Pensions Bill [Lords]

Julie Elliott Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

This debate is incredibly important to Members on both sides of the House. Before I move on to what most concerns me about the Bill, which has been raised by most hon. Members today, I should like to comment on some of the things that my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) mentioned. My constituency’s past is in heavy industry, and it still has a huge element of industry. Both men and women work very hard in difficult, not-wonderful conditions. Many simply do not reach pensionable age. It is important to bear that in mind in our discussions. Nobody can argue with the statistics on the rate of increase of life expectancy, but in some areas of the country, especially in pockets within those areas, life expectancy is increasing much more slowly. That needs to be borne in mind in our considerations.

In my office, there are folders containing letters from many of my constituents who feel strongly about changes to their state pension age. Many have felt compelled to write to their MP for the first time. I want to speak on behalf of those people, who are predominantly women. They have told me what they think of the Government’s plans, and I promised that I would represent their views to the Government. I shall take this opportunity to raise their objections on their behalf. Some have told me extraordinary things about their lives, the jobs they have done and how hard they have worked. It is my privilege to speak on their behalf. Likewise, I was pleased to take part in a debate on this issue in Westminster Hall recently.

What are my constituents so unhappy about? These women have worked hard their entire lives and done everything right. They have worked, saved and planned. Along the way, many have raised families, and many now have caring responsibilities for younger and older members of their families—I could add that, in that way, they are saving the taxpayer money. They have made their contribution to society. They paid their taxes and national insurance in the hope of a happy, relaxed, financially secure and worry-free retirement, yet the Government have moved the goalposts. My constituents feel angry and let down. Many are afraid and wonder how they will manage financially. Those who must continue to work are fearful of the long-term implications for their health.

Before I go any further, I should like to make something clear. My constituents do not disagree that the state pension age should increase. They recognise that average life expectancy in this country is increasing and they recognise the dangers that come with an ageing society, but the Turner commission recommended 15 years of preparation before implementation, as a swift alteration could cause financial hardship and unnecessary anxiety.

That is of great concern to my constituents, some of whom have already retired. Many who were seven or eight years from pensionable age calculated their savings, pension entitlements and income and retired so that they could take on caring responsibilities within their families. They simply cannot adjust their finances to cope with such sudden changes.

The issue that concerns them, and indeed me, is the sense of injustice, which has left them feeling betrayed. When they started work aged 15 or 16, they had an idea of what was expected of them and what they were signing up to—similar, perhaps, to signing a contract of employment—but that is being unjustly altered, retrospectively, leaving them with very little time to prepare. They thought they were contributing to one thing, but in fact they will get another. There is simply not enough time for them to plan and prepare financially for their retirement, which causes them a great deal of anxiety. Moving the goalposts at such short notice is not the correct way to go about this. My constituents feel penalised, despite, as I said earlier, doing everything right.

Retirement should be about choice. People should be able to assess the prevailing factors and decide when it is appropriate for them to retire. Some of my constituents affected by these changes have already made the decision to retire and are living off small private pensions. The Bill effectively removes that choice. Their carefully planned savings will not suffice for the two extra years they will be forced to wait before receiving their pension.

I worry about the wider implications of the plans. The Minister says that we need to encourage people to save for their pensions, but what message is the Government sending to the young women of today? Are they saying, “You may save and you may plan, but we’ll make the changes anyway”?

I said that I would speak on behalf of my constituents, and I shall now directly quote just a couple of the letters I have received in the past few weeks. One constituent wrote:

“I started work aged 16 with the expectation of receiving a full state pension at 60. 5 years was added. I am now outraged to find that this government has changed it again. Having paid full contributions I now find myself worse off compared to my colleagues and friends who are only a few years older”.

As a result of the arbitrary way in which the Government have decided their dates, I am sure that some of that woman’s better-off colleagues and friends are only a few months or days older than her.

Another constituent wrote:

“I am currently in full time employment and have had 2 knee replacements and am about to have surgery on my back. I am in constant pain and find full-time work very difficult. However I was looking forward to my retirement. I had hoped not to have to claim for any benefits before my retirement but I can no longer see this being possible. I feel very let down and wonder why I have pushed myself to work so hard all these years”.

Have the Government assessed the costs they will incur when people who physically cannot work extra years claim benefits? Has that been taken into account?

Finally, another constituent said:

“I find that the goal posts are being moved and if these proposals go through I shall have to work for a further 91 weeks and £9,295 will be taken from my State Pension. I have worked hard all my life from the age of 15 and I have also brought up a family. I am looking forward to my retirement as the toll of all these years of working is starting to show and feel. This Coalition government is letting thousands of women down.”

