Pensions Bill [Lords]

Anne Begg Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Gregg McClymont]

No, I will not give way.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Gregg McClymont]

I would be delighted to give way to my hon. Friend.

[Dame Anne Begg]

I, too, welcome my hon. Friend to his first outing at the Dispatch Box. Perhaps this exchange has just illustrated all too clearly why women are deserting the Tories in huge numbers—it is because they do not feel that they should be the ones who have to bear the burden of the debt that exists. It is that balance that the Government have failed to understand.

[Gregg McClymont]

My hon. Friend, with her usual sagacity, gets to the heart of the matter. Given that we are talking about a small amount of money in the scheme of things—[Interruption.] The two tests that we have set are: do the Government’s plans give fair and due notice to the women concerned, and do those plans bear proportionately on all women affected? The answer is no and no. The Bill continues to place the longevity burden disproportionately heavily on women in their later 50s.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Willott]

I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could clarify to us where the money that he proposes spending would come from. Unless we tackle the financial crisis in this country and the financial circumstances that we face, my child and all our children and grandchildren will be paying off the debt. We have to tackle the debt—it is real money that needs to be found, and a £10 billion black hole would be a significant one to fill.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Can the hon. Lady explain where the Government are finding the £1 billion that is needed to make the change that is being announced today?

[Jenny Willott]

I am really sorry, but I cannot tell the hon. Lady where the Minister has found the money. I am sure that if she asks him the same question later, he will respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. As an American economist once said, “A billion here, a billion there, and sooner or later you have a large sum of money”. It is disappointing to hear such an irresponsible approach to spending and to the interest being paid by everybody in this country on our vast mountain of national debt.

Let me conclude. Tonight, I shall vote in favour of amendments 13 and 14. I recognise the significant achievement, to which Age UK has paid tribute, represented by the welcome changes that will benefit large numbers of women across the country. I pay tribute again to those women in my constituency who lobbied me on the issue, for whom I fought a long and quiet campaign with Ministers. I shall not vote for amendments 1 to 7, and I greatly regret the fact that the Opposition continue to table motions that they would not implement were they in power.

[Dame Anne Begg]

The Government’s amendments are an admission that they realise, at long last, that they got it very wrong about the acceleration of the new state pension age for women. On Second Reading and in Committee, there was always a promise that the Government would come up with some sort of transitional arrangements for the group of 500,000 women who will have to wait more than a year, and particularly for the group of 33,000 women who will have to wait for two years before qualifying for the state pension. However,all they have done is to shift the timetable six months later. Why cannot they go the whole hog and take the anomaly out of the system altogether? If they were to do as the Opposition ask and delay all the increases to the age of 66 until after 2020, once the initial transition is over for women between 60 and 65, there would be no anomaly that would require transitional or any special arrangements at all. There would then be no unfairness specifically to women—it is, of course, only women who have been affected by the changes—and that would also answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) about the lack of time available for the group of women affected to prepare for the new pension age.

If the Government have recognised that issue, it is a shame that they could not go further. I suspect it is probably because the Minister, to whom I pay tribute, has found that getting anything out of the Treasury is like getting blood out of a stone. I recognise that getting just over £1 billion is a huge achievement, but in the overall scheme of things, and given the effects of the change, it would have been better—it would have been better if acceleration had not been proposed in the first place—if the problems had been properly recognised.

Before Government Members applaud themselves and welcome the change too much, perhaps we should think about the enormous campaign that was waged against the proposals. Would that campaign have existed if the Government had proposed at the outset what they propose now? In other words, when all this started, if it had been proposed that there would be an acceleration of the women’s state pension age up to 66 before 2020 so that 300,000 women would have to wait 18 months longer—on top of the delay they were already facing because of the timetable already set—would there have been the same outcry and the same campaign? I think that the answer to that question is unequivocally yes.

