Tag: 2023

PRESS RELEASE : Tory MPs vote for 15 more years of sewage dumping [January 2023]

The press release issued by the Liberal Democrats on 26 January 2023.

292 Conservative MPs voted to allow sewage dumping by water companies in our rivers, lakes and coasts for at least 15 more years.

New regulations passed by Conservative MPs will allow water companies to continue dumping sewage into our rivers and seas for another 15 years.

In the last two years water companies in England dumped raw sewage 775,568 times lasting 5,768,679 hours.

The new legilsation set a target of an 80% reduction in phosphates in rivers by 2038. Phosphates are naturally occurring minerals found in human waste and can lead to a dramatic growth in algae and deplete oxygen levels when they are dumped in rivers.

This is a pathetic target which allows water companies to get away with a staggering 15 more years of shameful sewage dumping. This is a betrayal of the British public who rightly want tougher action against water companies.

The water companies that are responsible for dumping sewage into our rivers, lakes and coastal waters every day, now have 15 years to clean up their act. Meanwhile their top execs have paid themselves £51 million, including £30.6 million in bonuses over the last two years.

Conservative MPs should be ashamed of themselves. It will be swimmers and treasured wildlife which pay the price for today’s flimsy target. Water company execs will be cheering this through parliament.

Liberal Democrats proudly voted against these unacceptably weak targets.

February 6, 2023
PRESS RELEASE : Billions in taxes lost as HMRC moves staff to Brexit and Covid fraud [January 2023]
The press release issued by the Liberal Democrats on 17 January 2023.

This Conservative government is in non-stop firefighting mode because of their gross incompetence, from the botched EU trade deal to the unforgivable mistakes made during the pandemic.

Almost 2,300 HMRC tax compliance staff were moved to managing the impact of Covid or Brexit last year, an investigation by the Liberal Democrats has revealed.

It means thousands of staff who would usually be working on recovering unpaid taxes were instead redeployed to managing the government’s mishandling of the pandemic and Brexit deal.

Civil servants are being moved from one crisis to another in a constant game of whack-a-mole.

This is allowing criminals to get away with dodging paying millions of pounds in tax, while hard-working families see their taxes hiked and public services are on their knees.

The figures also show that a third fewer tax compliance cases were closed last year than pre-pandemic, while the revenue clawed back by HMRC through compliance activity fell by a staggering £7 billion.

The figures were uncovered by Liberal Democrat Treasury Spokesperson Sarah Olney through a series of parliamentary questions. The investigation found that:
- In 2021-22, almost 1,250 tax compliance staff were redeployed to work on Covid-19 schemes administered by HMRC. Another 1,040 were assigned to work on matters relating to the UK’s departure from the EU.
- It means almost one tenth (9%) of HMRC’s 25,450 tax compliance staff were deployed in 2021-22 to issues related either to Covid or Brexit.
- HMRC closed just 256,000 tax compliance cases in 2021-22. This is down a third from the 390,000 compliance checks closed in 2018-19.
- £30.8 billion of tax revenue was recovered through compliance efforts in 2021-22, similar to the previous year but down a staggering £6 billion from the tax recovered in 2019-20.
February 6, 2023
PRESS RELEASE : Floella Benjamin challenges the Conservatives over the Windrush scandal [January 2023]

The press release issued by the Liberal Democrats on 12 January 2023.

As Liberal Democrats, we are proud of the outstanding economic, social, and cultural contribution the Windrush Generation have made to the United Kingdom.

On this 75th anniversary of the arrival of HMT Empire Windrush – which brought over dedicated Caribbean people who wanted to help rebuild Britain – we should be celebrating this contribution.

The Conservative Government should be working tirelessly to right the wrongs of this country’s treatment of people who have given so much to us.

The recommendations which came out of Lessons Learned Review in the wake of the Windrush Scandal are essential to prevent making the same mistakes again.

Yet, there are now reports that Suella Braverman is considering scrapping these recommendations.

In the House of Lords, Liberal Democrat Floella Benjamin has been challenging the Conservatives to keep the comitements they made.

Liberal Democrats will keep fighting for the rights of those impacted by the Windrush Scandal – and to scrap the cruel, ineffective Hostile Environment policies that caused the scandal in the first place. We will keep standing up to bigotry, hate and racial injustice that is far too commonplace in our country.

The Conservative Government must start by guaranteeing they will stick to the commitments they made in the aftermath of the Windrush Scandal.

February 6, 2023
PRESS RELEASE : Mebyon Kernow briefing on “devolution deal” [January 2023]

The press release issued by Mebyon Kernow on 27 January 2023.

MK’s National Executive and elected councillors have produced the following briefing on the so-called “devolution deal” for Cornwall.

We are desperately disappointed at the content of the “devolution deal” published on 2nd December 2022. It does not include the transfer of far-reaching powers from Westminster to Cornwall as has happened in Wales and Scotland since 1999. The deal is simply a range of accommodations between central government and Cornwall’s unitary authority.

The consultation from the administration in Truro claims that “it’s a big deal for Cornwall.” It is not. The deal does reference Cornwall’s distinct heritage, culture and language, as well as the national minority status of the Cornish people, but it ignores Cornwall’s distinct constitutional position and treats Cornwall as a local government unit of England. Paragraph 19 even references the “Great South West alliance,” which shows that there is an unacceptable lack of respect for Cornish nationhood and territoriality, as well as the primacy of Cornwall as a geographical / political entity for proper devolution.

When the UK Government finally recognised the Cornish as a national minority (through the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities) in 2014, it pledged that the Cornish would be afforded the same status “as the UK’s other Celtic people, the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish.”

That commitment to parity with the other Celtic parts of the United Kingdom surely must include meaningful devolution for the nation of Cornwall, through the provision of a Cornish Parliament. MK’s full proposals, which we commend to the people of Cornwall, can be found in our policy document “Towards a Cornish Parliament / Troha Senedh a Gernow.”

It is the view of Mebyon Kernow – the Party for Cornwall that the proposals for “devolution” within the Levelling Up White Paper (and subsequent legislation) undermines and devalues the concept of devolution as previously understood.

