Allied Steel and Wire (Pensions)

Jonathan Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Henderson]

Yes, I certainly do, and I will come to the problems relating to that.

Like the FAS, the PPF gives 90% of earned pension, and it gives protection against inflation for employment post-1997. That indexation ensures that protection under the PPF is much better than protection under the FAS, because it improves over time. Under the FAS there is very little post-1997 inflation protection, and the pre-1997 pensionable service has no inflation protection at all, even though most of the ASW workers in my constituency had paid for indexation with enhanced contributions to the Sheerness Steel Group pension fund. For most ASW FAS members, the pre-1997 element of their pension represents the majority, if not all, of their pensionable service.

I want to give an example of what that means in practice to a typical employee at the steelworks—and, I am sure, to constituents of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson)who have been affected. Someone who joined the pension scheme in 1980, with an anticipated retirement date in 2010 at the age of 62—the Sheerness steelworkers’ retirement age—and a salary of £30,000 a year in 2002, would have expected when he retired in 2010, after 30 years of service, to receive a pension equal to 30 sixtieths of at least a £30,000 salary, which would equate to £15,000 a year. However, by the time the steelworks went into liquidation in 2002, that worker had only 22 years of service, so his pension entitlement would have been 22 sixtieths of £30,000, or about £11,000 per annum. However, the FAS paid only 90% of that amount, which is £9,900 per annum.

The FAS then applied limited inflation protection, at 2.5%, but only for service post-1997 until the steelworks went into liquidation—about 4.5 years in total. The employee would therefore have inflation protection on just 4.5 twenty-seconds of £9,900, which equates to £2,025—that sounds a bit complicated, and I have the figures before me which makes it easier for me, but trust me, they are right. However, there would be no inflation protection on the remaining 17.5 twenty-seconds, which would have been £7,875. The maximum indexation that the employee would get was therefore 2.5% of £2,025, which is £50 per year. That is equivalent to a total indexation of about 0.5% maximum over the full amount of the pension.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

My hon. Friend may recall that a couple of years ago I obtained an Adjournment debate on this very issue, which affected constituents of mine who were ASW workers. What they tell me endlessly is that when the very arrangements he describes were outlined before the last election, all politicians made it clear to them that it was an injustice, which would be corrected. The fact that it has still not been corrected undermines the Government’s record on pensions generally, in my constituents’ view.

[Gordon Henderson]

I fully accept that, and I want to talk about the reasons why the Government have been unable to pursue the matter.

In the example I have been outlining, that typical worker, having expected a pension of £15,000 but with an actual FAS pension of £9,900 and a maximum of 0.5% indexation compared with an average inflation rate over the relevant years of more than 2%, lost an awful lot of money.

An ASW pensioner told me recently that he received his first FAS payment in 2006 and reckons that today it is worth only about 80% of its initial value—which was, of course, only 90% of his actual entitlement. That person calculates that he is actually getting about 75% of his entitlement, a figure that reduces year by year. That is why the DWP-quoted figure of 90% is misleading. The brutal truth for ASW pensioners is that the longer their service, the more negative the effect on their income the lack of proper indexation is. The PPF uses very similar rules, but as the number of years since 1997 is increasing, the multiplier becomes more favourable. There have been 18 years since 1997, so someone with 20 years’ service going into the PPF now will have inflation protection on 18 twentieths, or 90%, of his pension; and only two twentieths, or 10%, will be without protection. Those proportions will become more favourable as time progresses. Under the FAS, indexation is very limited, whereas under the PPF, as each year goes by, the amount of post-1997 service increases and, through Pensions Act disclosure requirements, PPF members are kept fully informed about funding levels and about what would happen if their employer became insolvent.

There is another problem under the FAS, in connection with the period between members reaching retirement and the May 2004 date, when the FAS was introduced. Anyone affected by that gets nothing from the FAS for that period; yet that is not the case under the PPF scheme. Ministers in the previous Government insisted consistently that the country could not afford to provide pre-1997 indexation to ASW pensioners under the financial assistance scheme. However, the very same Government bailed out Northern Rock and fully protected the pensions of the employees and well as investors’ funds. The Government also offered a 100% bail-out to UK investors in Icelandic banks, despite the fact that those investors were fully aware of the risk in such investments. Subsequently, the Government bailed out other British banks to prevent their bankruptcy and fully protected the final salary schemes of the employees. That smacks of double standards.

Furthermore, on the question of the affordability of pre-1997 indexation, £2 billion is being transferred to the Treasury from residual pension scheme assets from failed companies. The total FAS costs are estimated at the same figure of £2 billion, albeit spread over a number of years, and there should be more than enough to fund indexation for ASW pensioners pre-1997. It is likely also that the final costs of the scheme will be well below the original estimate, because more than 10,000 people who were eligible for FAS payments have died since its introduction.

I want to raise one other matter: overpayment of FAS payments. Some ASW FAS members have been overpaid because of errors by either the scheme’s trustees or FAS staff. Almost none of those members knows how the calculations that led to the overpayments were done, and they are unable to check whether the FAS payments were right or not. When the FAS discovers an overpayment, it imposes an inequitable repayment plan; it is harsh and unfair. In some cases the repayment plan results in the total loss of pension payments, as happened to one of my constituents, who raised the matter with me at a recent advice surgery. He alleges that the FAS never even contacted him to negotiate a suitable repayment plan. Instead it simply stopped his pension entirely and without warning. That simply cannot be right.

Another problem with those repayment plans, which, let us remember, are to recover overpayments resulting from mistakes by the FAS, not the pensioners involved, is that because the way they are calculated—a bit like an annuity—members can actually repay significantly more than the overpayment itself. That, too, cannot be right.