Just because the Government have made something bad slightly less worse, it does not mean that what is being proposed is not particularly bad. Someone who, after an accident, is told by a surgeon that they will lose both their legs, and who finds out after they come out of the anaesthetic that they have lost only one might feel a degree of elation that this was better than they had expected. However, someone going into an operation expecting to lose a leg who does lose one would still feel disappointed. In other words, the amendments that we are being asked to vote on still do not amount to a good deal for the group of women concerned.

[Richard Graham]

I simply want to observe that if any of us went into an operation expecting to lose both legs and a doctor managed to save one of them, surely we would feel that the doctor had done rather a good job. The analogy with the Minister’s announcement this evening is not irrelevant.

[Dame Anne Begg]

The hon. Gentleman has just made my point for me. Yes, we would feel a lot better, but if we had gone into the operation not expecting to lose either leg, but discovered afterwards that we had lost one, we would be absolutely devastated. The result would appear to be the same, but the emotional trauma caused in the meantime is quite different. That is exactly the position faced by these women.

The women we are talking about are not rich; they are not people for whom a billion pounds here or there amounts to pennies or not much money. These are women who have made the financial calculation that they will be able to get their state pension at a particular age. Some of them are still making the calculation that they will get the state pension at 60. I received an e-mail today from someone who could not understand why her pension age had gone up by 30 months. It is because she had not taken into account the original equalisation. That is no fault of the Government, but it illustrates the fact that people need a lot of time to prepare for the change, and even if they have had the time, they are not always prepared for it.

For the group of women who had not realised that the state pension age was going up to 65, it is a double whammy to discover that it is now going up to 66 and that they must face waiting that extra time, perhaps with no income at all. Many of these women will be in that position, even if they have taken early retirement for one reason or another. We know that by the age of 65, only about 40% of women are still in work; they might have fallen out of work for various reasons. Those women will have been depending on getting not just the basic state pension, but probably pension credit and all the other passported benefits that were mentioned earlier. For these women, there is a big hole in their financial planning. We have heard much about the Government’s debt meaning that they cannot possibly afford to do right by the group of women concerned, but the effect will be on those women’s personal debt. They will have to borrow money or in many cases live in pretty dire circumstances if they do not get the pension when they were expecting to get it.

[Lyn Brown]

Does my hon. Friend agree that these women will have to use any small amounts of capital they have to tide them over until their pension kicks in, possibly making them more reliant on state aid once they reach retirement?

[Dame Anne Begg]

Indeed, and there will be many such examples.

Women who hoped that their campaign would move the Government feel very disappointed. It is true that those in one group may have to wait for 18 months rather than two years, but they are still extremely disappointed at the Government’s failure to recognise that what they propose will have a disproportionate effect on a number of women who no longer have time to plan adequately for the future.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is being very generous in giving way.

Age UK led the campaign that generated so much awareness of the issue among women and prompted them to raise their concerns, rightly, with their Members of Parliament. Age UK has welcomed what the Government have done, and has acknowledged that 90% of women will now work for only one extra year. I know that the fact that 10% may have to work for an extra 18 months is a challenge for them, but this is a solution for that 90%, and campaigners have welcomed it.

[Dame Anne Begg]

It is not a solution for the 90%, because they will still have to work for an extra year, on top of the extra years for which they were already having to wait for their state pensions. I believe that Age UK made that comment at the time of the Government’s announcement. Of course all Members agree that the position is better than it was before, but it is still not good enough. If my inbox is anything to go by, women who thought that their problems would be solved when they first heard the announcement have now made their calculations and discovered that for a large number the goalposts have not been moved at all, and that they have been moved by only a small amount for others.

In my view, it is a pity that the Government ever went down this route. They could have begun the accelerated rise in the pension age to 66 after the completion of the equalisation, between 2020 and 2022, rather than in the period before 2020. Obviously some wonk at the Treasury thought “What a good idea this is—it will save billions of pounds”, without recognising the anomaly that it would create and the difficulty that it would cause for this group of women. If Conservative Members want to know why their stock among women is falling rapidly, I will tell them. The fact that the Tories do not understand that decisions such as this suggest that they imagine women can somehow cope with reductions in their income has made women realise that many of them simply do not understand their lives or appreciate their problems.