However, our comments on the proposed “devolution deal” are as follows:

Devolution

The inadequacy of the deal is shown by paragraph 24 of the deal, which lists the functions that would be devolved. But only two are listed. These are (i) adult education and skills, and (ii) housing and planning.

In terms of adult education, it would mean decisions about an existing budget would be taken in Cornwall.

The reference to planning / housing functions is about the ability of the proposed “directly elected mayor” to “designate a Mayoral Development Area” and “set up a Mayoral Development Corporation.” But the mayor would “autonomously exercise” the power to create such an MDA / MDC, further undermining the democratic basis of planning in Cornwall.

Overall, it is clear that there is an almost total lack of devolution in the actual deal.

Funding

The deal does include promises of more money for Cornwall Council and, while additional funding for local government in Cornwall is to be welcomed, there is no need for such funding to be linked to a “devolution deal” and the imposition of a mayor. Such financial accommodations between central government and local councils is an established element of political life in the United Kingdom.

In terms of the deal, it includes a promise of a “Cornwall Investment Fund,” which would be worth £12million per annum for 30 years. But this funding is extremely limited in scope. It represents less than one percent of Cornwall Council’s annual budget, and it is half of what will be secured from a council tax surcharge on second homes (which will be allowed from 2024/25).

In addition to the “Cornwall Investment Fund,” funding in the deal includes: Mayoral capacity funding £250,000 (2023/24) and £500,000 (2024/25); a “Cornwall Innovation Programme” worth up to £10million over three years; Transport funding of £500,000 across 2023/24 and 2024/25; capital funding of £8.7million across 2023/24 and 2024/25 for construction of housing on brownfield land; capacity funding of £238,000 across 2023/2024 and 2024/2025 to support new housing; capital funding of up to £10million to “support the delivery of locally determined priorities in Cornwall, including housing and heritage-led regeneration …” and funding of £500,000 in 2023/24 to support Cornish distinctiveness, including the Cornish language.

It needs to be pointed out that this funding is still significantly less than the real-terms cuts in funding suffered by local government in Cornwall since 2010.

It is also significantly less than the monies lost to Cornwall, because the Shared Prosperity Fund is failing to match what would have been received from EU structural funds (as promised). Cornwall Council previously sought a “single pot” worth £700million over the next seven years, rather than the £142million being provided over a three-year period.

A directly elected mayor

Paragraph 31 states that the deal is dependent upon Cornwall Council agreeing to “adopt a directly elected mayor and cabinet executive governance model.”

MK does not support the imposition of a mayor on Cornwall’s unitary authority. This would be a retrograde step and further undermine local government / democracy following (i) the abolition of Cornwall’s six district councils / centralisation of local government in 2009, plus the (ii) further reduction in councillor numbers in 2021.

The disappointing scope of the proposed deal cannot in any way be seen as a justification for a change in governance of Cornwall Council, which would undermine the democratic basis of local government. It would place authority into the hands of one individual, while reducing the influence of councillors over budgets and council strategies.

It is ridiculous and undemocratic that the mayor would only need a majority of councillors to agree his / her budget, but that the budget can only be modified with the support of more than 66% of councillors. And it is little wonder that more than 80 town and parish councils have requested a referendum on the mayor proposal.

It remains the position of MK that Cornwall merits positive and meaningful devolution as set out in “Towards a Cornish Parliament / Troha Senedh a Gernow,” not unpopular tweaks to local government.

Commitments from central government?

Throughout the document, there are repeated “commitments” from central government. A wordsearch of the document shows that there are 27 pledges to “work with” the unitary authority on various matters, eight pledges to “consider” specific proposals and 17 pledges to “explore” certain initiatives.

These tend to be matters of devolution anyway and such “aspirations” cannot be taken seriously in this time of ongoing austerity. There is no guarantee that such “commitments” will lead to anything. It is also the case that some of the funding and some of the proposals are subject to business cases (that have to be approved by central government). Some commitments are further undermined as the text says they will be taken forward “where appropriate” – further reducing any certainty of delivery.

In contrast, the document also references certain initiatives already happening and which are therefore not dependent upon any deal. Likewise, there are numerous things in the document which central government could, or should, be doing anyway, and would not need to be dependent upon any deal.

A creative carbon zero economy

In addition to the “Cornwall Innovation Programme,” the deal states that the UK Government “supports Cornwall Council’s ambition to create a Cornwall FLOW (Floating Offshore Wind) Commission” and notes that “devolved regional institutions” including Cornwall Council, should “have a meaningful role in planning our future energy system for net zero.” It is also suggested that the UK Infrastructure Bank “could offer advice and support to local actors, including Cornwall Council” and pledges support to Cornwall Council “alongside other local authorities across England” to “take forward heat network zoning.” It specifically mentions a heat network for the unpopular Langarth development, which is already happening.

There is nothing in this section of the document, which merits being described as devolution.

Sustainable food, land and seas

There is a limited amount in this section of the deal. It states that that central government will “support Cornwall Council to build the capacity it needs to leverage private finance into nature recovery,” and lists interventions which “may” happen in the future.

Hedgerows (vegetation boundaries) are protected through “regulations,” which do not cover Cornish hedges (stone-faced earthen banks plus vegetation). The deal states that central government will “consider the case for supporting the positive management of Cornish hedges through the agricultural transition programme of farming reforms.” This is limited and not guaranteed, and this is an example of a regulatory anomaly that central government should already be dealing with anyway.

There is also nothing in this section of the document, which merits being described as devolution.

Thriving places with decent, affordable homes

Transport

In addition to revenue funding for transport plans, the deal states central government will “work with the Council to agree an integrated multi-year transport settlement at the next Spending Review” and encourage the unitary authority to respond to the upcoming LEVI (local electric vehicle infrastructure) schemes for local authorities. It also states that central government will “consider the proposals to enhance the A38 … taking into account its economic benefits balanced against wider factors” and “consider conferring franchising powers under the Transport Act 2000 to Cornwall Council” and consider the devolution of the Bus Service Operators Grant once it has been reformed. There is also a promise of support for Cornwall Council in seeking a “new rail partnership with Great British Railways.” The deal further suggests that Cornwall Council should “explore opportunities to apply for additional funding and support to deliver” Mid Cornwall Rail – which is already happening – and “explore how best to extend the existing Cornwall Rail Station Digitisation project across Cornwall” and “work with Cornwall Council and Active Travel England on innovative local active travel schemes.” The deal also states that central government will “consider options for future legislation to enable a more efficient toll revision process” in relation to the Tamar Crossings.

