Hansard - United Kingdom Parliament
Hansard - United Kingdom Parliament
Hansard - United Kingdom Parliament
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
43 Pensions Bill [Lords]<br />
20 JUNE 2011<br />
Pensions Bill [Lords]<br />
44<br />
[Mr Duncan Smith]<br />
sacrifice. It will also simplify administration for employers<br />
by aligning the earnings trigger with the existing personal<br />
tax threshold.<br />
Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con): My right<br />
hon. Friend refers specifically to the linkage of the<br />
personal allowance but, as he knows, our Government<br />
are committed to increasing the allowance significantly.<br />
What impact is that likely to have on auto-enrolment?<br />
Mr Duncan Smith: We are committed to reviewing<br />
that year by year, so I can assure my hon. Friend that we<br />
will constantly take it forward and not leave it static.<br />
Introducing a waiting period of up to three months,<br />
which has been widely discussed and debated, will ease<br />
the regulatory burden on employers. We had many<br />
representations from employers. In view of the present<br />
circumstances and the difficulties that many of them<br />
face, it is important to recognise the key considerations<br />
that we had to take into account in framing the Bill.<br />
Workers will retain the right to opt into the system if<br />
they consider it to be in their best interests to do so.<br />
That is important. Although we are allowing a let-out,<br />
if workers want to enter they will retain the right to do<br />
so. The Bill also amends legislation to enable employers<br />
with defined contribution schemes to self-certify their<br />
scheme. That is simple and straightforward. It makes it<br />
easier for employers with an existing scheme to try to<br />
align that. If it is aligned closely enough, the scheme<br />
can go ahead, saving employers the complication of<br />
having to change and engage in a new scheme. That is<br />
fairer and more reasonable.<br />
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): Given<br />
that the vast majority of the 600,000 people who will be<br />
excluded from getting a pension under the raised threshold<br />
are women, is the Secretary of State at all worried that<br />
the Bill is beginning to look as if it discriminates against<br />
women?<br />
Mr Duncan Smith: I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s<br />
concern. We are not blind to the issue, but we have<br />
decided to strike a balance between making the scheme<br />
work from the beginning and avoiding driving people<br />
on very low incomes into sacrificing too much and<br />
therefore not seeing the rewards. It is important to make<br />
the point that in the Green Paper, as the hon. Gentleman<br />
will have noticed, we talk about the single tier pension,<br />
from which there will be very significant benefits to<br />
women. We hope that in due course that will achieve a<br />
balance.<br />
I do not dismiss the hon. Gentleman’s considerations.<br />
We keep the issue constantly under review and will<br />
watch carefully to see what happens. It is important that<br />
we get auto-enrolment off the ground in a stable manner.<br />
I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House<br />
recognise that these are balanced decisions—sometimes<br />
nuanced decisions—that we have to take, but we will<br />
make sure that we review them.<br />
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab): Will<br />
the Secretary of State give way?<br />
Mr Duncan Smith: Indeed. How can I resist?<br />
Mr Watson: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I<br />
have always admired his ambition, but is he familiar<br />
with the Burkean maxim that change always brings<br />
certain loss and only possible gain? What appears to sit<br />
within the proposals he is outlining today is certain loss<br />
for many thousands of women facing retirement. Will<br />
he sketch out a little more how he intends to give them<br />
security, given that many trade unions—the Public and<br />
Commercial Services Union, Unite, GMB and Unison—<br />
have just voted for strike action? I strongly contend that<br />
fear about insecurity in retirement is fuelling that.<br />
Mr Duncan Smith: It is always nice to be accused of<br />
having ambition. I thought I was supposed to have<br />
given that up a few years ago, but I will be tempted by<br />
the hon. Gentleman. Workers can still opt in. They<br />
must be told that they can opt in, and if they feel it is the<br />
right thing to do, auto-enrolment will still be open to<br />
them. I will not be tempted just yet on the other subject<br />
to which the hon. Gentleman refers, which is the pensions<br />
age. I will take an intervention from him, if he wishes,<br />
when we get to that. For the moment I want to stay on<br />
auto-enrolment. As I said earlier, I recognise that these<br />
are not absolutes. In other words, to get the scheme<br />
going we have taken some of these decisions, but we will<br />
see where that goes. If there is a very big drive for more<br />
to go into it, we will take that into consideration.<br />
Amendments made in the other place will ensure that<br />
the strength of the certification test is maintained by<br />
requiring that I and subsequent Secretaries of State<br />
ensure that at least 90% of jobholders receive at least<br />
the same level of contributions under the certification<br />
test as they would have received based on the relevant<br />
quality requirement for automatic enrolment. Employers<br />
told us in discussions that the certification test will<br />
significantly ease the process of automatic enrolment.<br />
I believe that these changes, taken together, will allow<br />
us to present individuals and businesses with a credible<br />
set of reforms that will bring much of the next generation<br />
into saving for the first time, which was Labour’s intention<br />
when in government, and one that we will pursue, thus<br />
beginning to improve the poor level of saving. There<br />
has been some talk, not necessarily by hon. Members<br />
here, about the possibilities of mis-selling. We have<br />
retained the powers to prevent excessive charging in<br />
automatic enrolment schemes and will use them as<br />
necessary and keep them constantly under review.<br />
Part 3 of the Bill covers occupational pension measures,<br />
including a few relatively minor changes to the legislation<br />
governing the uprating of occupational pensions. The<br />
Bill amends existing legislation to set the indexation<br />
and revaluation of occupational pensions at the general<br />
level of prices. These changes are consequential amendments<br />
that follow the Government’s decision to use the consumer<br />
prices index as the most appropriate measure of inflation<br />
for benefits and pensions.<br />
I remind the House that the key legislation for setting<br />
the statutory minimums for the revaluation and indexation<br />
of occupational pensions is not in the Bill, as we have<br />
already considered the issue in previous debates on the<br />
Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2010. This is<br />
not the time to revisit those debates, but no doubt<br />
someone will want to. Hon. Members might wish to<br />
note that all the Government will do is set out the<br />
minimum increases; if schemes want to pay more than<br />
the statutory minimums, that is a matter for them.