I must admit that, unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate, I am no expert on pensions. When writing this speech, I relied heavily on the help of my friend and constituent, Andrew Parr, who is himself an ASW pensioner who has been badly let down by the financial assistance scheme. However, although I am no pensions expert, I recognise injustice when I see it. I genuinely believe that ASW pensioners in my constituency have been hard done by, and I urge the Government to take the following action to improve the situation for ASW pensioners: first, reconsider the decision not to provide pre-1997 indexation to ensure that ASW pensioners receive the inflation-proof pensions for which they paid; secondly, increase the FAS payments cap to help long-service pensioners; and thirdly, look again at the way that overpayments are calculated and recovered.

ASW pensioners have never given up their fight for justice. Working with the Pensioners Action Group, they have campaigned tirelessly, lobbying MPs, demonstrating at party conferences and staging protest marches. In March 2006, I was honoured to join ASW workers from my constituency on a march in Cardiff, and in November of the same year, I marched down Whitehall with the very same workers. My speech today is a reminder to the Government that the protests will continue until ASW pensioners get the justice they deserve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Evans Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

I agree that we need to support kinship carers, such as grandparents. One change that our Department has made is that, for example, where a mother is going out to work and is not using the national insurance credits that she would have gained for receiving child benefit, they can be passed to a grandparent, who may not be of pension age, to make sure that they are not financially disadvantaged. That is just one of the things we are doing to support that important group.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

18. What steps his Department is taking to ensure that older workers with little private pension provision are not disadvantaged by the introduction of auto-enrolment.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

Our research shows that even under the current rules 99% of savers will get back at least as much as they put in under auto-enrolment, and around 70% will get back twice as much. In addition, our state pension reforms will support planning and saving for retirement by delivering a simpler, single, flat-rate pension set above the basic level of the means test.

[Jonathan Evans]

I accept that those were the calculations made in 2010 as part of the auto-enrolment review, but since that time we have seen investment returns fall so much that the Financial Services Authority is ordering the industry to downscale its forecasts and we have also seen annuity rates fall. Have the Government recalculated their figures to take account of that?

[Steve Webb]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is no. However, one important point I would raise is that if someone only builds up a very small pension pot, they have a legal right to take it, in most circumstances, as a cash lump sum with a quarter tax-free. Even someone later in life can get an employer contribution tax relief—a lump sum taken with a tax-free contribution. That will be attractive, even in later life.

Pension Protection Fund

Jonathan Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I shall begin by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, although I am not aware that any of the companies to which I am connected have any current business associated with any of the issues that I intend to raise. It is, however, important that I draw the entry to Members’ attention.

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss important and unresolved issues in relation to the operation of the Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme, and their impact on a group of former employees of Allied Steel and Wire, a number of whom are my constituents. I want to begin by acknowledging the relentless work of Mr John Benson of the Pensions Action Group, and by thanking the chief executive officer of Saga, Ros Altmann, who has been a consistent supporter of the former workers, who have been stripped of their pensions through no fault of their own.

I would also like to thank my parliamentary colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson), who also has an ASW interest, for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns)—John Benson is one of his constituents—and for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), as well as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and the hon. Members for Arfon (Hywel Williams) and for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), for attending the debate. We have discussed the issues with all of them over time. I should also like to mention the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), who is unable to attend the debate because of conflicting public duties, but who has been a consistent supporter of the workers.

Ever since the early part of the 20th century, Parliament has recognised the need to promote proper and adequate pension provision for those in their later years. We have seen the development of the state pension system and its refinement and adjustment in a variety of ways that still continue to this day. Overlaying that, Parliament has rightly encouraged people to make better provision for themselves through occupational or private pension routes. Again, we see that issue at the forefront of parliamentary debate. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), has responsibility for the latest Pensions Bill, which is currently in another place, and there has been legislation on pensions in this House on an almost annual basis in recent years.

On the 30th of this month, we anticipate a major public services strike because of Government plans to adjust the future pensions benefits of public sector workers. The merits of those arguments are matters for another debate, but what is undeniable is that the Minister and his colleagues in Government have been at pains to stress that, irrespective of the outcome of the negotiations, the current accrued pensions rights of all public sector workers will be honoured. The then Government made a similar pledge to Northern Rock workers when the bank was taken into public ownership in 2007, and matched that promise in respect of each of the other banks that have found themselves in the public sector.

The reason why such pledges are important is that the success of pension saving depends on the maintenance of trust—trust that, if someone makes regular contributions, they will in due course receive nothing less than the sum that has been promised to them. That trust was significantly shaken 20 years ago by revelations that Robert Maxwell had stolen £460 million from the pensions of Mirror Group Newspapers workers, which led to the establishment of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority in 1995. From that time onwards, workers in company pension schemes had every reason to believe that their pensions would be safe. As Ros Altmann put it in a letter to the Financial Times some years ago:

“Members were told that their accrued pension rights were protected in law and that actuaries would calculate contributions, in line with the minimum funding requirement, to ensure adequate funding to pay the promised pensions.”

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He is making a powerful case. I support everything that he is doing and agree with all Members present that justice has to be done for this group of pensioners. I would also like to mention that the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) is also present.

[Jonathan Evans]

I apologise for failing to mention the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). He regularly attends all such debates. I had presumed that he was present for the previous debate on Colombia, without realising that he also wished to contribute to this one. I am happy to put the record straight on that and to give credit to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd and his colleague, the hon. Member for Arfon, for their support for the ASW workers.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Following on from the intervention of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), many years ago, I met groups of people from ASW outside the National Assembly for Wales when they were explaining their case to Assembly Members. If we are going to have a successful pensions industry to which people are willing to contribute, we cannot let these things drift on for decades. This is not the only case, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on highlighting the issue.

[Jonathan Evans]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point and shall now endeavour to make some progress.