The Government’s proposal may be better than what was in the original Bill, but if we vote for it tonight our decision will be final, because that will then be the timetable for the acceleration of women’s pension age to 66. Labour Members believe that certainty is necessary when it comes to pensions and that we must allow people to plan in advance, but whoever wins the next election, the last thing that any Government will be in a position to do is start fiddling with the system. What is fundamental to our argument is that a group of women have had no chance to plan, and I see no way in which any Government will be able to deal with that.

[Harriett Baldwin]

Is the Chair of the Select Committee confirming that a pledge to reverse the position, in line with the amendment, will not feature in the next Labour manifesto?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Anne Begg]

I may be Chair of the Select Committee, but I am afraid that I have no direct say in what should be in a Labour or any other manifesto. However, common sense tells us that whoever is in power after the next election—the Liberal Democrats might have a majority then, and might want to reverse the arrangement—voting against the amendment tonight will remove any chance of our ever finding a solution for this group of women. Events will have moved on, the timetable will have been set, and the pension age will have already changed by the time of the next election. That is what I mean about the lack of time in which to plan.

I hope that Members will accept that it is wrong that this anomaly has been created. I hope that those who have listened to the women in their constituencies will do the right thing tonight, and will vote for the Opposition amendment. That is what I shall be doing.

[Fiona O’Donnell]

I am genuinely grateful for the opportunity to support the amendment to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) spoke so eloquently. I welcome him to the Dispatch Box.

Many women in my constituency have contacted me about this issue, and none of those who have contacted me over the weekend, yesterday or today have expressed the view that the Government have gone far enough; they all support the amendment. I found it almost stomach-turning to hear the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) congratulate herself on winning this concession from the Government. I do not think that even Labour Members should take credit for the achievement—lacking though it is in ambition—and I certainly do not think that the Liberal Democrats should do so. I wish that some of the honourable and good Liberal Democrat members of the Bill Committee mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) had had the guts and the principle to propose similar amendments when they had the opportunity. This feels a bit like Groundhog Day: it is the Health and Social Care Bill all over again.

Credit for the victory, such as it is, lies with all the women who have written to us, e-mailed us, telephoned us, and come to the House to make their case. They have said, “We will not sit back and let the Government do this to us.” Every evening as I leave this place, I see a touching reminder in the poster in the tube station showing those women, although I must confess that at first I considered it rather strange that there was also a man in the photograph, and wondered what that could be about. The fact is that this change will have an impact not just on the women concerned, but on the families for whom they have made plans. In the light of the rising cost of child care, they have asked themselves, “When can I help my sons and daughters to make better lives for themselves and their families?” I have to say that I think my sons and my daughter have similar plans for me, which I intend to resist for as long as possible.

The Government, particularly the Liberal Democrats, have not just broken their promise to women; they have broken their promise to their families as well. What an appalling lack of ambition from a Government! They have repeatedly called on Labour Members to say how we would pay for our proposals, so let me give them a couple of examples. Through the future jobs fund, they could take a million young people off the dole queue so that they were back at work and contributing to the system. They could scrap their top-down reorganisation of the NHS. They could ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether he has any money left in the pocket where he found the bin money. This is not about arithmetic; it is about political will. It is about the Government saying, “We believe that this is something worth doing, and it is something to which we will commit ourselves.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not; I have given way to her twice already.

New clauses 9 and 10 relate to the role of NEST, which I mentioned a moment ago. New clause 9 suggests that in a couple of years’ time we should review transfers into NEST, and new clause 10 suggests that we review contribution limits at the same time. It is worth reminding the House why NEST was constrained when it was established. There was a recognition that there is a market for big firms and higher earners—pension providers are willing to provide at a reasonable cost and to go to such firms. However, for small firms and lower-paid workers, there was a market failure. NEST was designed to fill that gap in the market.