[Jonathan Evans]

Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have received similar letters. The Labour party’s policy, as far as I understand it, is to begin the process in 2020. Therefore, those people would write similar letters—would they not?—if the policy adopted by the hon. Lady were pursued.

[Julie Elliott]

That is absolutely right. The Labour party set out a similar policy of raising the pension age, but we would have done it by 2020, which would have allowed a considerable time for people to plan and to take that into account. The problem with the Government’s proposal is not raising the pensionable age, but doing so in such a short period. That is radically different from anything the Labour party proposed.

The coalition agreement said that the state pension age would not rise sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women. The Bill breaks that coalition commitment. My constituents feel very angry and misled about that. Like many of the coalition’s ill-conceived policies, this is too much, too fast.

State Pension Age (Women)

Julie Elliott Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Weir, to speak under your chairmanship this morning. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on securing this debate and on her excellent introduction. I am pleased that so many Members are here to participate; this is an important subject, and many will be affected.

I start by saying how many of my constituents in Sunderland Central have contacted me about this issue. Over the past couple of months, I have been overwhelmed by the number of people contacting me who are worried and anxious, and oppose the Government’s plans to speed up the equalisation of the state pension age. Many have written giving their own stories of what they are about to lose.

Average life expectancy in this country is increasing. That is a good thing, but it is why reforms to the current pension system are necessary. No one disagrees with that. We live in an ageing society, and the pension age needs to rise to ensure that people’s retirements remain financially secure and enjoyable. However, I cannot support the changes that the Government propose, as speeding up the timetable for equalising the state pension age in that manner is unfair to my constituents.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the golden principle running through our legal system is that legislation should not be made that results in offenders not knowing what sentence they are going to get? In a similar way, in civil law those who enter into a contract, such as in employment, should know exactly what the terms and conditions are. Retrospectively to change those terms and conditions is manifestly legally and morally wrong.

[Julie Elliott]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. It is that feeling of injustice—almost that people have been conned; they thought that they were contributing to one thing, but were getting something else—that is so stark in these proposals.

I shall give a few examples to explain the problems that the proposed changes will bring to the lives of many women in my constituency—and, I am sure, across the country. The first is of a woman who has worked, planned and saved, but will still be caught out. She has done everything that people are being told to do. She has worked from the age of 16, with a couple of intermissions to have children, although in those days maternity provisions were not as good as they are now.

This woman has three small private pensions from her various places of work; in some ways, she is in a good position compared with many, although two of those pensions will be deferred until she is 60. A couple of years ago, her parents became ill. She did all the calculations; she could release the private pension from her current employment, and she had some savings, so she decided that she could manage with her deferred pensions being paid at 60 and her state pension not being paid until she was 63. She did all that, and left work a couple of years ago.

One could argue that my constituent has saved the state money by looking after her ailing parents. However, she now finds that her state pension will be delayed. She has done everything right—she has worked, saved and contributed—but is being penalised, and will somehow have to find the shortfall. She is incredibly worried about that. She has never been well paid, but has been cautious in her financial planning.

Another constituent who contacted me is set to lose more than £7,500 of the state pension, something that she has worked hard for over many years. She is now required to work a further 74 weeks. She understandably feels let down by the Government. In her letter, she said that she has worked extremely hard all her life, yet her retirement age seems consistently to move further away. Frankly, the changes to her pension have left her feeling robbed. She is not in good health, and wonders whether she will be fit enough to work those extra years. She may have to go on to benefit, something that she has never wanted.

The third of my constituents to write to me says that she had planned to work until she was 60. She began saving, and started contributing towards her pension when she was 18—38 years ago. She has worked hard and contributed to society; she paid her taxes and her national insurance contributions. At the age of 56, she was looking forward to a relaxed and financially secure retirement. The Government’s plans mean that she will now have to work until she is 66, six years longer than she expected. Her health is failing due to the stress of her job, and she is not financially prepared for the change. She wonders how she is meant to prepare for it at such short notice, and why the Government have let her down in this way. I am sure that she also wonders why the Government are going back on their promise in the coalition agreement.

A common theme runs through the letters that I have received from constituents. They do not disagree about the state pension age rising; they recognise that increasing life expectancy makes that logical. However, they say that moving the goalposts at such short notice is creating serious financial harm and causing real worries. As a result, some are considering working beyond their state pension age. However, that should be a choice; it should not be forced on them. Retirement, and especially the age at which people decide to retire, should be about choice, but choice has been stripped from those affected by these changes.