Ros Altmann’s letter continued:

“Literature from the government, the Financial Services Authority, the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority and everyone else contrasted the safety of final salary schemes with money purchase arrangements, where members’ pensions were not guaranteed”,

as we see from what happens on the stock market almost daily. That was the guarantee that ASW workers believed they had right up until July 2002, when the company went into liquidation. It was then that John Benson and his colleagues discovered that, despite years of parliamentary inquiry, debate and legislation on pensions, they were no better off than the MGN staff, whose pensions had been stolen. As Ros Altmann put it at the time:

“Simply to say it is a tragedy that thousands of people have had their pension expectations reduced is an insult to those who have suffered in this way. This is not an example of life’s unfairness; this is more like fraud. Other victims of mis-selling receive compensation. Having contributed their money loyally for 30 or 40 years, with the promise of a secure pension and no risk warning from anyone, many now find not that they will get a reduced pension but that they will get no pension at all.”

She went on to say that

“they would in fact have been better off throwing their contributions away, than putting them into their employer’s schemes. Is it any wonder that people are frightened of pensions and have lost confidence?”

The ASW scandal provoked a major campaign, which, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, began during his time at the Welsh Assembly. There was a call for action in this House and the workers were invited to No. 10 Downing street for tea and sympathy with Tony Blair, but more practical help was demanded by others in the House. I pay credit to the hon. Member for Cardiff West in that regard—he was certainly active on behalf of the pensioners—and to my good friend, the former Member for Eastbourne, Nigel Waterson, who played a leading role in supporting the workers and in highlighting the injustice of the situation. The Minister himself was also active and supportive in that debate. The campaign led to the establishment of the financial assistance scheme under the Pensions Act 2004.

At the time that the scheme was put in place, many believed that the outcome would guarantee 90% of expected pensions benefits for affected workers. I have read the parliamentary debates in which many members of the then Government expressed the joy with which workers would greet the news that 90% of their entitlements were safeguarded. Unfortunately, they were sold a line that was both simplistic and inaccurate.

Although schemes such as that for ASW provided up to 5% inflation proofing, the legislation cut it to 2.5%, less than half of the current level of inflation. Over time, that still further erodes the pension value and is further cut by the switch from RPI to CPI, which the Minister has also applied to the financial assistance scheme.

In parliamentary questions on 29 June 2009, one Member rightly exposed that deceit, although he was too courteous to suggest that the deception was in any way deliberate. He said:

“Does she”—

the then Secretary of State—

“accept that this 90 per cent. figure that she uses is highly misleading…because it is not just capped…there are big issues about the inflation protection? Does she accept that many pensioners will get much less than 90 per cent., and that over the years they will see annual falls in their real pensions? Will she look at those cases again?”—[Official Report, 29 June 2009; Vol. 495, c. 6.]

Of course, the hon. Member who was able to identify all those shortcomings is now the Minister himself. Let me make it clear that I am a strong admirer of the Minister. I believe that he is personally motivated to do all he can to help these cheated pensioners. I know that since the election he has met, on more than one occasion, with the ASW pensioners to examine any ways their plight can be alleviated. We are all aware of the difficult financial circumstances that the Government face. Nevertheless, Mr Benson and my constituents have pointed out to me that, in the run-up to the general election, both coalition parties heavily criticised the previous Labour Government for the shortcomings of this scheme. It was, therefore, a reasonable inference for them to draw that some action might be taken to address these failings if we were successful in the election.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful point. Does he agree that these people feel so very angry because their limited indexation is now affected by the change from RPI to CPI, which will see them losing hundreds and thousands of pounds?

[Jonathan Evans]

I highlighted the point in relation to RPI and CPI. I am endeavouring not to engage in a partisan debate, with the criticisms that I have made of my own side. However, I am bound to say that the fixed 2.5% inflation cap will have a much more marked effect than the CPI-RPI issue, even though I had mentioned it myself.

My constituents highlight the 100% pension protection that has been offered to the workers in the bailed-out banks. They point to the guarantee on accrued pension rights that are to be given to all public sector workers—rightly so—and the recent decision to extend those rights further, so that all workers who are retiring from the public sector in the next decade will see no change whatever in their future entitlements. They argue that, far from their situation improving, their pensions have actually worsened since 2010. Government—I use that generically, because I think it was prior to 2010—have lost their case on maladministration in the Court of Appeal, yet the recommendations made by the parliamentary ombudsman have not been honoured.

Having set out those criticisms, let me say that there are areas in which this situation could be improved. The Government should increase the inflation-linking cap. As I have indicated, the current 2.5% cap will seriously erode the pensions of affected people within just a few years, and that reduction is accentuated year-on-year moving forward. I know that the Minister understands that. As I have pointed out, he was the one who highlighted it two years ago. The Government should consider scheme-specific capping. The ASW scheme promised workers much greater inflation protection. Not only have we seen a reduction, but we have seen a reduction that, in contrast to the scheme that they had, is much less generous. The former Government removed the right of trustees to use deemed buyback after a number of schemes had taken that up. Permitting deemed buyback would assist FAS scheme members in future. The Minister could consider establishing a hardship fund for those worst affected.

The Minister has been examining the potential unwinding of annuity purchase. Annuity purchases have taken place with two major annuity providers, and I am aware that he met ASW workers as recently as 1 November to discuss the issue. Will he confirm the outcome of those discussions, with whom the discussions have taken place and whether any progress has been made?

Reduced early retirement pensions should also be permitted. There are a range of pensioners, including my own constituents, who are currently unemployed and cannot find work, yet cannot access their pension. Changing the rules would have no cost implications, because there would be an actuarial adjustment. I have a constituent who is in poor health. He could be considered for early retirement only if his doctor is prepared to say that he will die within five years. Those requirements seem excessive and wrong. Allowing early retirement, subject to actuarial revaluation, would seem fair.