It is clear that these proposals are accommodations between central government and Cornwall’s unitary authority in Cornwall and, once again, do not merit being described as devolution.

Housing

Paragraphs 71 and 73 states that “Cornwall Council’s elected mayor will have the power to designate mayoral development areas and to create Mayoral Development Corporations,”” which will support delivery on strategic sites in Cornwall.” But such an approach to planning may not have the support of local communities. Such a Corporation will also be within the influence of the mayor and there will inevitably be less fairness and equity within the planning process.

The deal also states the unitary authority will “create a Cornwall Land Commission” which could use land from the “public sector estate” for the provision of housing. MK is worried that the sell-off of public land could undermine the ability of the wider public sector to grow and provide public services into the future.

These measures, and the associated funding linked to the deal (noted above), are focussed on housing growth and they do not give control to the people of Cornwall. It does not mean that all decisions over planning, planning policy and housing are taken in Cornwall, which is what is desperately needed.

Cornwall needs meaningful devolution and that must be a Parliament which, for example, could produce a Cornish National Planning Policy Framework to replace the NPPF produced by central government, and guarantee that all “appeal” processes would also be fully controlled from within Cornwall.

Other housing matters in the deal include central government stating it will “work with Cornwall Council to develop a proposal, with potential funding for, a pilot scheme trialling improved enforcement in the private rented sector,” and it will “explore testing the concept of a simpler approach to neighbourhood planning” and “commits to explore the potential benefits” of a “place-based approach to delivering retrofit measures,” which local authorities including Cornwall Council could engage with.

Once again, these matters are not devolution, while the commitment from central government, in paragraph 83, to “work closely with Cornwall Council on any future changes” taken forward in relation to the control of second homes and short term lets is pretty meaningless.

Other matters

In terms of holiday accommodation, central government states it will “engage with Cornwall Council as it establishes the new accredited Local Visitor Economy Partnerships model for England” and work with the unitary authority to “investigate what changes could help to support the supply of safe and sustainable short term holiday accommodation and wider destination management.” The deal also notes the “benefits of relocating roles to locations outside Greater London to support levelling up across the UK” but makes no specific commitment to Cornwall. Town centre regeneration is mentioned and previous allocations from the Towns and Future High Streets Fund (significantly greater in extent than monies from the deal) are noted, and it is further noted that Cornwall Council should “continue to explore opportunities to apply for additional funding and support” to supports towns.

Once again, there is nothing in this section of the document, which merits being described as devolution.

Skills and education

Paragraph 90 states that the “Government will fully devolve the Adult Education Budget to Cornwall Council from academic year 2025/26,” though this arrangement will not cover apprenticeships or traineeships. The deal states central government “will consult with Cornwall Council on a funding formula for calculating the size of the grant to be paid.”

The deal states that Local Skills Improvement Plans are being rolled out across Cornwall and England, adding that “Cornwall Council will need to support and provide input” into the LSIP covering Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. In addition, the deal states that the unitary authority needs to “work in partnership to develop proactive support for priority groups through ongoing engagement with the local Department for Work and Pensions Jobcentre Plus” and that the various parties need to “work together to better target employment support,” while the Department for Work and Pensions “will consider what role Cornwall Council could have in the design and delivery of contracted employment programmes.”

The deal also mentions that Cornwall will be one of fifty-five Education Investment Areas to tackle areas of low educational attainment, but this is being agreed through the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill.

Culture, heritage, sport and language

Paragraph 103 pledges that the “Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)’s Arm’s Length Bodies will work in partnership with Cornwall Council” to recognise and prioritise future opportunities in terms of culture, heritage and sport, etc. This will be supported by a refreshed Cultural Investment Board and a Memorandum of Understanding, “which will provide updated forums and frameworks in which partners can strategically work together to support greater funding alignment, joint investment and strategic collaboration …” It is also stated that investment decisions “may” include “Cornish Distinctiveness.”

In addition to the funding noted previously, the deal states that central government “commits to work with the Council to explore ways further to support the ongoing protection and promotion of the Cornish language in private and public life.” It mentions consideration of 30 proposals to review formal arrangements regarding responsibility for Cornish language planning and delivery, while committing to “include Cornish in any list of regional and minority languages that appears in forthcoming legislation where appropriate, to enable greater awareness and use of the Cornish language.” The commitment to mention Cornish in future legislation relating to minority languages (such as a Media Bill) should be happening anyway.

And it remains a ridiculous scenario that, following the passing of the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act, Cornish is the only Celtic language within the United Kingdom that does not enjoy some form of legislative protection.

The UK Government recognised Cornish through the Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in 2002, but in the last 20 years it has failed to meet its obligations. The promise of a one-off payment is inadequate. The language needs guaranteed long-term funding to safeguard its future and ensure that, for example, that it can be taught in all Cornish schools.

The deal also makes comment about signage on the group of sites managed under licence by English Heritage Trust to ensure that the “presentation, interpretation, and marketing of sites” better reflects Cornish particularities.

Once again, it is questionable whether anything in this section could be described as devolution.

Safe, healthy, resilient communities

Paragraph 111 states that central government “commits to working with the Council and partners to explore initiatives to improve delivery of public services” and a “place-based approach” to deliver health improvements across a dispersed geography. The deal notes that the Department of Health and Social Care is “currently reviewing the expression of interest submitted by the Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust for a Pool Health Hub” and “NHS England’s regional team received a business case from Cornwall in September 2022 for investment to upgrade the health estate in Bodmin,” while also making general comments about collaboration to “improve health and wellbeing.”

All the proposals about the NHS are ongoing accommodations and are not matters of devolution. In addition, Mebyon Kernow takes the view that the measures in the deal do little to address the crisis and systemic problems in the NHS, and the reality that much of the NHS provision for Cornwall is not even within Cornwall.

