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.
93 Pensions Bill [Lords]<br />
20 JUNE 2011<br />
Pensions Bill [Lords]<br />
94<br />
on, and even at this stage I urge the Government to<br />
ensure a fair deal not just for future pensioners but for<br />
existing ones. Nevertheless, the Bill represents a good<br />
step forward in the attempt to tackle our out-of-date<br />
pensions system. The Government should again be<br />
congratulated on doing the right thing, even when it<br />
might not be the easiest of their duties. Good governance<br />
is about taking difficult decisions in the long-term interests<br />
of the country, which is what this coalition Government<br />
are doing. The Pensions Bill lays a solid foundation for<br />
a more sustainable and fairer pensions system, and I<br />
look forward to the Government building on it further<br />
in future.<br />
7.44 pm<br />
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Coop):<br />
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this<br />
important debate. Like many hon. Members on both<br />
sides of the House, I have been contacted by a huge<br />
number of constituents about the measures in the Bill.<br />
Indeed, I expect that the e-mails are continuing to flood<br />
in even as I speak.<br />
The debate today has rightly focused on women’s<br />
pensions, but it is important that we also remember the<br />
wider context. The majority of people want to plan<br />
ahead for their retirement, and they are happy to make<br />
their contributions during their working lives in the<br />
knowledge that they will reap the benefit when they<br />
retire. I am pleased that today’s debate has not had<br />
more heat than light, and that we have heard thoughtful<br />
contributions. All too often, insulting comments are<br />
made to suggest that people who have a decent pension<br />
might be getting something for nothing, or getting more<br />
than they deserve. I am genuinely glad that we have not<br />
heard any of that today.<br />
For many working people brought up to do the right<br />
thing, pensions are like deferred wages. They have carefully<br />
planned for their later years because they believe that it<br />
is right to avoid being a burden on the state or on their<br />
families. Unfortunately, however, it is those thrifty, careful<br />
planners who are being let down by this Government in<br />
the Bill. It is sad that the Government have broken their<br />
promise in the coalition agreement not to raise the<br />
women’s state pension age to 66 before 2020. As we<br />
heard at the beginning of the debate, the coalition<br />
agreement clearly stated that the state pension age<br />
would rise to 66 but that this would<br />
“not be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women.”<br />
Ministers have performed dramatic U-turns on a whole<br />
range of issues, some of which have been welcome, but<br />
this one is most unwelcome. The legislation will now<br />
accelerate the equalisation for women to 2018, and then<br />
increase men’s and women’s state pension ages to 66 by<br />
2020. Anyone reading the coalition agreement when it<br />
was published would not have expected that to happen.<br />
Some 2.6 million women will be affected by the<br />
Government’s proposals. The state pension age for women<br />
born between 6 December 1953 and 5 October 1954 will<br />
increase by more than 18 months. I should say that I do<br />
not have an interest to declare in that regard; the<br />
increase will not affect me, but it will affect many<br />
women in my constituency. The Government’s own<br />
impact assessment estimates that the measure will affect<br />
about 330,000 women. In the most extreme cases, some<br />
33,000 women born between 6 March and 5 April 1954<br />
will see an increase of two years. Those are the points<br />
that constituents are contacting me about, because they are<br />
worried about the impact that the Bill will have on<br />
them.<br />
To put this in context, a woman born in April 1953,<br />
as one of my good friends in my constituency was, will<br />
be able to get her pension at the age of 62 years 11<br />
months. However, another friend who was born just a<br />
year later, in April 1954, will have to wait until she is 66<br />
before she can draw her pension. It is completely<br />
understandable that people feel that the measures are<br />
unfair. We have heard that comment time and again this<br />
afternoon. They are certainly not fair to the 1,200<br />
women in my constituency aged around 56 and 57 who<br />
are set to lose the most from these changes, and who<br />
will have very little time to prepare or to amend existing<br />
plans. Many of them have worked in a series of jobs,<br />
raised families and perhaps worked part-time over the<br />
years. It is difficult enough for those women on low pay<br />
to plan for their retirement without this additional<br />
burden being placed on them. I think the most significant<br />
part of the issue before us is allowing people time to<br />
plan adequately for retirement.<br />
Age UK has highlighted a number of concerns, not<br />
simply about the plans, but about the fact that people<br />
are not necessarily aware of them. It estimated that<br />
about 32% of the women it polled said that, following<br />
the Government’s proposals, they did not know when<br />
the state pension age would reach 65 for both women<br />
and men. Just one in 10 correctly said 2018. Almost half<br />
expected equalisation to happen before the planned<br />
date, while 9% thought it would be later than planned.<br />
As we can see, there is confusion.<br />
In the last few months, despite the public outrage and<br />
a campaign supported by different charities and<br />
organisations, Members of all parties and affected<br />
individuals, it appears that, although Ministers might<br />
have begun to listen, they have certainly not come<br />
forward with any clear proposals on what they intend<br />
to do.<br />
We all understand the simple truth that our society is<br />
ageing. The previous Labour Government recognised it<br />
and, as we have heard, established the independent<br />
Turner commission and built a consensus for change<br />
around a number of key areas: linking the basic state<br />
pension to earnings, raising the retirement age to 68 by<br />
2046, starting the rise from 2024 and making private<br />
pensions opt out instead of opt in, with employers also<br />
making a contribution. After trying to build that kind<br />
of consensus, it is simply wrong to penalise women who<br />
have worked hard for their whole lives and now have no<br />
time to plan for their retirement.<br />
As I have said, many women of this generation are<br />
already at a disadvantage when it comes to pensions.<br />
They have perhaps been denied access to private pension<br />
schemes and have had to take career breaks to bring up<br />
children. Raising the state pension age for women so<br />
rapidly could result in some women currently in their<br />
50s having to work for two years more than they had<br />
previously thought. That might not seem a great deal if<br />
people are not at the stage of life when they are thinking<br />
about planning for retirement, but for people working<br />
in an arduous job with long hours or working very early<br />
in the morning, as many in the cleaning or hospitality<br />
sector have to do, or late at night, that means a lot. The<br />
women affected are being made to accommodate the