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.
89 Pensions Bill [Lords]<br />
20 JUNE 2011<br />
Pensions Bill [Lords]<br />
90<br />
headlines of Government. We need to ensure that small<br />
employers do not bear a disproportionate cost.<br />
The free eye tests, free prescriptions, free bus passes,<br />
free television licences for the over-75s and the free<br />
winter fuel payments, along with the Government’s<br />
commitment to solidify the £25 payment in bad weather,<br />
are welcomed by many. Certainly, they are welcomed by<br />
the poorest members of my constituency—in Bemerton<br />
Heath and the Friary, for example—who rely on the<br />
payments year in, year out. I hesitate to say it, however,<br />
but is it really fair for those earning more than, say,<br />
£50,000 a year in retirement to have that extra money?<br />
There is usually a snigger, a gasp and a “Well, we don’t<br />
really need it”. However, in the assessment of true<br />
fairness, what value accrues to the public purse from<br />
expenditure on those people?<br />
I welcome the Bill, which establishes the right direction,<br />
but there is still work to be done in certain areas, which<br />
I hope I have set out. No Government, past or present,<br />
will get everything right. I applaud the work of my hon.<br />
Friend the pensions Minister and wish him well as he<br />
unravels these complex issues and develops a pensions<br />
system fit, in all respects, for the nation we live in and<br />
the number of years we can expect to live.<br />
7.29 pm<br />
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab): Like<br />
many Members, I have been inundated with e-mails and<br />
letters from women who will be affected by the acceleration<br />
in the state pension age. I declare an interest, in that I<br />
was born between 1953 and 1955, and will have to wait<br />
longer for my pension.<br />
Last month I held a 90-minute Westminster Hall<br />
debate in which I outlined my opposition to the<br />
Government’s plans. The arguments that I put forward<br />
then still hold. The Government’s proposals are unfair,<br />
because they target a group of women based on when<br />
they were born and give them too little time to plan.<br />
These are women who have done the right thing—they<br />
have paid their national insurance contributions and<br />
planned for their retirement—and they should not be<br />
penalised by a Government who are moving the goalposts<br />
at the last minute. The Government are threatening to<br />
undermine confidence in the pensions system and some<br />
of the more positive proposals in the Pensions Bill, such<br />
as auto-enrolment, that are designed to improve pension<br />
coverage. However, people may think, “If the goalposts<br />
are moved at the last minute, why bother? We may make<br />
our contributions now, but who’s to say that the money<br />
will be there at the end, when we expect it?” That is the<br />
opposite of the Government’s intentions for pension<br />
reform, but it is a distinct possibility.<br />
When I held my Adjournment debate, not a single<br />
Conservative MP spoke. I am encouraged that we have<br />
had such thoughtful and wide-ranging contributions<br />
from all parts of the House on this important issue<br />
today. I also hope that the opposition expressed in this<br />
debate will cause Ministers to pause and rethink their<br />
plans. My early-day motion on the issue has gathered<br />
177 signatures from all political parties, so there is<br />
widespread support in the House for a rethink.<br />
I would like to touch on the Secretary of State’s<br />
comments in today’s media. He said that it would cost<br />
in the region of £10 billion to drop the accelerated<br />
timetable, and that he would therefore stick to his plans.<br />
The Bill’s regulatory impact assessment says that the<br />
proposal will save no money before 2016, by which time<br />
the Chancellor says that he will have balanced the<br />
books. I am therefore unsure what the Secretary of<br />
State means. Is this about deficit reduction, or is it<br />
about fairness and equality?<br />
I would like to touch on some issues that have already<br />
been covered and put some further questions to the<br />
Minister. What assessment has his Department made of<br />
the proposal’s effect on the number of unpaid carers<br />
and child minders in the UK? The accelerated timetable<br />
means that many people who would have taken up<br />
caring for relatives or provided child care when they<br />
retired, in order that the next generation could join the<br />
work force, will not be able to do so because they will be<br />
at work for another two years. That will have an important<br />
social policy impact. What assessment has the Department<br />
made of the proposal’s effect on volunteering and the<br />
Government’s big society agenda? People who have<br />
retired are not inactive; they volunteer at libraries,<br />
charity shops and lunch clubs. They also act as school<br />
governors and provide much needed care in our<br />
communities. If they are kept in the labour market for<br />
longer, they will be less able to volunteer in those ways.<br />
I am also deeply concerned about unemployment<br />
among the over-50s. It is not easy for the women<br />
affected by the proposal to get another job or increase<br />
their hours to fill the two-year gap if they find themselves<br />
out of work, especially at such short notice. I receive<br />
many letters from constituents in their 50s who are<br />
willing to take any kind of work, but who are finding it<br />
impossible to get a job. It is not easy for people to<br />
return to the labour market once they have left. It is also<br />
becoming increasingly difficult to hang on to a job in<br />
later years. If women are expected to work longer, there<br />
needs to be work for them to do. That is particularly<br />
important given the current economic situation and the<br />
rise in unemployment. In looking for work, those women<br />
may well be competing against their own grandchildren<br />
in the labour market.<br />
What projections and costings have the Government<br />
made for how many women affected by the proposal<br />
will have to claim employment-related benefits? Many<br />
women will not have enough savings to fall back on,<br />
particularly those who have been employed in low-paid<br />
work or who have taken time out to have children or act<br />
as carers. Will the Minister outline the measures that<br />
the Government plan to introduce to help them work<br />
longer? Will he comment on how women who are not in<br />
work are meant to balance their finances in the two-year<br />
gap, given that they will be eligible for jobseeker’s<br />
allowance for only six months if they have savings or<br />
will not be eligible at all—this is my understanding—if<br />
they have a small occupational pension?<br />
I was going to mention some of the class issues<br />
affecting people’s life expectancy, but my right hon.<br />
Friend the Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks),<br />
who is no longer in his place, went into that in great<br />
detail, and much better than I could. I would therefore<br />
like to end by asking the Minister about auto-enrolment<br />
and NEST—the national employment savings trust—which<br />
I broadly support. The three-month waiting period will<br />
mean that 500,000 fewer people will be automatically<br />
enrolled in a pension scheme. It is my understanding<br />
that workers will be able to opt in during that three-month<br />
period and receive the employer contribution, but people