In terms of crime and public safety, the deal states that central government “will work with the Devon and Cornwall Police & Crime Commissioner to agree an appropriate arrangement to ensure close collaboration and productive joint working on public safety between the elected mayor of Cornwall Council and PCC,” while Cornwall Council might be able to participate in the “future testing and piloting of potential new roles and responsibilities for local emergency planning and preparedness.”

If the UK Government is serious about Cornwall as a political unit for devolution, it should re-form a Cornish Police Force.

A digital resolution for sustainable living

In this section of the document, there is reference to a range of government initiatives including Connected Places technology, the upcoming Wireless Infrastructure Strategy, the National Cyber Strategy 2022, and the delivery of better broadband through Project Gigabit.

It also notes that “broadband companies have been invited to bid for £36 million worth of contracts to bring fast connections for up to 19,000 homes and businesses in many of the hard-to-reach areas of Cornwall.”

This to be welcomed, but is already happening and therefore not dependent on any so-called “devolution deal.”

February 6, 2023
Laura Trott – 2023 Speech on Raising the State Pension Age to 68

The speech made by Laura Trott, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) for raising this important issue, and all the other Members who have contributed to the debate.

The Government remain committed to ensuring that older people can live with the dignity and respect they deserve, and I absolutely reaffirm that the state pension is and will remain the foundation of state support for older people. As has already been pointed out today, changes in the state pension age have been made in a series of Acts by successive Governments from 1995—when the state pension ages of men and women were equalised—onwards, following public consultations and extensive debates in both Houses.

The state pension age is currently 66, and will increase to 67 in 2026-28. As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), Labour legislated for it to increase to 68 in 2044-46, but, following the Cridland review of 2017, the current Government policy is to bring the increase to 68 forward to 2037-39. That is the baseline; we are required under law to review it every six years, and that is what is now being undertaken.

As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley, the coalition Government of 2010 to 2015 were committed to the “core principle” that people should spend, on average,

“up to one third of their adult life drawing a State Pension.”

They were also committed to giving individuals at least 10 years’ notice of any changes affecting them. The first review of the state pension age following the Pensions Act 2014 was undertaken in 2017, informed by both the Government Actuary’s report and the independent report undertaken by John Cridland. As I have set out, Cridland recommended bringing forward the increase in the state pension age to 68 from 2044 to 2026, as set out in legislation, to 2037 to 2039.

Sir Stephen Timms

The two documents from 2017 to which the Minister referred were published four months before the Government’s announcement. Why have the Government not published the documents before their announcement this time around, and will she do so now?

Laura Trott

I had a suspicion that the right hon. Gentleman might bring that up. As he rightly pointed out, I have written to him today to explain the rationale behind this, but I will confirm that both documents will be published in full. I look forward to discussing them with his Committee in due course.

Sir Stephen Timms

I just want to know why they have not been published. What is the public interest in keeping these things hidden?

Laura Trott

As I have said, they will be published in full. On the timing of publication, there is work going on in Government to undertake the review. Once it is finished the documents will be published.

The 2017 review was based on a recommendation to aim for “up to 32%” as the average proportion of adult life spent in receipt of state pension. The review used 2014-based life expectancy data. The Government accepted those recommendations, subject to a further review, before tabling the requisite legislative amendments. The savings from bringing forward this rise to 68 have already been included in published fiscal forecasts.

On 14 December 2021, the Government launched the second periodic review of the state pension age, and work is now under way to complete it, as required by legislation. The review must be published by May 2023, in accordance with section 27 of the Pensions Act 2014. At the autumn statement, the Chancellor committed to concluding the review in early 2023.

As part of the second review, the Secretary of State is considering evidence from two independent reports. The first, a report from the Government Actuary, assesses the latest life expectancy projections from all regions of the UK. There has been a lot of talk about life expectancy today, so I want to put on record the fact that the most recent projections from the Office for National Statistics show a slower rate of improvement in life expectancy than those that informed the Pensions Act 2014 and the Pension Schemes Act 2017. Nevertheless, despite the slower improvement rate, ONS projections continue to show increasing life expectancy over time, and the number of people over state pension age is expected to continue to rise. I can also confirm for the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) that the review will consider the latest recommendations, as well as a wide range of other evidence, before reaching any conclusions about the state pension age.

The second report that will be taken into account is an independent report by Baroness Neville-Rolfe, which will consider recent trends in life expectancy and the range of metrics that we could use when setting the state pension age, including the metrics mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley. We will publish both documents in full. With respect to the question of whether Baroness Neville-Rolfe will appear before the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, that is a matter for the Committee and for her.

Alongside examining the implications of the latest life expectancy data, the Government review is assessing the costs of an ageing society and future state pension expenditure, as well as considering labour market changes and people’s ability and opportunities to work up to state pension age, bearing in mind recent trends in life expectancy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley highlighted the position of those who cannot continue to work. The review will evaluate the impact of previous changes to the state pension age for all individuals, including those with long-term health conditions or disability. The Government continue to provide substantial support for people who are unable to work.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) made some important points about age discrimination. The Government’s business champion for older workers, Andy Briggs, spearheads the Government’s work to promote the benefits of older workers and multigenerational workforces across England, influencing them strategically and by offering practical advice. I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s points about discrimination are passed on to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

The review will aim to keep the right balance between affordability, sustainability and fairness between generations. The review has not yet concluded—it is very important to emphasise that, given some of the comments today—and I will not pre-empt its outcome. The Government are committed to ensuring that older people have dignity and security in later life, regardless of where in the UK they are living. The Government introduced further targeted support, including cost of living payments of up to £900 for the most vulnerable households and an additional £1 billion, including Barnett impact, to enable the extension of the household support fund in England in the next financial year. Since 2010, the full yearly amount of the basic state pension has risen by over £2,300 in cash terms. That is £790 higher than if it had been uprated by prices, and £945 more than if it had been uprated by earnings. For the first time, from April 2023, the full rate of the new state pension is worth over £10,000 per year.