Earlier today, I received an e-mail from one of my constituents, Mr Iain Kenworthy-Neale of Thornhill in Cardiff, entitled, “Fair Pensions for All”. I warn colleagues that they will all receive a similar e-mail shortly. He expresses support for the national strike on 30 November for fair pensions for all. He says that he is not impressed with the Government guaranteeing accrued pensions rights. He is not impressed with the Government maintaining current public sector provision for the next decade. He wants no change whatever in relation to public sector pensions, and he wants the Government to scrap their plans. However, Mr Kenworthy-Neale does not limit his views to public sector pensions. He also calls for all state pensions to be increased by £70 a week forthwith, and for every private sector employer to be compelled to pay pensions to their workers. He has asked for me to draw his demands to the attention of the Minister, and I am happy to do so.

In contrast, the demands of John Benson, the Pensions Action Group and all the former ASW workers at Cardiff and Sheerness are much more modest. They are merely looking for their pension promise, as underwritten by Government and regulators, to be met. I was pleased to stand with them at their protest at my party’s conference in Manchester in October. They are people of real dignity who have been badly let down by successive Governments. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer them today some light at the end of what seems a very dark tunnel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not, out of respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North, who secured the debate, but only because I want to respond to his comments.

To be clear, it is not the case, therefore, that some financial slack is available for the financial assistance scheme.

My hon. Friend also mentioned deemed buy-back, which is complex, so I will not say, “Here is one I prepared earlier.” Essentially, deemed buy-back is treating the scheme as if it had not contracted out of SERPS. On the face of it, we would assume that that is better, but it turns out that the situation is rather more complicated than that. At the moment, people in the financial assistance scheme have a level of certainty: they know what the rules are and they know what 90% is and is not. I entirely accept my own point from a few years ago that we have to be careful when we say, “It’s 90%,” because clearly the matter is much more sophisticated than that and there are limits, as he rightly said. However, those people have the certainty of knowing what the scheme rules are. Under deemed buy-back, they would not have that certainty while some people would get more than 100% of their scheme pension and some people less.

[Jonathan Evans]

Would there not be a responsibility on the trustees to form a view as to whether they wished to action that? My hon. Friend the Minister is indicating that some circumstances could be advantageous and others not, but that would be a judgment made in each case. Currently, no one can exercise such judgment.

[Steve Webb]

The answer might be different for each individual rather than for each scheme. How would a trustee judge? If the trustees chose deemed buy-back for the scheme and we agreed with that, might they put some members in a worse position and others in a better? How would a trustee balance the different interests of the different members? This is complex.

The other thing about deemed buy-back is that under the financial assistance scheme there is some flexibility as to when the payments are made. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North thinks that the ill-health provision is too rigid, but there is no ill-health early access to SERPS, so, again, the current system has a measure of flexibility that deemed buy-back would not have. Deemed buy-back, therefore, is complex and technical, and not a silver bullet. We have looked at it—in fact, we have looked at just about everything imaginable to try to find ways to provide better value to those individuals.

My hon. Friend mentioned annuities. All the way through, Dr Ros Altmann has argued that one reason that we did not get good value in the first place was that many of the schemes were annuitising, and if we had got in there quicker, we could have done better. That is absolutely right and why the so-called FAS 2 schemes, in which the Government have taken over the assets, have enabled us to improve to a baseline of 90% compared with what was previously on offer.

To try to take that further, I had a personal meeting with the chief executive of Legal & General—no reason why I should not mention it—which is far and away the company with the most of those books still going. He was content to transfer the schemes across to us on the basis of the book value in his annual accounts. His comment was, “I don’t want to profit from this, but I can’t show a loss, so it goes across at the book value.” I am not sure we have said this before, but Andy Young, who was involved in the Government Actuary’s Department and has been instrumental in all this, helped us considerably, of his own free will, to analyse all the facts and figures and so on. We have had discussions with the Government Actuary and with the Treasury. The short answer is that the book value of those contracts has already got the profit in it. Therefore, we take across something from which the profit has already been made, and the view of the Treasury, which I understand, is that there simply was not the confidence that we would get extra value—that the Government doing this would provide added value. In fact, there was a risk that we would be net losers.

I was keen to pursue that avenue and I hoped that it would provide a way for us to squeeze some extra money into the financial assistance scheme, but, unfortunately, it has proved fruitless. I am disappointed about that, which I told the Pensions Action Group members when I met them a few weeks ago. I was keen not to string them along. The very least that they are owed is a firm statement of the Government’s position. It was suggested that we might have a review, perhaps when the Government have more money, but I was keen not to create a false hope or an expectation, because those group members have been through so many stages. However, considering the state of the public finances, it would have been dishonest and dishonourable of me to suggest that we might find a little pot of money to address their concern.

As I hope is apparent from all that I have said today and through the months that I have dealt with the group, I have huge sympathy for the situation in which they find themselves, but I do not believe that I can offer any realistic prospect of improvements beyond the current financial assistance scheme.

Pensions Bill [Lords]

Jonathan Evans Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I guarantee the hon. Gentleman that I will discuss the issue, and I hope he will still be here then—no doubt we can have an exchange on it.

The Bill addresses important issues, not just that of pension age. It is key that we get this generation saving and make sure that savings count and are not frittered away by the means test. We also have to find a way of sharing the cost of the retirement system between generations, ensuring a fair settlement for both young and old. I know that people think that retirement is all about just the group who are retiring, but as we look down the road ahead it is also very much about the generation who will have to pick up many of the bills. These are not easy decisions, but I want to make sure that the House recognises that we have to take decisions about the next generation; otherwise we will be guilty of falling into the same slot as the previous Government, who left us with the deficit.

Let me address auto-enrolment. The Bill takes forward the previous Government’s plans for automatic enrolment, which were debated and widely supported during the passing of the Pensions Act 2008 and to which we remain absolutely committed. The Bill refines some of the policy’s parameters to ensure that automatic enrolment works as effectively as possible, following the recommendations of the “Making automatic enrolment work” review that we initiated. First, we propose an increase in the earnings threshold at which automatic enrolment is triggered from an expected £5,800 under the previous Government’s plans—I say expected because the figure involves assumptions about changes as a result of inflation—to £7,475. That will protect those on the lowest incomes and will reduce the risk of the lowest earners saving for a pension when they do not earn enough to make it worth making all that effort and sacrifice. It will also simplify administration for employers by aligning the earnings trigger with the existing personal tax threshold.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend refers specifically to the linkage of the personal allowance but, as he knows, our Government are committed to increasing the allowance significantly. What impact is that likely to have on auto-enrolment?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We are committed to reviewing that year by year, so I can assure my hon. Friend that we will constantly take it forward and not leave it static.