In my constituency of Sunderland Central, 1,100 women aged between 56 and 57 are among the 33,000 women whose state pension will be delayed by two years. I wrote to the Minister, asking about his plans for the state pension age. In reply, he said:

“While overall there are some aspects of the change that will affect women more strongly than men, we consider the effect is not disproportionate”.

I disagree with him. No man will have to wait longer than a year, but 500,000 women will. If that is not disproportionate, what is?

When it comes to the state pension, women are already at a disadvantage. The median pension saving of a 56-year-old woman is almost six times lower than for a man of the same age. Women will have decided to have children and work part-time to raise families. That is a valid decision and one for which they should not be punished—indeed, they should be praised. However, under these proposals such women do not have enough time to adjust their financial plans for retirement. Many have already decreased their hours in preparation for retirement, and some will have done so because of ill health.

Retirement is an opportunity for those who have contributed all that they can to society to rest with peace of mind, knowing that their contributions will be recognised and that they will be adequately provided for. However, I worry about the long-term costs for these women. I suspect that there will significant hardship, with anxiety and stress about financial matters. I also worry about the ill health that results from working to an older age.

The Turner Commission recommended 15 years of preparation before such changes are implemented. I would be interested to know why the Minister disregarded that and opted for far fewer years. Current plans will result in very different outcomes for women of similar ages. I know that the line has to be drawn somewhere, but deciding a person’s pension eligibility by their birth date suggests that the entire reform is being introduced too swiftly. The Government should stick to the original timetable, with equalisation at 65 in 2020, and not increase the state pension age to 66 until after that.

Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead on securing such an important debate. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

The things that Turner recommended are not consistent with each other. We cannot, for example, have a consistent percentage of income during life in retirement and give 15 years’ notice at the same time, because longevity is increasing much faster than that. Something somewhere has to give.

One point that has been missing during this debate—the only time that it was mentioned was when an hon. Member quoted me from last week’s debate—is that if we delay till 2020, as the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) proposed, we will have to find £10 billion. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) raised an important point, and he is analytically correct: that does not help us in the comprehensive spending review period or help the long-term structural deficit, because the age would have been 66 anyway. However, it does do one thing: it takes £30 billion—or rather, £10 billion; the whole change amounts to £30 billion, but the difference between the two of us is £10 billion—off the national debt. As he knows, servicing the national debt is one of the most crippling things that this Government must do. That is why such difficult decisions must be made.

Our changes will take £30 billion off the national debt. I do not know what the interest rate on the national debt is, but let us say 5% for the sake of round numbers. That is just to make the numbers add up; I do not suppose for a minute that it is 5%. That is £1.5 billion extra every year to spend on services or whatever rather than on the national debt. I think that that would be the hon. Lady’s preferred solution.

[Julie Elliott]

In those calculations, has the Minister taken into account the number of women who will end up on benefits to cover the shortfall during the time when they had planned for a pension, as in the examples that I quoted?

[Steve Webb]

Yes, we have. All our costings make assumptions about the proportion of people who would find themselves on benefits. Hon. Members have asked what people will live on between 64 and 66. Clearly, there will be a range of responses. Some people will go on working longer. Seven out of 10 people in the cohort that we are discussing—those born in 1953 and 1954—are in work at the moment.

Several people raised the important issue of different socio-economic groups. Across the socio-economic scale, life expectancies are rising. We cannot use the fact that there are differences between different groups—as there have been probably for ever, and certainly for the past century—as an argument for doing nothing. That argument would apply under the proposals of the hon. Member for Leeds West. If we raised the age a year to 66 in 2020, it would have exactly the same impact on the different socio-economic groups. Her proposal would have exactly the same impact on the numbers of carers and volunteers aged 64 to 66. Many of the points made by hon. Members in this debate about the impact on that age group would apply exactly, only four years later, or six years later under her proposals. We need to make a distinction between things that will be inevitable as the state pension age rises and the consequences of doing it more rapidly, which has been the focus of this debate.

Members have asked about caring responsibilities. We might not have expected this, but it is striking that the number of women within this age cohort who say that they have caring responsibilities is falling, partly because of social and demographic change. In 1993, of the women who are now in the 55 to 59-year-old age cohort, 15% had caring responsibilities, but, in 2010, the figure halved to 7.1%. Again, that suggests significant changes and that people are living longer and working longer. I suspect that caring responsibilities are being taken on, but that that is happening later in life than it would have previously.