Automatic enrolment is having a transformational effect on private savings. Over 10.8 million people have been automatically enrolled in a workplace pension, helping to deliver about an additional £33 billion into pension savings in real terms in 2021 compared with 2012. The hon. Member for North East Fife mentioned the PHSO inquiry. She will know that that is ongoing, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it until it concludes.

The Government are committed to ensuring that the state pension continues to provide the foundation for people’s retirement income and are proud of the support they have given pensioners since 2010. I welcome today’s debate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley. As I have outlined, the Government take the setting of the state pension age very seriously. I look forward to being able to discuss this matter further—I am sure we will—when the Government finally publish their second review.

February 6, 2023
Matt Rodda – 2023 Speech on Raising the State Pension Age to 68

The speech made by Matt Rodda, the Labour MP for Reading East, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

Pensions are an incredibly important issue. People who have worked hard and contributed all their lives deserve a decent pension in retirement. The state pension has been a crucial part of all our lives in this country for a very long time. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for securing today’s debate, and the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and Members across the House for their contributions.

I am sorry to say that there has been a certain amount of unhelpful briefing in the media about a possible change to Government policy on state pension age. I urge the Government to stop that, and to raise issues in this House rather than in the media. If Ministers are serious, they should discuss the future of pensions policy with the public and the pensions industry in a proper public consultation. The current speculation fuelled by off-the-record briefings is hugely unsettling for people who are saving for a pension and trying to plan for their future. Ministers should remember that families and pensioners are living through an unprecedented cost of living crisis and facing huge pressures on household budgets. The last thing that people need is further stress and uncertainty.

We are living in challenging times, with inflation rates that the country has not seen for more 40 years. To make matters worse, as the IMF reported earlier this week, the UK faces the worst economic outlook of any major economy. After 12 years of economic mismanagement by the current Government, we are stuck in a period of persistently low growth and, unfortunately, persistently high inflation. As a direct result of that mismanagement, the Government are now trying to cut public spending. They have reduced spending on the state pension before by failing to increase pensions in line with inflation until April this year. That means that pensions have failed to keep up with the huge rise in the cost of food and fuel that has hit pensioners in the last six months.

Independent research by the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association using data from Loughborough University showed the scale of the Government’s failure. It showed that the basic state pension has now fallen below the cost of living. The PLSA put the basic cost of living for a single pensioner at £12,800, more than £2,000 above the basic state pension, which will be £10,600 in the financial year 2023-24.

The Government’s mismanagement of the economy and their desperate attempts to cut public spending form the backdrop to today’s debate. This is made even worse by Ministers’ disregard for pensioners, the House and the public. The Government’s pattern of behaviour is in stark contrast to the way in which Governments have conducted themselves in the past. As I mentioned earlier, there has been a long-standing convention that pensions policy is based on evidence and agreed by consensus. For example, when the evidence showed that life expectancy was increasing, there was a discussion about the impact on the state pension age, and it was agreed that it should be gradually increased. The UK already has one of the higher state pension ages among OECD countries.

Following extensive consultation about the impact of increased life expectancy in the 2000s, the Government established the Pensions Commission to look into the issue. As a result, and after a great deal of discussion, it was agreed that the state pension age should be raised. The Pensions Act 2007 provided for it to be increased from 65 to 68 in stages over the period between 2024 and 2046. I should stress that those increases were agreed at a time of steady rises in life expectancy. The current situation is somewhat different, to say the least. As we heard earlier, there is clear evidence of a stalling of the increase in life expectancy. Data from the Office for National Statistics on healthy life expectancy between 2018 and 2020 shows a downward trend in most regions of the UK, and the situation for some pensioners seems to be even worse, with a fall in life expectancy among some groups since 2010. We have heard several examples of that today, and there are others.

There is also clear and, in my view, deeply troubling evidence of local disparities, with gaps of about 10 years between the average life expectancy of some people—often those living in better-off areas—and that of their neighbours living in less well-off areas comparatively nearby. The full impact of the pandemic on long-term health is unclear, and there seem to be a growing number of older people of working age who are suffering from serious health conditions. That evidence needs to be considered carefully.

I appreciate that time is limited. Let me end by saying that the Government are letting down both pensioners and people saving for pensions. They have broken with the long-standing convention that pensions policy is developed on the basis of evidence, through consultation and discussion. I hope the Minister will address these issues in her speech. I know that she does prefer to consult, even if some of her colleagues do not always follow that approach.

February 6, 2023
Patricia Gibson – 2023 Speech on Raising the State Pension Age to 68

The speech made by Patricia Gibson, the SNP MP for North Ayrshire and Arran, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

I echo the appreciation of the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) for bringing the debate on the state pension age to the Floor of the House today. There is great concern that, according to reports, the UK Government plan to accelerate their current timeline for increasing the state pension age again, raising it to 68 by 2034. That means that those born in the 1970s or later could soon be told that a review of the increase in state pension age will further delay their retirement. If the Minister can tell us that that simply will not happen, we can all just go home and not worry about it, as the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) said. We would all be delighted.

It is bad enough that the state pension age is due to rise again from 66 to 67 by 2028. It is even worse that the women born in the 1950s had their state pension age increased with little or no notice, a move that has robbed them of tens of thousands of pounds of their hard-earned and expected state pension, throwing many of them into deep poverty and unnecessary hardship. That is all bad enough, but now we face the prospect of the Government planning to bring forward the increase in retirement age from 67 to 68 from 2046 to affect anyone now aged 54 or younger.

The Minister may say that no final decision has been taken, but how can anyone, having witnessed how women born in the 1950s have been treated, have any real faith that the Government understand how the increase in retirement age would have a disproportionate impact on those who have worked all their lives for poor pay? The UK already has one of the lowest pensions in Europe, and these plans will have an impact on millions of people, many of whom are already struggling financially. Age UK has said that

“any Government decision to accelerate the rise in Pension Age will condemn millions to a miserable and impoverished run up to retirement—and often beyond too”.

So many people are already in poor health by the time they reach their state pension and they are already suffering financial hardship.