Introducing a waiting period of up to three months, which has been widely discussed and debated, will ease the regulatory burden on employers. We had many representations from employers. In view of the present circumstances and the difficulties that many of them face, it is important to recognise the key considerations that we had to take into account in framing the Bill.

Workers will retain the right to opt into the system if they consider it to be in their best interests to do so. That is important. Although we are allowing a let-out, if workers want to enter they will retain the right to do so. The Bill also amends legislation to enable employers with defined contribution schemes to self-certify their scheme. That is simple and straightforward. It makes it easier for employers with an existing scheme to try to align that. If it is aligned closely enough, the scheme can go ahead, saving employers the complication of having to change and engage in a new scheme. That is fairer and more reasonable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

Let me begin by drawing the House’s attention to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which shows my connections with the pensions industry over many years.

As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, you and I entered the House on the same day back in 1992, but this is the first opportunity that I have had to observe the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) in full flow. I have often wondered how he managed to reach such an elevated position in Government in such a short time, and having listened to him today, I am still wondering.

I was staggered by the right hon. Gentleman’s opening remarks, in which he said how proud he was of his Government’s record on pensions. Is he utterly unaware of the destruction of the private pensions system in our country wrought by his former leader, and of the revelation that when the Labour Government were elected in 1997, the National Association of Pension Funds said that the end of dividend tax credit would mean the end of at least half the defined benefit schemes in our country? In fact, we have seen much more than that brought about as a direct result of the Labour Government’s policy. I believe that it was forecast to cost our private pensions system at least £50 billion. Is the right hon. Gentleman proud of the fact that under a Labour Government a record number of pension funds closed to new business? Is he proud of the record of a Labour Government who gave pensioners an increase of merely pence? I can tell him that people in my constituency remember that event.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jonathan Evans]

I will in a moment—unlike the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, who was not prepared to hear these remarks from me.

Two years ago, the state earnings-related pension scheme was not increased by even one penny by the Labour Government. That is an illustration of how much we can trust Labour on pensions.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Government Members constantly raise the subject of the 75p pension increase. It is not necessarily a choice that I would have made, but it is the choice that the Labour Government made at the time. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that that increase was introduced during the first couple of years of that Labour Government, when they were following Conservative financial rules.

[Jonathan Evans]

I am trying to get my head around the idea of Tony Blair standing at the Dispatch Box and taking his instructions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague). It is a little bit too difficult for me to accept.

I think it important for us to recognise real concerns that have been raised throughout the country. All Members of Parliament have received many letters, e-mails and other representations relating specifically to the proposals to increase the age at which the state pension kicks in and the impact that that will have on a number of people, not least women.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Before my hon. Friend moved on from his powerful previous argument, I wish he had remembered to add to his list the discreditable way Equitable Life victims were treated. Their pension shortfall dilemmas were kicked into the long grass for many years.

[Jonathan Evans]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that observation, but I hope she will forgive me for not going down that road. If we were to do so there would be no time left for the debate in hand, because we would all be pointing out the many Labour shortcomings on pensions.

There has been a lot of misinformation about the proposals we are debating. I listened to a staggering example of that at 9.30 this morning on Sky News, when the otherwise excellent Charlotte Hawkins said that today we were going to vote on a proposal to make women work a further five years before receiving their pensions. It amazed me that that could be said; I am sure it must have been a slip of the tongue. Later, I opened my e-mails and came across a letter from a lady who will be required to wait a further two months as a result of these proposals, but who stated that she believed she will have to wait a further six years. That highlights the exaggerations, and in some cases the dishonesty, in the campaign that has been waged against the proposals.

[Harriett Baldwin]

Did my hon. Friend also see last week’s Age UK survey, which found that 20% of the women affected by the previous Government’s changes to equalise the pension ages of men and women had not realised what was going to happen to them?

[Jonathan Evans]

Indeed, and one of the difficulties in this regard is to do with the first change, to which almost all e-mails refer: that women were getting the pension at 60 and that that is now gradually being moved up to 65. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill referred to his family being affected. Well, my wife is affected by these changes, but we in this House were aware of them because we legislated for them in 1995. [Interruption.] Yes, we have known about them, but we have known about them only here, because there has not been much dissemination of this information outside the Chamber to the rest of the public. [Interruption.] I am grateful to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) for indicating that that is so. The idea that the retirement age might then be moved up to 66 is not new. It was debated in this House back in 2007, and legislation was put on to the statute book. What we are doing now is moving the first of these dates forward, and in my view that is necessary. It is perfectly clear that a significant saving will be made.

The Secretary of State made a typically sensitive address, which was well received on both sides of the House, and not only because he said he was prepared to listen. I am staggered that any Minister who says they are prepared to listen to an argument is treated with contempt from the Opposition Benches. [Interruption.] Absolutely: it is an indication of what Labour Members were used to when their party was in government. I commend my right hon. Friend on his approach, however, and I am impressed by the sum of £30 billion.

The Opposition propose that we should not take these steps for a while, and that we should instead return to a 2020 or 2022 timetable. The argument that everything the Government do is being done too fast is a familiar Opposition refrain. It in effect suggests that we can somehow just pass the responsibility on to succeeding generations and not grasp it ourselves. I think we must grasp it ourselves, but that does not mean I am unsympathetic to the arguments about that specific cohort of women who are affected in a particularly negative way.