Welfare Reform Bill

Julie Elliott Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

There have already been some excellent speeches in this debate on one of the most important issues that we have discussed so far in this Parliament. Before I talk about the issues, I want to align myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) about the problems with the Bill.

I support any attempt to reform the welfare system for the better, to make it easier to access and understand and to make people claim and receive the benefits to which they are entitled, and some measures in the Bill attempt to do that. For example, if universal credit can be made to work, that will be a good thing, but, as yet, I am not convinced that that will be the case. I await with interest the details of how the proposals will work. The jury is out for me on that point.

In the run-up to Second Reading, I have been contacted by many people who are extremely worried about the proposed changes and who are worried and frightened about the impact that those changes will have on their lives. The lack of detail about some of the proposals is one of the problems. The people contacting me have been, in the main, among the most vulnerable in our society. That was why I felt that I had to speak in this debate; I believe that, as an MP, I should speak up for the most vulnerable people I represent.

There are many reasons why I cannot support the Bill as it stands, many of which are set out in the reasoned amendment. The uncertainty about how the universal credit will work is creating fear for those people for whom benefits form all or part of their income. The Bill seems to contain disincentives to work, and that surely cannot be the intention.

I come from an area with long-standing high unemployment and I firmly believe that we need to incentivise work and to give people the opportunity to be aspirational about their lives and the chance to make things better for themselves. Although there is high unemployment in Sunderland and the north-east, there is also a strong work ethic. I was brought up in a family and community that believed that people should work hard and do their best, and I do not believe that that has changed over the years in the majority of families. Sometimes, people need help to do that. Such help includes the tax credit system, but there has been no clarification on what level of support parents will get for child care. The disincentives for people who save, who will be barred from the universal credit, seem unbelievable.

As the Bill disadvantages people suffering from cancer or mental illness through the withdrawal of the contributory employment support allowance, it is hitting hardest those whose needs are probably the highest.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Julie Elliott]

No, not at the moment, although I might in a minute.

As I said earlier, I want to focus my remarks on the most vulnerable. Many of the extremely vulnerable people who have contacted me are suffering from mental health issues and autistic spectrum disorders. Autism is a spectrum condition, which means that, despite some common characteristics, it affects sufferers in different ways and to differing extents. ASDs, as they are commonly known, are largely “hidden” disorders that affect a sufferer’s ability to communicate with others, which means that the annual review will be a real problem. ASD sufferers span the whole disability spectrum. Some are able to live relatively independent lives; others need a lifetime of care or receipt of specialist support.

Approximately one in 100 children and 350,000 adults of working age suffer from ASDs. Of the latter group, only 15% are in full-time employment in the UK. The disability living allowance has been a key benefit, providing for these people the help and support that the additional costs of their disability require. The £1 billion cut over the next three years, when the DLA is replaced by the personal independence payment—

[Jim Shannon]

At the beginning of her remarks the hon. Lady said that reform is necessary, which we all accept. However, does she share my concern that a target to reduce by 20% the number of people in receipt of DLA is the wrong approach, and that the issue should be dealt with through reform alone?

[Julie Elliott]

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. Reform is about making the benefit fit the individual need. If the benefit needs to be paid and if it fits the need, it would not be wrong if it went up by 20%.

It is vital that the Bill does not disproportionately hit those with autism and other disabilities, who are all too often overlooked despite being among the most vulnerable in our society. The goal surely must be to support people with autism who cannot work, so that they can live a full and happy life. However, for those who are able to work, DLA has been crucial in helping them into the workplace. Without the DLA, people with autism would be socially isolated and more likely to suffer from poor mental health. The reform of DLA may lead to people with mental health problems missing out, which could have huge knock-on cost impacts on health and social care services. Surely this cannot be this Bill’s motivation—to give less support to people with autism and to increase the knock-on costs to other Government Departments. As it stands, that is what the Bill is in danger of doing. Its implications for people with autism could lead to confusion and frustration, which in turn could lead to more serious health problems. The Government must ensure that the needs of those with ASDs are taken into account.

The proposals for face-to-face assessments are in themselves creating great anxiety among people with autism and with mental health issues. ASDs are a very specialist area of medicine, and the doctors who deal with such disorders are the people who understand them and their implications. Many of the doctors undertaking the assessments will not have a full understanding of ASDs and the specific needs of the people who suffer from them. When a detailed assessment by a specialist has already been undertaken, what is the need for a further assessment, for benefit purposes, to be carried out by someone without that expertise?

As I said at the beginning of my speech, for a welfare reform Bill to work, it must be, as it says, a “reform” Bill that makes benefits easier to access and to understand.