As the hon. Member for North East Fife said, probably every one of us has spoken to women born in the 1950s, and when we do they tell us that the biggest UK Government swindle in recent memory was robbing their generation of their rightful state pensions at the age of 60. Many discovered, often by sheer accident, that their anticipated pension would not arrive until years later, as there was equalisation with men. The anger, sense of betrayal and disappointment was only inflamed when UK Government Ministers bizarrely and insensitively insisted that this provided an opportunity for the women affected to train for new careers. Some of them then formed the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, which continues to campaign for the injustice against them to be recognised and remedied. They must be given the compensation that is their right and I applaud the work they have done, because those women faced delays of up to six years to access their state pension, one in four of them now struggle to make payments on crucial bills and one third are in debt, with single women the worst affected. So that we can avoid this happening again, will the Minister tell us what impact assessment the UK Government have carried out, or will carry out, on any further proposals to accelerate the rise in the state pension age to 68 by 2034 or, indeed, to accelerate it at all?

It seems to the people outside this Chamber who are worried about this or who have experienced this, as the WASPI women have, that this Government have developed a taste for robbing people of their hard-earned state pension. The website Interactive Investor calculates that bringing forward to 2034 the increase in someone’s pension age to 68 could mean a lost year of full state pension of almost £17,000 for workers aged 46. Royal London insurance found that more than half of those aged 55 and over are likely to have the state pension as their main income, with 1.5 million of those in pre-state-pension years, and 31 % with no savings at all to fall back on. Many of them are also struggling with caring responsibilities as well as financial ones.

Pensioners relying on state pension as their main source of income are more likely to have already undergone a working life of low pay, and they are more likely to have health challenges in retirement and a shorter life expectancy. They are also the pensioners who simply cannot afford to retire early, even when health problems occur. Raising the retirement age even further will therefore have a disproportionate effect on poorer older people who will enjoy fewer retirement years.

A review of the state pension age in 2017 established that people should expect to spend one third of their adult life in retirement. As we know and as has been said, life expectancy in the UK is, at best, stagnating, which seriously undermines the case for raising the state pension age. I am afraid that those considerations will not have an impact on Government thinking and that the very logic they have used in the past for increasing state pension age—rising life expectancy—will not apply. If that is the case, I would remind the Minister that not only have life expectancy rates stalled across the UK, but they have actually fallen for the second year in a row in Scotland. Perhaps the Minister would like to factor that in when determining the state pension age. According to the UK Government’s own argument and the logic they have used so far, the state pension age should perhaps even be falling.

The UK Government must abandon any further acceleration of the state pension age across the UK. I hope that all parties will oppose that and commit to continuing that opposition beyond the next election. As the hon. Member for Amber Valley said, if you keep tinkering with, accelerating and rising the state pension age, you create uncertainty and undermine the whole concept of a state pension, perhaps fatally undermining it for future generations.

Even talk of accelerating the state pension age feels like a grubby smash and grab of people’s hard-earned pensions to try to fill the black hole in the UK’s finances, which is a consequence of 13 years of austerity. That austerity started under Labour’s Gordon Brown and has continued ever since, compounded by the damage of Brexit to which Labour is fully signed up, cynically and disingenuously pretending that there is such a thing as a good Brexit after all. Labour knows that, but it is so desperate to win seats in England, it will say anything. But the public are watching.

To raise the state pension age further is bad enough. To raise it even faster than originally planned as a cost-cutting measure is unforgivable. People in Scotland were told in 2014 that the only way to protect the state pension was to vote no to independence. Here we are nine years later, and the state pension does not support the minimum standard of living. Pensioners have already been short-changed by £6,500 on average, due to the state pension underpayments to around 237,000 older people, and a further 100,000 potential underpayments that have been identified, which will take a year to correct. Let us not forget how easily the Government discarded their manifesto commitment to retain the triple lock, the abandonment of which means that current state pension payments are £520 less than they otherwise would have been.

We must all learn from the huge injustice perpetrated on WASPI women—I applaud their campaign for justice—but we cannot permit even more people to be robbed of tens of thousands of pounds of their rightful state pension as life expectancy stalls or even falls in Scotland. Meanwhile, our Government desperately seek to fill their financial black hole because of their own incompetence, and therefore have decided to pick a fight over pensions. That is an outrage. In the dying days of this Government, as they thrash around seeking to pick the pockets of others to pay for their own economic mismanagement, we must say that enough is enough.

February 6, 2023
Wendy Chamberlain – 2023 Speech on Raising the State Pension Age to 68

The speech made by Wendy Chamberlain, the Liberal Democrat MP for North East Fife, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) on securing this debate. How to calculate the state pension age is an intensely technical topic, but it fundamentally impacts on people’s lives, and what we have heard so far this afternoon illustrates that, because there is a great deal of consensus across the Benches. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) on her speech and the areas she covered.

Obviously, it is our job on the Opposition Benches to scrutinise the Government, and I do not expect the Minister to pre-empt an independent review process, but I absolutely agree with the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) that we should be publishing any reports and looking at this issue before the Government make a final decision in the public space. This debate is an opportunity for the Government to make a political statement to commit to some of the existing methodologies we have used to date for the state pension age, and primarily that means keeping it based on life expectancy.

We have heard significant concerns today that planned pension ages might be accelerated, and that does not fit with what we are seeing with life expectancy. As the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) said in her intervention, life expectancy is not increasing. In fact, the evidence suggests it is falling, so far from seeing the retirement age going up faster, we should be seeing no change or at the very least a slowdown in planned increases.

It is highly technical, looking at actuarial tables to work out statistics, but it is important that we do not forget the faces behind the figures. In fairness, the WASPI women have made sure that we never forget the faces again. I am sure that every Member here, including the Minister and me, will have spoken with WASPI women in their constituencies about what they have suffered as a result of process failures with previous age increases. I have met many of the representatives who come to Parliament on fiscal event days. They often stand in the cold and damp waiting all day to be heard. I urge the Minister and Members across the House to meet them, if they have not done so previously.

Although this debate is about the future, I cannot mention the WASPI women without talking about their ongoing right for compensation. They have been waiting years now, and thousands have died without ever seeing a penny. The ombudsman is expected to report within a matter of months, but the only thing that has taken longer than their investigation is the Government’s inability to decide to do the right thing and to promise to follow the results of that report. I hope the Minister will make reference to that in her closing remarks.