I know there were debates on these measures in the other place, but I am not persuaded that we must defer taking them to beyond 2020. I am not going to talk about the implications of the equality legislation so often supported by Opposition Members, even though that may have led to a situation whereby what was stated in the coalition agreement cannot now be put into effect. However, what I am certainly uncomfortable about is any woman having to wait more than an additional year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be aware that Sally Greengross—Baroness Greengross, a Cross Bencher widely respected in this area—put forward a compromise proposal that has much merit, based as it is on the idea that no woman waits for more than a year. The restriction was limited in that way, and the measure was exceptionally intelligently crafted.

I have read Lord Freud’s responses to this debate. He said that the proposal would cost not £10 billion, as the Opposition suggest, but only £2 billion. Given that I want to husband public resources—and that we apparently have the Opposition’s support for shifting retirement ages forward from 2034 and 2044 to dates that are significantly earlier, saving perhaps £2 billion—I am much more attracted to the idea of matching that saving and making far greater savings elsewhere.

Lord Freud responded to the debate by pointing out the gender equality legislation—the equality provisions of European law—that might make this a difficult proposition. However, I am not persuaded that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s Department lacks minds sufficiently sharp to overcome this difficulty. [Interruption.] Yes, I am absolutely sure that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), could draft the legislation required; but if not, he has all the necessary skill within his Department.

I am very happy to tell all of my constituents who have written to me on this issue that, because of what is happening with longevity, it is fair, if we are asking men to wait a further year, to ask women to wait another year. There are those who say it is a double whammy because we are also seeing equalisation from the age of 60, but that is already a part of the architecture and cannot be taken into account. I am certainly prepared to argue that case.

I want to make two final points that are connected not with this issue but with other aspects of the Bill. In it, adjustments are made to the financial assistance scheme. Many of my constituents have been affected by the collapse of Allied Steel and Wire. On the question of the general attitude of Labour toward pensioners, many of ASW’s pensioners know the “assistance” they got from Labour: none whatsoever. That is the reality. However, the truth is that, under the financial assistance scheme, many people are not even going to get the 90% that was flagged up as their likely reimbursement. I hope we get opportunities to address that issue. I am looking across at my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams)—I do not know whether I should call him my hon. Friend; he might be offended by that. My hon. colleague and I have discussed this issue, and it is important that we return to it to address some of the injustices in the operation of the financial assistance scheme as it affects ASW pensioners.

[Malcolm Wicks]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jonathan Evans]

On that issue only, yes.

[Malcolm Wicks]

Will the hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge, in fairness, that it was the last Labour Government who set up both the financial assistance scheme and the pension protection fund, which, whatever the difficulties, have helped many tens of thousands of people who were going to lose their pensions?

[Jonathan Evans]

The right hon. Gentleman and I have known each other for many years and he knows I have the highest respect for him. I certainly accept that we eventually ended up with that legislation, but it took a long time to get there. However, he was material in trying to achieve that.

Let me also say a word about the effects of auto-enrolment. I was staggered to hear the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill tell us that he does not like the proposals on auto-enrolment. I have to say that I am concerned about the impact of our continually increasing the personal allowance—as I understand it, that is going to be part of our policy—if we are just going to link the personal allowance figure to the level at which auto-enrolment kicks in. I am reassured by what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says about keeping this under review, but the movement from £5,000 to £7,000 is not, as described by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, an attack on poorer workers. The reality, on the information that we have, is that those people would be worse off if they were within the scheme.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

May I tempt my hon. Friend with a thought about why the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill made such an issue of this? I wondered whether he was searching for a reason to vote against the very policy that his Government, when in power, wanted to bring in, because there is nothing else in it with which Labour disagree.

[Jonathan Evans]

I am aware that the Forum of Private Business does not like the fact that the Government have not made more adjustments in this area, and of course the Government would like to have a situation in which all parties were on board at the end of the review, but the proposal of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill has virtually no supporters, save perhaps for those within the union movement—surprise, surprise. The reality is that the proposals we are taking forward are overdue, but there has been too much misinformation about this change. Ultimately, I want to see a situation in which no woman has to wait more than a year longer than she had expected to wait, but the linking of that issue with a 25-year lead-in to the equalisation of pensions at 65 by those engaged in this campaign has been deliberately misleading and has not served the interests of all the people who have written to us.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you for your time constraint.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

The upshot of the Bill is that many people will have to work longer than they expected, and at short notice. That is the point. People will have made their plans, but they will no doubt have to be changed if the Bill goes through.

I am sure the Minister knows better than I that pension planning is a long-term business, and that is why there is such value in cross-party consensus, in stability, in fairness and in any change being slow and clear. Those are, I think, the Pensions Minister’s own views, and that is one reason why there have been constant problems since a previous Conservative Government broke the consensus on pensions almost 30 years ago—a consensus that the Turner changes in the 2007 Act re-established to an extent.

I, too, have received a lot of correspondence, with constituents and others expressing lots of concern at what they see arising from the Bill as a sudden change, which, they also contend, does not have broad support across the parties or among people throughout the UK. Some see the change as a fundamental break in the social contract between government and people, while others accept that as life expectancy lengthens so too must the length of the working life, but all object to the change in the implementation time scale that the Bill proposes.

Hon. Members have already said that an estimated 5 million people born between 1953 and 1960 will have to wait longer to reach state pension age. Although the wait for the majority of people will increase by less than one year, about 500,000 women born between October 1953 and April 1955 will have to wait more than an additional year and 126,000 women born between December 1953 and October 1954 will have to wait up to two years, losing about £10,000 in pension. Those are the facts as we understand them.

Men and women on low incomes who are reliant on pension credit and have no private pension savings will be most affected by the changes, and we have many such people in Wales. A great deal has been spoken about the gender effects of the potential changes, and women will be hit hardest, but there are also effects on disabled people and potential effects on ethnic groups.