First, the Government created a legal duty for firms to enrol people, so we ensured that there was something to enrol people in. That is what NEST is for. Secondly, we could have created NEST and imposed no constraints, and it could have been just another provider, but because we constrained NEST to consider lower-paid workers and smaller firms, it has innovated in an impressive manner. The previous Government envisaged such constraints. The Work and Pensions Committee has visited NEST and was positive about what it found. Forcing NEST to focus on lower-paid workers, smaller firms, and people who do not speak “pensions” or who are uninterested in them, has created impressive product, investment strategy and technological innovation, which is entirely welcome. Creating NEST with constraints was the right thing to do, and it has been beneficial.

[Dame Anne Begg]

If NEST is to work, people must have confidence in the products that are going to be delivered. However, there is a danger that other providers muddy the waters of what is on offer. For instance, a Federation of Small Businesses booklet says that it will offer a comparable pension provider with which firms can auto-enrol their workers. The charge is 0.75% to FSB members and 1% to non-members, but they are not comparable prices. What can the Minister do to ensure that such misinformation does not divert people away from NEST?

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee for drawing my attention to that document, and I am keen to see a copy. Pensions selling is, broadly speaking, regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Claims about pensions need to be accurate. NEST charges are the equivalent—on an average pension—of around 0.5%, as the hon. Lady knows. The suggestion is that a charge of 0.75% or 1% is “comparable”. We can compare anything with anything, but the comparison is not always favourable. She raises an important point, and the pensions regulator and the FSA will seek to ensure that people are given accurate information about pensions.

The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who speaks for the Opposition, will be well aware that the Government already have a duty to review NEST after the five-year roll-out of auto-enrolment. New clauses 9 and 10 would not repeal the other duty, so they would mean a review in two years and another one three years after that. The earlier review would be premature and unhelpful in the middle of the roll-out. One might want to tweak 1,001 things, but a review in the middle of roll-out would create uncertainty when the next tranche of firms is choosing which provider to go for. Will NEST have its limit lifted? Will the transfer ban go? Those questions would mean yet more turmoil. An element of certainty in the auto-enrolment process, which has been iterated quite a lot, would be welcome.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government had our own review—“Making automatic enrolment work”—last summer. It said that in the end, in 2017, the restrictions should go. I am entirely sympathetic to that proposition, but deciding that today, or reviewing the situation in the middle of the roll-out, is not the best way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

As we have made clear, people still have the right to opt in to auto-enrolment, but obviously the bulk duty will be at the tax threshold. There is a trade-off: we can have a low threshold, but that results in people being brought in for what are technically known as piddling amounts of money, for which the costs are disproportionate. The tax threshold appears to us to be broadly the right level, but as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have discretion in the Bill to look each year at the labour market and at what has happened to earnings and prices, and to make a judgment. That is the broad direction of travel, as recommended to us—

[Dame Anne Begg]

The concern that some of us have is not that the tax threshold will go up to £10,000—although that is the avowed intention of the Government—but that the gap between £7,400 and £10,000 is about £2,500. That group of workers earning under £10,000 might be ruled out of auto-enrolment, when they are the very people who should be auto-enrolled. The situation would be different if the threshold were going up by the rate of inflation, but can the Minister give some assurance that if there is such a leap, he will reconsider the threshold?

[Steve Webb]

It will clearly vary from individual to individual, but for many people, earning £8,000 or £9,000 is a transitory phase in their labour market experience, and they will move on to earn more than the tax threshold and so come within the scope of the provision. So even if the threshold is not raised, it will not make a lot of difference if someone is not in the scheme for that year. For some people, they or their household will already have pension rights accrued and it might even be right for them to opt out. People will have the chance to opt in to pension provision if it is particularly important for them, and it is right that they should. I accept that there are issues for that group, but for any line drawn one can ask, “What about the people just below?” If we enrol people for trivial amounts of money, we will undermine the whole credibility of the scheme.

We have now had a whistle-stop tour through half a dozen private pensions issues, and I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ comments. I commend new clause 2 to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

No, it does not bother me. The people in that kind of employment might well fall into the category that the Minister mentioned earlier—people who progress later in their working lives, and the earlier that they start their pension saving the better. If they are in a job for more than one month, I would welcome giving them the ability to start saving for their retirement.