The Government must learn lessons from what has happened to the WASPI women. If we are going to see changes, they must be communicated early and fully. People must be able to plan ahead. Age UK suggests 10 years as the length of time in which people need certainty to plan for retirement, as the hon. Member for Amber Valley mentioned. I hope that the Government can continue to commit to that.

I said it was important to remember the faces behind the figures, and it is vital that the Government remember that life expectancy is based on averages, and that all people are not alike. There are already people struggling to work to 66 through no fault of their own. Manual workers, whether farmers or factory workers, are just more likely to struggle to keep up as the impact of a life of labouring catches up with them. The fictional police sergeant Catherine Cawood of “Happy Valley” may hopefully be reaching her retirement from the police on Sunday night in the concluding episode of the series, but she will be 56 when she does so. That is because we accept that police officers are not necessarily physically capable of being able to chase offenders or fight or do any of the physical things we expect. We may hope, however, that Catherine Cawood, as well as going to the Himalayas, can also continue to contribute in a part-time work capacity elsewhere.

Health problems for many mean that people cannot work full time. Part-time working is increasing, and many people have caring responsibilities. This is the generation of sandwich carers who take care of their parents, their children or grandchildren and, when needed, their partners. There is of course a benefit to the economy, and to older workers themselves, of continuing to work if they can. If that is the Government’s aim, I implore them to see that increasing the state pension age, when we are not seeing a corresponding rise in health and life expectancy, is not the solution. People might be living longer, but they are not necessarily doing so in good health.

There are steps that the Government could take. I continue to champion the needs of unpaid carers, many of whom are in the pre-retirement age bracket. I welcome the Government’s support for my Carer’s Leave Bill, which will have its Third Reading on Friday, and look forward to their support as it passes through the Lords, but there is still much to do. Reforming carer’s allowance, securing flexible working as a day one right, offering more training and respite for carers, and investing in local services such as day centres would all help, as would more re-training, as the hon. Member for Dover mentioned, and a greater understanding of what is keeping older workers out of the workforce. We need to ensure that there is a social security net for people who have paid in and who, for whatever reason, cannot manage those final few years. That would be more effective at encouraging people to work longer, even past retirement age, than just forcing people somehow to soldier on.

Of course, there is a balance to be struck. The pension age must be both effective and sustainable. I agree that it must realistically reflect how long people can expect to live after retirement. We all see adverts pop up on our social media about how to retire at 40, but we know the Government could not be expected to fund such a period. Knowing that there is a balance means also making the expectation of the state pension realistic. I want my children, and my children’s children, to have it to look forward to one day. Our younger generations have suffered the outcomes of Brexit, of covid and of the cost of living crisis. Owning a house is a dream, not a reality for far too many. Future generations deserve the same promises, the same security as those that came before. We must not pull up the ladder.

I urge the Government to use this opportunity to reassure the House that they will follow the rules on determining retirement age by looking at life expectancy, protect those who struggle to work later in life and help those in work who can do so. Too often in recent years the Government have trailed potentially detrimental pension changes only to withdraw them later. Today’s debate gives them an opportunity to make sure that that is not the case in future.

February 6, 2023
Natalie Elphicke – 2023 Speech on Raising the State Pension Age to 68

The speech made by Natalie Elphicke, the Conservative MP for Dover, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms). He is very knowledgeable about these matters, as his comments demonstrated; I thank him for them. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) for securing the debate and to the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to it, because statutory pension age and pension amounts are of such importance to my constituents in Dover and Deal.

For a person of my age, the statutory pension is like one of those Scottish mountains. It is an optical illusion: as we get ever closer, it seems that there is just that bit further to go. When I started my working life, my pension age was 60. When it was changed in 2010, I was already roughly two thirds of the way through my expected working life. Should the pension age be raised to 68, a woman of my age, at current rates, will have lost out on the equivalent of between £59,000 and £77,000. That matters because of the basis on which I began paying national insurance contributions when I started work.

The first point that I would like to raise on behalf of all pensioners-to-be is that pensions are an unusual area because the rules on grandfathering rights that are usually applied are simply not followed. Surely it would be fairer to use the basis that applied at the point at which people started to work and started to pay national insurance contributions. If someone’s pension age is to be changed, it should be changed in the first third of their expected working life, not right towards the end. No one affected by a date change can go back in time to take out an ISA, top up their pension or use their income differently, as they might have done if they had known that such changes were due. People affected by the changes might have made different decisions if they had known that they would have to work for considerably longer, and it might have made a difference to their quality of life at an older age.

Secondly, people might have made different career choices or made career changes if they had known that they would have to work for longer. Thirdly, the expected extra years of work—eight whole years, in the case of women of my age—may mean that people will need extra skills training and support during their working life. If the pension age is to be extended even further, budgetary consideration will need to be given to support for lifelong learning, with leave being given for skilling up and study being prioritised for people affected by the change.

For many people, the ages of 60 to 68 represent a period in which, in the eyes of bosses or fellow workers, they may be considered past the peak of employability. I am pleased to say that that is not the case for contributions in this place, but age discrimination in our society is very real. I suggest that no further changes should be made to pension age unless such age discrimination is firmly and clearly tackled.

If we want people to work later in life, we have to give them the tools, support and legal protection that they need to do so. That is all the more important because age discrimination in particular terms and conditions of employment is currently perfectly legal. If the pension age is to be extended, the law needs to be changed. Age discrimination, like any other form of discrimination, is humiliating, demeaning and damaging. We do not want to subject people to it by making them remain in work while such prejudice continues.

I have a constituent, Stephen, who at the age of 66 —the current statutory pensionable age—is facing just such lawful age discrimination. He has worked for a very large Kent company for more than 30 years. He is an effective, respected and well-liked employee with a fantastic track record of work. When Stephen reached his 66th birthday, he did not get a birthday card from his bosses; he got a letter to the effect that it was not possible to sack him on grounds of age, so instead they were terminating his life insurance, his health insurance and all his other insurance benefits.