We have also heard about class effects. I, too, have looked at the Age UK briefing, and it states for example that a higher percentage of people in social classes D and E are unable to work on, with one third of such women, at least, being in ill-health. Age UK also points out that awareness of the changes among people in classes D and E is very much lower.

There are also national and regional effects, which have had less attention. The changes will hit some sectors of society harder than others, and we in Wales, as in Scotland, have more people in those sectors than other parts of the UK. In Scotland, life expectancy is four years below the European average at 76 for men and 80 for women. Glasgow has the lowest life expectancy in the UK—71.1 years for men and 77.5 for women. These people will be severely hit.

[Jonathan Evans]

The hon. Gentleman is right about life expectancy numbers. Somebody with a fund who has a poor health record will get a bigger annuity than somebody who has a healthy record. How would he resolve that in terms of the state pension situation? He seems to be saying that he would not change the current arrangements.

[Hywel Williams]

A large number of people are unable to get an annuity in the first place because they do not have that sort of pension. Nobody is arguing against the fact that life expectancy is extending—of course, that should be welcomed. However, the fact that the change is being brought in quickly will particularly affect certain groups in relation to class, gender and where they come from.

The effects in Wales will be much more pronounced. That is demonstrated by figures for July 2009-10 on the composition of the work force taken from the ONS publication “Regional Trends”. The average proportion of the population in the UK who are managers and senior officials is 15.6%, the figure for the south-east is 18.3%, and the figure for Wales is 13%. Managers and senior officials will not be hit as hard by the changes, because they have other sources of pension income and live longer. In Wales, we have fewer such people who are able to depend on a decent pension and expect to live longer; unsurprisingly, the south-east has many more. Likewise, in the case of process, plant and machine operatives, the UK average is 6.7%, the figure for the south-east is 5%, and the figure for Wales is 7.3%. As regards people in elementary occupations, the UK average is 11.1%, the figure for the south-east is 9.7%, and the figure for Wales is 11.8%. Workers and future pensioners will be disadvantaged in Wales, as in the rest of the UK, but the effects there and in Scotland will be more pronounced.

Plaid Cymru Members welcome the continuation of automatic enrolment in pension schemes. Given the increases in short-term employment, casualisation and multiple part-time jobs, we share Age UK’s concern about the earnings threshold, particularly the possible negative impact of the three-month waiting period and its effect on staff who might not stay in the job for long enough. We have the same concern about those who have multiple low-paid jobs and therefore may not reach the threshold and be excluded.

In a speech I made some months ago, I expressed reservations about the indexation process, so I will not labour that aspect. My final point is about the Pension Protection Fund, which was raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) and is referred to in part 3 of the Bill. The PPF came about partly as a result of pressure put on the former Labour Government by Members in all parts of the House arising out of the ASW steelworkers scandal: a very difficult situation in which the Government had to be persuaded—I use that word advisedly—to act. Unfortunately, the ASW campaign is still ongoing. I recently met some of the workers, and I have tabled early-day motions and attended meetings on the subject, as has the hon. Member for Cardiff North. In November 2010, the pensions specialist Dr Ros Altmann suggested possible ways in which the coalition Government could assist the ASW workers. Will the Minister tell us what progress is being made in that case? That would go a long way towards responding to the campaign by those workers.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

The salient fact of this debate is that by the time it finishes at 10 o’clock, the average age to which we and our constituents might expect to live will have increased by an hour and a half. If I were to speak for 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour, which I will not, then merely in the course of my speech average life expectancy would have increased by four minutes. I hope that that is compensation for what hon. Members are about to endure.

The simple fact of demography that for every hour that passes 15 minutes is added to the age to which we, as a population, can expect to live forces us to revisit the state retirement age—the age at which people stop paying taxes and start depending largely on the fruits of others’ labours. It is a fact that is unlikely to change in the half century to come. In fact, if the experience of the past few years is anything to go by, the acceleration of our expected mortality rates will only increase, rendering irrelevant and insufficient all the predictions on which we currently rely. There is near consensus that maintaining the existing pension age is unaffordable and that we should correct that by ratcheting up the state pension age year by year to reflect increasing life expectancy.

However, I am worried by the idea that by the mid part of this century, asking people to retire at 70—incidentally, the age intended by Lloyd George in his great Act of 1908—will be seen as the way to fix this problem, because we may not correct everything that we hope to correct just by increasing the state pension age and doing everything contained in this excellent Bill. Although I support the intention of the Bill and the immediate steps that it takes, the Government need rapidly to revisit the conventions and means by which successive Governments address the central problem of increasing life expectancy and the effect of that on the Exchequer and those working to fund it. Otherwise, we will again end up in a situation that is unsatisfactory and inadequate. It is unsatisfactory because with every increase in the state pension age, we inflict another set of injustices and unfairnesses on those who are approaching that moment in their lives. The predicament of the relatively small group of women we have been debating is a sure indication of far greater problems to come for Governments in future years.

Because we are facing this cross-generational challenge, it is incumbent on us to try to forge a consensus between the parties about the rules by which we deal with pensions policy. One of those rules is suggested by the example of the women who are particularly affected by the Government’s proposed changes. When times are normal—these are not normal times—there might be a rule whereby people are given at least 10 years’ notice before we change their pension entitlements or the age at which they can claim them. Perhaps the case of the class of ’53, as they call themselves, is the test by which the Government will be measured in this respect.

Although I understand why the Government might fairly ask that people work an additional year to deal with the horrendous deficit and national debt we have been left, to ask a relatively small group of people to work an additional two years with six years’ notice is a very big ask, not least because it calls into question other excellent parts of the Bill that are designed to encourage saving. We cannot ask people to save and then give them no time in which to do so. I hope that in considering a way to smooth the edge of this part of the legislation, the Government will not only fashion a compromise for the women who are being asked to work an additional 13 to 24 months, but thereby establish the first set of conventions by which successive Governments can deal with this issue.

