 1997. This year the increase is 1.7%. Wow! That was informed by the CPI figure for the year to September 2024. While that increase and the other increases are welcome, they will not even touch the sides. We must remember that the Government have taken away the winter fuel payment. We have seen numerous increases in energy costs, and we are seeing rising food prices because of policies on national insurance contributions and now the family farm tax.

These matters are reserved, but all those years ago back in 2014, we were promised in the run-up to the referendum that we would receive maximum devolution. That has not happened. People in Scotland may not know this, but we have had to introduce seven different benefits to mitigate the effects of decisions made here in Westminster. Fair pensions are necessary for ensuring dignity in old age, but we must be aware of the unintended consequences when changes are made to the pension system. During the transition to single-tier pensions in 2016, the DWP was found by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman not to have provided clear and accurate information that some pension holders were worse off under the changes. By the DWP’s own figures, about 50,000 people would lose out. That failure in communication seems emblematic of an outdated approach to social security that saw people unfairly treated when changes were made to their pension provision. We saw that happen again with the WASPI women. The PHSO again found that the DWP had committed maladministration in communicating those pension changes to WASPI women.

Pensions and pension provision are wide-reaching. Last week, I raised the issue of prison officers and changes to their pension scheme that mean some of them will be working until they are 68. I again impress upon the Government the need to consider the unintended consequences of that and all other pension changes. That is perhaps even more pertinent now, as the state pension age is due to rise to 67 for men and women between 2026 and 2028, and to 68 between 2044 and 2046. The DWP failed on previous occasions when it came to communicating these changes to people regarding their pensions. We have a new Government, and if they will not allow the Scottish people to determine their own future in these matters, or they will not devolve these matters to the Scottish Government, all I can ask is that they deliver fairness in pensions, because people need certainty when it comes to their retirement plans.

I agree with the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) when he mentioned the forthcoming review of the welfare system, and I wholeheartedly endorse the quiet words spoken by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) when she made her powerful intervention talking about the socioeconomic determinants of ill health. That message cannot go unnoticed by the DWP in these matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

With the leave of the House, I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. There have been some helpful contributions on important issues. I am grateful for the support expressed for the measures in the orders, and for the kind things said about me, which I will enjoy while they last. Let me thank in particular the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), for drawing attention to the contributions of others who spoke in such debates in the past. He named Paul Maynard, David Linden and Nigel Mills, and he was absolutely right to do so.

I am particularly grateful to Nigel Mills for his help in the work of the Work and Pensions Committee, and I am delighted that the Committee is now in the good hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). She made an important contribution to the work of the Committee in the last Parliament, and had an important and positive influence over the whole direction of the Committee. She highlighted, as she often does, the position of vulnerable benefit claimants and how they are looked after. I look forward to giving evidence to her in the Committee next week as work resumes on an inquiry of the Committee from the last Parliament.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), who called for a taper in carer’s allowance. As he will have heard, the Chancellor announced in the Budget in November that we would look at the case for a taper. I hope to be able to update the House on that reasonably soon.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson) for what he said. He was right to draw attention to the high level of support among young people for the triple lock policy, which matters right across the age range.

The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) was right to call for certainty about pensions. People need to know what the position will be when they reach retirement age. The last Labour Government reduced the number of pensioners below the poverty line by a million. Sadly, as we have been reminded in this debate, it has gone up again over the last few years. We want to get back on the better track that we were on before. That was picked up in the remarks of the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam).

[Seamus Logan]

Does the Minister agree that two measures that the Government could take that would make a serious impact on the levels of poverty would be to restore the winter fuel payment and abolish the two-child cap?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I have already spoken in the debate about the two-child cap, and we will be coming forward with the report and strategy proposed by the child poverty taskforce. On pensioner poverty, I think that substantial measures will be needed, and we will come forward with those in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Yes, I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for highlighting that case. We have asked the Department for Health and Social Care to review its decision in that case—I hope with a positive outcome.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

The Minister will have heard several references to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report this afternoon. The report demonstrates not only that extreme poverty is rising, but that the only part of these islands where child poverty will fall in the next four years is Scotland. Is it not time that the Westminster Government took a leaf out of the Scottish Government’s book?

[Alison McGovern]

I think it is fair to say that we have spent a great deal of time talking to people from all parts of the United Kingdom, and we will continue to do so, because only a strategy that covers all of the UK will be a success.

Agricultural Property Relief

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) for securing this important debate. I agree with her and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) about emotional attachment; I urge hon. Members to watch “The Field” with Richard Harris—his Oscar-winning performance.

I want to return to the point that I have made in previous debates and which has already been made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr. The key issue is that food security is national security; we as MPs have a duty to ensure that and to deliver jobs for communities across the country and low prices for consumers. Yet the Government behave as if they think food appears magically on the shelves at supermarkets.