[Dame Anne Begg]

As someone who, in their young days, was a fruit picker in Angus, picking strawberries and raspberries, I think that the only way a fruit picker might end up in auto-enrolment would be if they had other jobs throughout the year that put them above the threshold. However, I can assure the Minister that the three months of the summer for which one would be fruit picking would be unlikely to generate the income that one would need to get over the threshold.

[Stephen Timms]

I could not have wished for a more effective endorsement of the case that I have put to the House. I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

The Government’s waiting period would incur significant costs through lost contributions for 500,000 employees at any one time and amounting to 7% of an average worker’s fund over a lifetime. Those losses undermine the principle of auto-enrolment and substantially outweigh the benefit from the small reduction in the annual costs to employers.

Amendments 19 and 20 would link the earnings trigger for auto-enrolment to the increase in either earnings or the lower earnings limit for national insurance. As the Minister set out earlier in his exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South, the Bill will link the level of earnings at which people are auto-enrolled to the higher income tax threshold, with the level reviewed in future according to a number of factors. However, like the three-month waiting period, this measure will exclude a significant number of people from auto-enrolment. Those people will by definition be lower-paid workers, who we know already save proportionately less than others. We also know that they are disproportionately likely to be women.

Earlier the Minister touched on the aspiration that the income tax threshold will in due course rise to £10,000. As my hon. Friend said, there would be a worry if all those earning less than £10,000 were in due course excluded from auto-enrolment as a result. The National Association of Pension Funds has pointed out that that would exclude 17% of all employees and 27%—more than a quarter—of women employees. Adrian Beecroft might be pleased about that, but the Minister should not be. Pension contributions would remain payable on earnings above the national insurance threshold under the plans in the Bill. The TUC has pointed out that moving to that scenario would create a big cliff-edge, so that people would get to, say, £10,000 and suddenly find a large chunk of their earnings deducted, having previously not had anything deducted automatically. That would create a significant disincentive, which the Bill ought to avoid, to enrolment.

We have heard about the basis on which the Government intend to raise the earnings trigger. Their worry is that saving will not deliver sufficient benefits in retirement to be worth while for many people earning below the income tax threshold. However, the Government’s own report shows that most people earning around £8,000 to £9,000 a year will not be earning consistently or permanently in that range, as the Minister underlined, but will move up the income scale.

--- Later in debate ---

New clause 1 was tabled because many of us are concerned about the point at which individuals retire and convert their pot of money into their retirement income. According to the Minister earlier, about 60% of people with such a retirement pot do not move to another provider at the time they take their retirement income. Just as auto-enrolment is designed to nudge a person out of inertia about their pensions savings, so new clause 1 would give a person a great big nudge to prevent them from failing to shop around for a better retirement income.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Does the hon. Lady accept that there might also be a nudge to the pension providers? If they know that they will not automatically get the business from those who have saved with them throughout the lifetime of their pension savings scheme and that that group of people is likely to shop around, those pension providers might improve the annuity on offer to individuals.

[Harriett Baldwin]

That is an excellent point, and I hope we all fervently agree that competition in this area would be an excellent improvement. Locking in your retirement income is the second most important financial decision that you will ever make. I apologise; I do not mean you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but an individual. Unlike buying a house, however, it is a completely irreversible decision—one that will last for the rest of the individual’s life.

The different rates offered by different providers could mean one’s retirement income being as much as 20% lower if one does not shop around. If we are unlucky enough to suffer from high blood pressure, diabetes, a heart condition, kidney failure, certain types of cancer, multiple sclerosis or chronic asthma or if we smoke, the one bright side is that a 40% higher retirement income could be achieved by shopping around. People who have enjoyed good health in their career but been in a hazardous occupation such as mining might find someone who will offer them a better retirement income. The right hon. Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks), who is no longer in his place, knows that this does not apply to the state pension, but for the pensions we are talking about that involve the insurance market, those factors do apply. My fellow Select Committee members and I thus feel strongly about the value of this particular approach.