Hansard - United Kingdom Parliament

63 Pensions Bill [Lords]
20 JUNE 2011
Pensions Bill [Lords]
64
[Jonathan Evans]
would be no time left for the debate in hand, because we
would all be pointing out the many Labour shortcomings
on pensions.
There has been a lot of misinformation about the
proposals we are debating. I listened to a staggering
example of that at 9.30 this morning on Sky News,
when the otherwise excellent Charlotte Hawkins
said that today we were going to vote on a proposal
to make women work a further five years before
receiving their pensions. It amazed me that that could
be said; I am sure it must have been a slip of the tongue.
Later, I opened my e-mails and came across a letter
from a lady who will be required to wait a further two
months as a result of these proposals, but who stated
that she believed she will have to wait a further six years.
That highlights the exaggerations, and in some cases the
dishonesty, in the campaign that has been waged against
the proposals.
Harriett Baldwin: Did my hon. Friend also see last
week’s Age UK survey, which found that 20% of the
women affected by the previous Government’s changes
to equalise the pension ages of men and women had not
realised what was going to happen to them?
Jonathan Evans: Indeed, and one of the difficulties in
this regard is to do with the first change, to which
almost all e-mails refer: that women were getting the
pension at 60 and that that is now gradually being
moved up to 65. The right hon. Member for Birmingham,
Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) referred to his family being
affected. Well, my wife is affected by these changes, but
we in this House were aware of them because we
legislated for them in 1995. [Interruption.] Yes, we have
known about them, but we have known about them
only here, because there has not been much dissemination
of this information outside the Chamber to the rest of
the public. [Interruption.] I am grateful to the hon.
Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) for indicating
that that is so. The idea that the retirement age
might then be moved up to 66 is not new. It was debated
in this House back in 2007, and legislation was put on
to the statute book. What we are doing now is moving
the first of these dates forward, and in my view that is
necessary. It is perfectly clear that a significant saving
will be made.
The Secretary of State made a typically sensitive
address, which was well received on both sides of the
House, and not only because he said he was prepared to
listen. I am staggered that any Minister who says they
are prepared to listen to an argument is treated with
contempt from the Opposition Benches. [Interruption.]
Absolutely: it is an indication of what Labour Members
were used to when their party was in government. I
commend my right hon. Friend on his approach, however,
and I am impressed by the sum of £30 billion.
The Opposition propose that we should not take
these steps for a while, and that we should instead
return to a 2020 or 2022 timetable. The argument that
everything the Government do is being done too fast is
a familiar Opposition refrain. It in effect suggests that
we can somehow just pass the responsibility on to
succeeding generations and not grasp it ourselves. I
think we must grasp it ourselves, but that does not mean
I am unsympathetic to the arguments about that specific
cohort of women who are affected in a particularly
negative way.
I know there were debates on these measures in the
other place, but I am not persuaded that we must defer
taking them to beyond 2020. I am not going to talk
about the implications of the equality legislation so
often supported by Opposition Members, even though
that may have led to a situation whereby what was
stated in the coalition agreement cannot now be put
into effect. However, what I am certainly uncomfortable
about is any woman having to wait more than an
additional year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of
State will be aware that Sally Greengross—Baroness
Greengross, a Cross Bencher widely respected in this
area—put forward a compromise proposal that has
much merit, based as it is on the idea that no woman
waits for more than a year. The restriction was limited
in that way, and the measure was exceptionally intelligently
crafted.
I have read Lord Freud’s responses to this debate. He
said that the proposal would cost not £10 billion, as the
Opposition suggest, but only £2 billion. Given that I
want to husband public resources—and that we apparently
have the Opposition’s support for shifting retirement
ages forward from 2034 and 2044 to dates that are
significantly earlier, saving perhaps £2 billion—I am
much more attracted to the idea of matching that
saving and making far greater savings elsewhere.
Lord Freud responded to the debate by pointing out
the gender equality legislation—the equality provisions
of European law—that might make this a difficult
proposition. However, I am not persuaded that my right
hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s Department lacks
minds sufficiently sharp to overcome this difficulty.
[Interruption.] Yes, I am absolutely sure that the Minister
of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon.
Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), could
draft the legislation required; but if not, he has all the
necessary skill within his Department.
I am very happy to tell all of my constituents who
have written to me on this issue that, because of what is
happening with longevity, it is fair, if we are asking men
to wait a further year, to ask women to wait another
year. There are those who say it is a double whammy
because we are also seeing equalisation from the age
of 60, but that is already a part of the architecture and
cannot be taken into account. I am certainly prepared
to argue that case.
I want to make two final points that are
connected not with this issue but with other aspects
of the Bill. In it, adjustments are made to the financial
assistance scheme. Many of my constituents have
been affected by the collapse of Allied Steel and Wire.
On the question of the general attitude of Labour
toward pensioners, many of ASW’s pensioners know
the “assistance” they got from Labour: none
whatsoever. That is the reality. However, the truth is
that, under the financial assistance scheme, many
people are not even going to get the 90% that was
flagged up as their likely reimbursement. I hope we get
opportunities to address that issue. I am looking across
at my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel
Williams)—I do not know whether I should call him my
hon. Friend; he might be offended by that. My hon.
colleague and I have discussed this issue, and it is