Stephen was doing the same job at 66, at 66 minus one day and at 66 plus one day, but now he does not get the same money’s worth in relation to his contract of employment. If he falls ill, he cannot get the same access to speedy private healthcare that other people working for the company can. If—heaven forbid—he died, his wife would no longer have compensatory insurance. However, he is doing exactly the same job as someone else. It is the same job he did before, and the same job he will do the day after. The attitude demonstrated by the company communicates to him and to the wider employment community in Kent that it thinks a person who is older is worth less. We must tackle that issue if people are to stay in the workplace longer.

I have looked into the policy considerations that are sometimes put forward. The first, essentially, is that an older person does not need to work. As a woman who has been in the workplace for quite a long time now, I remember a time when employers would say that a woman did not need to work, did not need to get the same bonuses as a man, and did not need to be offered overtime, because it was men who had families to feed. We have outlawed that, because equal pay at work is not about who is doing the work, but about what the work is. Allowing age discrimination, as we do now, sends a message that an older person is not worth the same as a younger one. The continual changes in the pension age also send a clear message that older people’s safety, stability and security in managing their own lives are not a priority.

The second reason put forward is that it becomes more expensive for everyone—the premium for the company itself goes up—if older people are included in corporate benefits, or global benefits, beyond the statutory age. To apply that logic, would it be okay to disallow health cover in an employment context to someone who had a chronic condition that could give rise, or had given rise, to needing that policy? Of course not; we would say that that was discriminatory and wrong. At the heart of equalities law is the fundamental view that employers cannot discriminate between those they employ based on characteristics that are not relevant to whether they can carry out the job. By continuing a discussion of the type that has been happening about the pension age moving and whether people will be supported in older-age working, we are failing to address this absolutely dreadful discriminatory environment.

The third and final reason given is that a disincentive to recruit older workers would be created, because the costs I have mentioned would be higher for the company. I agree that we do not want to create disincentives to employing older people, particularly if we are to require people to work for years and years more than they had expected, but the argument sounds awfully similar to the well-known discussion about whether the cost of maternity leave would dissuade employers from employing women who become pregnant. We outlawed that, and we know that a woman can still add value, be productive and be effective when pregnant, so why are we making people work longer? Why are we raising the statutory pension age and communicating from this Parliament that it is okay to discriminate against older workers? It is not, and it is wrong—all the more so if the pension age is raised from 66 to 68, because we would be raising it above an age at which employers are already discriminating against workers, as I have illustrated. Unless we tackle age discrimination, we will continue to have an environment in which it will be very difficult for people who are working in older age.

As these pension changes are brought forward, I do not feel that enough has been done to support, encourage and incentivise employers to look favourably on an older workforce. For example, national insurance contributions could be reduced for older workers. Also, if people are excluded from benefits by reason of the current law, older workers should receive money or money’s worth in cash or vouchers to make up for the work benefits that have been removed from them.

By way of conclusion, I am not persuaded by the arguments for increasing the pension age further or discriminating on the grounds of age. It is simply not acceptable. There is no justification for the treatment of my hard-working and loyal constituent Stephen with the discrimination he has faced in his workplace. If the pension age is to be raised again and we are going to keep making these changes, forcing people to stay in work for longer, age discrimination must be tackled first. We should be taking steps now to change behaviours in the workplace to make sure that older people who now have to work longer will be able to do so and will be treated fairly and equitably. We should be outlawing this outdated and discriminatory law against older workers.

February 6, 2023
PRESS RELEASE : Tribute to Barrow Borough Council Leader Cllr Ann Thomson [February 2023]

The press release issued by Barrow Council on 1 February 2023.

It is with deep sadness that we announce the passing of the Leader of Barrow Borough Council, Councillor Ann Thomson.

Councillor Thomson died peacefully in the early hours of this morning, Tuesday, 31st January, surrounded by her family.

Today the Mayor of Barrow, Councillor Hayley Preston, paid tribute to the person she described as ‘a true champion for the borough, its people and all that it stood for’.

Cllr Preston said: “Words are barely enough to express the sadness we feel at losing Ann. She was an incredible person; selfless, dedicated and hardworking, and a great personal friend to me and to many others.

“Ann never thought of herself and was dedicated to her family, of which she was so proud. But she also gave her time freely to charities and to the communities of Barrow which she served for more than 30 years. She was the Chair of Trustees at Women’s Community Matters where she was famous for her wonderful cooking and the love, compassion and generosity of spirit she showed to all around her.

“No-one who met Ann could fail to be enthused by her honesty, passion and can do approach. She was the epitome of the phrase ‘Be the change you want to see in the world’ evidenced by her long service. She truly believed in the people of this borough – and she was passionate about making sure they had opportunity and belief in themselves.

“I learned so much from her and will miss her deeply. My thoughts are with Ann’s family at such a very difficult time.”

A long-serving member of the borough council, having been elected in 1990, Cllr Thomson served as the Mayor of Barrow between May 2015 and May 2016 before becoming its Leader in 2019.

She was also the leader of the Labour Group, represented Hindpool Ward, served on many committees and was the council’s Lead Member for Cleaner and Greener Neighbourhoods.

A familiar and friendly face at Barrow Town Hall, Cllr Thomson will be greatly missed by her fellow councillors and council officers.

Cllr Thomson was also a member of the new Westmorland and Furness Council and the leader of the Labour Group.

Councillor Jonathan Brook, Leader of South Lakeland District Council and Leader of the new Westmorland and Furness Council, also paid tribute to Councillor Thomson.

Councillor Brook said: “Ann was a dedicated councillor and a passionate advocate for Barrow.

“I first worked closely with Ann when we were preparing our proposal for a Bay unitary authority and since then in our work to set up the new Westmorland and Furness Council. It was always very clear that she had a real commitment to achieving the very best outcomes for her communities.

“She also had wonderful good humour and a genuinely caring, open and friendly approach which endeared her to colleagues across the political spectrum. She will be a real loss.

“My thoughts are with Ann’s family, friends and colleagues at this very sad time.’

Funeral arrangements for Councillor Thomson will be confirmed in due course.

February 6, 2023