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.
105 Pensions Bill [Lords]<br />
20 JUNE 2011<br />
Pensions Bill [Lords]<br />
106<br />
see other countries engaged on a different path, as<br />
President Obama said when he spoke to us in Westminster<br />
Hall. Those countries are engaged in growing their<br />
economies more. The hon. Gentleman spoke about<br />
fairness, but may I say to him that fairness and restoring<br />
trust in politics are not about making a commitment in<br />
a coalition agreement 13 months ago and cynically<br />
breaking it in the way that this Bill will if it receives a<br />
Second Reading tonight.<br />
Reform of the pensions system is best conducted<br />
with the agreement of as many shades of political and<br />
other opinion as possible. It is far too important for<br />
short-termism, and the principles and as much of the<br />
detail as possible should be above partisan politics.<br />
That is why there are some aspects of the Bill that<br />
Opposition Members could support, but the glaring<br />
unfairness at the heart of the Bill in its treatment of half<br />
a million women in the acceleration and equalisation of<br />
the state pension age in 2018 means that I will be<br />
opposing it tonight.<br />
Rising life expectancy and other demographic changes<br />
mean that there is agreement across the House that the<br />
state pension age should change to reflect the longer<br />
period of retirement that people in younger age groups<br />
are likely to enjoy. There are currently 10.5 million<br />
people aged 65 and over, compared with just 5.5 million<br />
in the same age group in 1951. It was the previous<br />
Government who established the Turner commission to<br />
examine in detail on a non-partisan basis the necessary<br />
changes in the state pension age in a way that was fair to<br />
future taxpayers, just for people approaching retirement,<br />
and long term in its scope, to allow people to save for<br />
their retirement in the full knowledge and with sufficient<br />
notice of changes in the state pension age.<br />
The Bill, particularly in part 1, breaks those three<br />
basic principles by adjusting the settlement in a way<br />
that hurts 500,000 women across the country who<br />
were born between December 1953 and October 1954,<br />
including 900 in my constituency. It fails in the aim of<br />
delivering an improved basic state pension. It also<br />
breaches the terms of the coalition agreement, which<br />
ruled out any equalisation of the state pension for<br />
women before 2020.<br />
Nicky Morgan: On that point—I speak as a former<br />
lawyer—my understanding of the explanation given<br />
earlier this afternoon was that there was a legal reason<br />
that the coalition agreement could not be fulfilled as it<br />
was drafted. Is the hon. Gentleman honestly saying that<br />
his Government would have proceeded with something<br />
that is deemed to be illegal, however desirable?<br />
Mr Bain: I am grateful for that intervention. The way<br />
to get round all the problems, legal or otherwise, is to<br />
follow the excellent suggestion that my hon. Friend the<br />
Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) has already<br />
made in the debate and will restate in her winding-up<br />
speech: prevent this unfair change from going ahead<br />
and instead look at some of the accelerations in pension<br />
age that can be made, particularly in respect of people<br />
retiring at 66 or 67, which can also save money for the<br />
Exchequer.<br />
The Minister and the Secretary of State did not spell<br />
out to the House what the legal problems were. Some<br />
Members have speculated that they relate to matters of<br />
European law. I hope that when the Pensions Minister<br />
winds up the debate, he can outline the legal issues.<br />
They certainly were not outlined to the country when<br />
the coalition agreement was signed, or during the press<br />
conference—the love-in—in the rose garden thereafter.<br />
The Bill also fails the test of fairness, because it<br />
places too great a burden for savings on one group of<br />
the population when the Government should be looking<br />
elsewhere, such as at equalising state pension eligibility<br />
at 67. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock<br />
and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) pointed out, even before<br />
these deeply unjust proposals were announced by the<br />
Government, women had been disadvantaged in pension<br />
provision for some time. As she said, median pension<br />
saving of a 56-year-old woman is just £9,100, almost six<br />
times lower than that of a man which, on average, is<br />
£52,800. Research by Prudential establishes that the<br />
average woman retiring this year can expect an annual<br />
income in retirement of £12,900 per annum, compared<br />
with an expected income of £19,400 for the average<br />
retiring male. Further, the same study found that 28% of<br />
women planning to retire this year have no savings in<br />
private or company pension schemes, compared with<br />
just 10% of men.<br />
The previous Government’s strategy of seeking to<br />
link the basic state pension to earnings and making<br />
private pensions opt out instead of opt in sought to<br />
redress the balance and would have been implemented<br />
if we were in government. More safeguards should have<br />
been established through the Bill, rather than entrenching<br />
inequity, as it appears to do. Following the Bill, women<br />
affected will have less than seven years to react to the<br />
changes, and may be less likely to be in a pension<br />
scheme at all, with less disposable income to supplement<br />
savings for retirement, and with greater care responsibilities.<br />
Women are also much more likely to wind down in later<br />
years of employment, be that to care for elderly relatives<br />
or for young grandchildren. Furthermore, it will be<br />
more difficult for women to move from part-time to<br />
full-time work, or indeed back into employment of any<br />
form, given current economic conditions. The Office for<br />
Budget Responsibility’s projection of 310,000 public<br />
sector job losses in the coming years will disproportionately<br />
impact women, who make up 65% of that work force.<br />
The Prime Minister said on Radio 2 today that<br />
retirement should be<br />
“a process rather than a cliff edge”<br />
and that<br />
“many people, when they get to retirement, would like to go on<br />
doing some work or part-time work”.<br />
The reality is that the cliff edge imposed by the Bill is an<br />
unfair burden on 56 and 57-year-old women who have<br />
done the right thing and saved for retirement but are<br />
now being grievously abandoned by the Government.<br />
Recent decades have seen a change in employment<br />
patterns among women. The dated notion that a woman’s<br />
role is to stay at home and look after the children has<br />
been well and truly dispelled, but for women in their late<br />
50s who are due to be affected by the proposals, such<br />
changes in social attitudes may not have been reflected<br />
in the earlier parts of their working lives. The Government’s<br />
reckless haste in changing the state pension age for<br />
those women makes adapting to that change even more<br />
difficult.<br />
As Carers UK indicated last month, these changes<br />
will have a disproportionate impact on other social<br />
groups. About 58% of carers—3.4 million people—are