All 2 Debates between Lord Flight and Baroness Hollis of Heigham

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Flight and Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Tuesday 9th February 2016

(8 years, 10 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Portrait Baroness Hollis of Heigham
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I understood that Amendments 24 and 25 were in the 11th group, but perhaps I missed some earlier realignment of amendments.

Lord Flight Portrait Lord Flight
- Hansard - -

The noble Baroness is entirely correct. That is why I asked the indulgence of the Committee quickly to address them now. That is for two reasons: first, they relate to Amendment 21 and, secondly, as I have given notice, I may not be able to be here when they are called later, for some particular personal reasons.

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Portrait Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

No, I fear we must stick with the group of amendments that we have.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham Portrait Baroness Hollis of Heigham
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am sorry to be a misery on this, but it is rather difficult because, when we get to that point in the debate, we will not be able to debate the amendments. They are quite some distance away; they would have needed to be grouped.

Lord Flight Portrait Lord Flight
- Hansard - -

I am bound by that judgment, but I did ask the Whips’ Office and was given permission so to do.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Lord Flight and Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Monday 16th December 2013

(11 years ago)

Grand Committee
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Flight Portrait Lord Flight (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I have encountered more upset in relation to this aspect of the Bill than what I would hope was support for having a state pension above the level of income support. Quite simply, we are talking about individuals who have paid their national insurance, who are too old to benefit from the 2016 changes, whose pensions are less than that, and who feel somewhat aggrieved that many people who have not paid their national insurance will qualify for the increased pension after 2016 when they will not. I appreciate that it is all about money, but I wonder whether a full calculation has been done of the net real costs of putting everyone who is entitled to a pension on to the new arrangement in 2016; I suppose that is unless they have qualifications that exceed that. However, I can only think that there would be a significant net-off in terms of other welfare payments if people’s pensions were slightly larger. This is a fundamentally good piece of legislation on which there is relatively cross-party support. However, I slightly warn the Government that this issue—that those who are too old to benefit from the 2016 reforms will often be worse off than those young enough to benefit—is rather spoiling the welcome to these changes.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham Portrait Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I would like to ask a simple question that relates to one of the hopes that some of us had a year or so back. The greatest proportion of those claiming pension credit tend to be elderly widows—when the husband died, the pension died with him—over the age of 80 or 85. I fully understand that to bring all pensions on to this would be a big-ticket item for any Government to contemplate; that is not in doubt, as the previous speaker mentioned. However, what if we were to introduce the pension not just for people reaching pension age in 2016 but for those over 85, and then for the next decade bring the 85s down by a year, with the 65s going up a year, as they will? They would meet in about a decade for men, perhaps slightly later for women. In about a decade or so, virtually all pensions would be covered on an incremental basis. I have not been able to cost that. I was told, teasingly by the Minister in the other place, that he thought it would probably cost half a billion pounds, but whether that was per year or in total was not made clear to me. Have there been any thoughts about how we might progressively increase the coverage?

--- Later in debate ---
Lord Flight Portrait Lord Flight
- Hansard - -

I am sorry to bother the Minister but is the £10 billion figure what I call gross or net? The key issue is that many older pensioners who would not otherwise qualify will qualify for various forms of income support in whatever is left of pension tax credits, and there really is a need to net all those projected costs off if they are not covered in the £10 billion to see what the actual net extra cost is. If, in that exercise, the Government discovered that the cost was much less than that, then I think this is something that could be thought about.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham Portrait Baroness Hollis of Heigham
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

In particular, my Lords, given that the Government are proposing to remove AIPs for those over 75, there is therefore going to be an annual means-testing of pensioners who, if they were 10 or 12 years younger, would have that £144 as of right.