Hansard - United Kingdom Parliament
Hansard - United Kingdom Parliament
Hansard - United Kingdom Parliament
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
65 Pensions Bill [Lords]<br />
20 JUNE 2011<br />
Pensions Bill [Lords]<br />
66<br />
important that we return to it to address some of the<br />
injustices in the operation of the financial assistance<br />
scheme as it affects ASW pensioners.<br />
Malcolm Wicks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?<br />
Jonathan Evans: On that issue only, yes.<br />
Malcolm Wicks: Will the hon. Gentleman at least<br />
acknowledge, in fairness, that it was the last Labour<br />
Government who set up both the financial assistance<br />
scheme and the pension protection fund, which, whatever<br />
the difficulties, have helped many tens of thousands of<br />
people who were going to lose their pensions?<br />
Jonathan Evans: The right hon. Gentleman and I<br />
have known each other for many years and he knows I<br />
have the highest respect for him. I certainly accept that<br />
we eventually ended up with that legislation, but it took<br />
a long time to get there. However, he was material in<br />
trying to achieve that.<br />
Let me also say a word about the effects of autoenrolment.<br />
I was staggered to hear the right hon. Member<br />
for Birmingham, Hodge Hill tell us that he does not like<br />
the proposals on auto-enrolment. I have to say that I am<br />
concerned about the impact of our continually increasing<br />
the personal allowance—as I understand it, that is<br />
going to be part of our policy—if we are just going to<br />
link the personal allowance figure to the level at which<br />
auto-enrolment kicks in. I am reassured by what my<br />
right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says about<br />
keeping this under review, but the movement from<br />
£5,000 to £7,000 is not, as described by the right hon.<br />
Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, an attack on<br />
poorer workers. The reality, on the information that we<br />
have, is that those people would be worse off if they<br />
were within the scheme.<br />
Mr Duncan Smith: May I tempt my hon. Friend with<br />
a thought about why the right hon. Member for<br />
Birmingham, Hodge Hill made such an issue of this? I<br />
wondered whether he was searching for a reason to vote<br />
against the very policy that his Government, when in<br />
power, wanted to bring in, because there is nothing else<br />
in it with which Labour disagree.<br />
Jonathan Evans: I am aware that the Forum of Private<br />
Business does not like the fact that the Government<br />
have not made more adjustments in this area, and of<br />
course the Government would like to have a situation in<br />
which all parties were on board at the end of the review,<br />
but the proposal of the right hon. Member for Birmingham,<br />
Hodge Hill has virtually no supporters, save perhaps for<br />
those within the union movement—surprise, surprise.<br />
The reality is that the proposals we are taking forward<br />
are overdue, but there has been too much misinformation<br />
about this change. Ultimately, I want to see a situation<br />
in which no woman has to wait more than a year longer<br />
than she had expected to wait, but the linking of that<br />
issue with a 25-year lead-in to the equalisation of pensions<br />
at 65 by those engaged in this campaign has been<br />
deliberately misleading and has not served the interests<br />
of all the people who have written to us.<br />
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): Thank you for<br />
your time constraint.<br />
5.51 pm<br />
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab): It is a<br />
pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff North<br />
(Jonathan Evans), but I will disagree with quite a bit of<br />
what he said.<br />
I am disappointed about the change in the financial<br />
assistance scheme from the retail prices index to the<br />
consumer prices index, particularly in relation to Richards<br />
Textile factory in Aberdeen, which went bust with the<br />
collapse of its pension scheme. Although the very hard<br />
work of many Labour Back Benchers ensured that<br />
those pensioners did not lose all their money, they still<br />
feel aggrieved that they do not have the same cover as<br />
those who subsequently entered the pension protection<br />
fund and that they do not get quite as much as those<br />
covered by it.<br />
Let me start by saying which parts of the Bill I agree<br />
with to show that not everything in it is bad, although<br />
quite a lot is. I agree wholeheartedly with the lifting of<br />
the default retirement age and I only wish that my<br />
Government had done that. I have a friend who has<br />
been told by his employer that he has to retire at 65 and<br />
he does not want to, but unfortunately his birthday falls<br />
on the wrong side of the divide.<br />
I am also very glad that the Government are going<br />
ahead with the national employment savings trust. There<br />
was a bit of worry at the time of the election that some<br />
people in business who were not too keen on it, particularly<br />
on auto-enrolment, might put pressure on the coalition<br />
Government, who I am glad resisted. NEST is certainly<br />
the way forward for occupational pensions, to ensure<br />
that there is pension cover for everyone and that most<br />
people will not have to depend on the basic state pension<br />
as their sole income in retirement. That is very important.<br />
I also agree with the proposal to bring auto-enrolment<br />
forward to July 2012 for large companies. If they are<br />
ready to go, the sooner the scheme gets up and running<br />
the better and the sooner it is tested the better, because<br />
part of the reason for rolling out auto-enrolment is to<br />
test how it works in practice.<br />
So those things are all good, but that is as far as that<br />
goes and there are issues of concern. Like my right hon.<br />
Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill<br />
(Mr Byrne), I am concerned about the lifting of the<br />
auto-enrolment earnings threshold by £2,500. I tried to<br />
intervene about this early in the Secretary of State’s<br />
speech, but lots of other people were jumping up and<br />
down at the time. The problem is that low earners might<br />
not always be low earners. Auto-enrolment is important<br />
in getting people into the scheme as soon as possible<br />
and in ensuring that even low earners are enrolled in a<br />
pension scheme. If those people continue to earn similar<br />
amounts for the rest of their working life, the scheme<br />
might not have the returns that they would expect, but<br />
no one knows, at the start of their working life, what<br />
their eventual earnings will be and we should always err<br />
on the side of caution in ensuring that people enrol. The<br />
raising of the threshold could result in about 600,000<br />
people not being enrolled who otherwise would have<br />
been. It has been said that those people could opt in,<br />
but it is highly unlikely that many people on such low<br />
incomes would do so. If the Government introduced a<br />
foundation pension or a pension for the state, which the<br />
Secretary of State put into context, the scheme would<br />
make a difference for people making such low contributions.