My constituency of Aberdeenshire North and Moray East holds some of the best agricultural farmland in the country, and it will be disproportionately impacted by this change. Three quarters of the land in my constituency is used for agriculture, and the people who work that land are incredibly worried. Personally, I would have sympathy with a policy that targeted wealthy individuals who purchase agricultural land as a means of avoiding inheritance tax. However, that will not be the sole consequence of this legislation—that is the crucial point.

After the Chancellor delivered her Budget speech last year, the NFU and the National Farmers Union Scotland immediately cast doubt on the revenue that the policy would actually raise; they were ignored and dismissed. Now, even the Office for Budget Responsibility—Labour appear quick to mention it, but then ignore when it suits—has cast doubt on the revenue that the policy would raise. It states that the Treasury figure of £500 million is now highly uncertain. The justification for the policy is falling apart.

Since we last met on this issue, almost every major supermarket chain in the UK has publicly backed farmers, urging the Government to halt their plans and carry out a consultation. Ashwin Prasad, Tesco’s chief commercial officer, said there must be a pause in the Government’s implementation of the Budget measures, while a full consultation is carried out.

Farmers recognise Labour’s APR change as a bad decision; now the UK’s leading supermarkets have confirmed it. We must not forget that Labour brought in this change after explicitly ruling it out. Long-term clarity is needed when it comes to planning the future of family farms and the UK Government have failed farmers on that point. Listening to the NFUS and the NFU on this issue would have saved a lot of hurt for farmers, rural communities and shoppers across the country.

I have heard time and again from the Government that this policy was necessary to tackle the difficult financial situation that they inherited from the previous Government. I do not see how a bad inheritance justifies an objectively bad policy for consumers and farmers. If the necessity was so, why did the Chancellor rush to Davos to offer tax reliefs to non-doms, why is she not tackling widespread tax evasion by prominent individuals, as was reported recently by the BBC, and why is she not considering a wealth tax?

It seems ironic that the Labour Government complain about their dire inheritance while ignoring the dire inheritance that they are inflicting on family farms throughout the UK. It is not too late for the UK Government to reassess this damaging policy and make the necessary changes to protect farmers across these islands and in my constituency. It is a bad policy, Minister, and it is time to rethink it.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

Given that the Government response to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report said that a compensation scheme would be “impractical”, with “significant challenges” and the potential for “unjustified payments”, and that there were significant concerns about the robustness of the Department for Work and Pensions research in 2006, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government’s position is untenable, given the stark contrast with the way that sub-postmasters were treated?

[Sir John Hayes]

I do agree, and the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that I shall be speaking later in my remarks about the ombudsman’s report and findings, which will bring me to the constitutional matter I raised about the nature of accountability and scrutiny and how Governments are held to account, and whether ombudsmen are meaningful at all if their conclusions are entirely disregarded. He is right to raise that issue.

I want briefly to describe the events that provoked me to challenge the previous Government on this issue when my party held the reins of power. I am not a recent convert to this cause; I made the same argument then—that we needed to recognise the justice of this campaign and act accordingly—but I did so knowing the events that have occurred.

I will not go over things laboriously—because you would not want me to, Dr Murrison, given the number of Members who want to speak in this debate—but essentially, when pension ages were equalised, which was the result of two Acts of Parliament, the notice given to the people affected was inadequate.

I am not an unbridled advocate of the case that every woman who thought that they were going to retire at 60, and then found that they would have to retire at 65, should be compensated. If a woman was young or middle-aged when that happened, there is a fair case that they had time to adjust—they could re-prepare; they could make different plans.

However, if a woman was born in the 1950s and had anticipated retiring in two, three or four years’ time but then had to work up to five years’ longer, it is a very different matter, because many of those women, anticipating their retirement, had prepared for exactly that eventuality. Many of those women, of course, were no longer working. They had ended work to look after elderly parents; they were playing a caring role; or their skills were no longer relevant to the workplace, because they had taken time out of work, first to have children and then, as I have said, to embark on other social responsibilities. These were women who worked hard and had done the right thing, and they are not all, as they are sometimes characterised by their critics, drawn from the liberal bourgeoisie—who, as you know, Dr Murrison, I generally speaking despise.

Oral Answers to Questions

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that any reform to our jobcentres must come with digital transformation. We are currently exploring schemes such as a “Jobcentre in your pocket” app, as well as looking for ways in which jobseekers can self-serve in terms of meeting the conditions of their conditionality regime.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

T4. On 4 December, my hon. Friend the Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) asked the Prime Minister about the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—women, and was told that the Government were working “at pace”. Since then, 1,400 or 1,500 more women have died without justice or compensation. Will the Minister tell us what working “at pace” means and give us a timeline?

[Emma Reynolds]

I was the first Minister for eight years to meet the WASPI campaigners to listen to their concerns. The ombudsman took six years to investigate six cases. We are working at pace on this issue. We hope to come to the House soon—if the hon. Gentleman will listen to my answer—to update him and the public on what we will do next.