Another unfairness in the Bill, which was not intended by the Government, results from the change from RPI to CPI for uprating. Many of my constituents who are on occupational schemes, mostly from British Telecom, have found that their pensions have been changed only two years after they were renegotiated between the trustee and the pensioners. The trustee claims that it has been forced to do that by the rules of the scheme. My constituents and I would be interested to know the degree of consideration the Minister gave to the effect that his changes to the uprating regulations would have on the occupational schemes of previously nationalised industries, because they have had a very adverse effect on people who thought that they had funded schemes.

Those are the unfair and unsatisfactory parts of the Bill, which I consider to be largely good. I understand that the Opposition supported the change from RPI to CPI, but on a temporary basis. With characteristic innumeracy, they therefore miss the central challenge that confronts us, which is not just the deficit that we must deal with between now and 2016, but the period after that. There is an idea that in 2016 the deficit will somehow come to an end, we will be finished with our problems, and we can then extract the cheque book from our pocket and go on another splurge. That will sadden people, because if we did that, we would find ourselves with one of the highest debt to GDP ratios in the developed world—higher than most of our developed competitors and significantly larger than almost all of our developing competitors, just at the point at which they move up the value chain to meet us on high-end manufacturing, learning-based skills and value-added services.

At that point, we will be faced with a demographic scene that is not much altered from the one the Government look at now. We need only look at the support ratio to tell us that. It currently sits at about four workers per pensioner—the lowest in the history of the state pension. Under the Pensions Act 2007, it would decrease by 2023 to 3.11 workers per pensioner. That figure will improve under the Bill to 3.35—a difference of 6%. At that point we will still be slipping down, and none of this changes the central projection to 2058—150 years after the introduction of the state pension—when there will be 2.74 workers per pensioner. There will then be fewer than three workers for every pensioner they must support.

Pensions are a double-sided promise. On the one hand, we, as parties engaging in government or opposition, must give people the security to know what they will receive in their retirement. That is why I urge the Government to look carefully at the women who will be particularly affected by this change, and at those who are coming to the end of their working life in the public sector. As many of their accrued rights as possible must be respected, because that is what was promised to them, whether or not it was prudent to do so at the time.

In understanding that, we have to be far more brutal with the younger generation, which has many more years to work. Frankly, younger people will not be able to have a pension of the size that their parents and grandparents have come to expect, because of the horrendous deficit and the enormous debt that we have been left by the previous Government—larger than those of almost all our competitors around the world. As a result of that debt, we will have less to spend on education, training and infrastructure improvement. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) smiles, but it is true that as a result of the actions of his Government, we have less to spend on things that will grow the economy and there will be fewer tax receipts to pay for the welfare state that we have come to expect as a nation.

[Jonathan Evans]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend picked up on the remark from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), when challenged on the cost of his proposal, that money could be raised by bringing forward significantly the current programme for retirement at the ages of 67 and 68. Perhaps we should bank that promise from the Opposition before it evaporates like so many of their remarks.

[Ben Gummer]

What I found surprising about that comment from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) was that it completely ignored the sensible intervention by his colleague the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who made quite plain the difficulty of bringing forward the state pension age rise too quickly because of its manifest unfairness on manual labourers, who have a much lower life expectancy than others. That is a central problem that we have to deal with and a reason why the state pension age will become inadequate. At some point, we have to address that unfairness, whether by measuring the length of period worked or by doing far more than has been done so far to improve the occupational health of large numbers of people in this country.

We come back to the essential problem: there is not only no money now, but there will be no money for many decades to come if we are to have the money to invest in growing our economy. Frankly, we will have no welfare state to pay for if we do not address these big issues now. We will be lying to future generations and forcing upon them a generational theft if we are not straight with them now about the reality that confronts them. That is my generation, as much as it is that of the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). We will be expected to save considerably more and receive considerably less from the state. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown)—she is a Whip and I will not criticise her—is huffing and puffing away, but the fact is that between 2002 and 2006, the structural deficit was run up, inflicting this problem on generations of people to come. The worst affected will be those on low incomes and the unemployed—the very people her party was founded to protect.

We must be honest with future generations and correct the small inadequacies in this Bill. I urge the Minister to look carefully at the long-term reforms that are needed in our pensions system if we are not to come back here year after year to let down pensioners on the promises that were given to them in ages past.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Benefits Uprating

Jonathan Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her questions. The CPI

“is more reliable because, taking account of spending by all consumers, this consumer prices index gives a better measure than the old RPIX measure of spending patterns. It is more precise because… it takes better account of consumers substituting cheaper for more expensive goods.”—[Official Report, 10 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 1063.]

How right the previous Prime Minister was when he said those words.

There is a sensible debate to be had about the most appropriate price index. The hon. Lady said that pensioner inflation is always higher. I did not notice the previous Government using a higher inflation measure for pensioners in the 13 years during which they decided these things. In fact, over the past 20 years—not the past five, which Age UK used—the average pensioner inflation and the average non-pensioner inflation were the same. In other words, there are times when it is higher and times when it is lower, as we would expect, but in the long run they are the same. Previous Governments never used pensioner-specific inflation rates; nor do we propose to.

It was good of the hon. Lady to say that she would consider the CPI for this Parliament. Obviously, we are announcing today the benefit rates for next April, so I am assuming that, in the event that the House comes to vote on these matters, she will support the benefit rates that we are proposing. It was not entirely clear to me whether she was for them or against, but I hope that, in due course, it will be clear.

The hon. Lady asked about the use of the RPI and felt, I presume, that it is a better measure of inflation. Does she believe that in the year to September 2009 pensioner inflation was negative? I have never met a pensioner who thought that their inflation was negative. The goal is to use an index that matches inflation experiences, and that is what we have done.

The hon. Lady mentions the IFS and its views on the issue. The main difference between the CPI and the RPI is not the basket of goods but how the two indexes respond to price increases. The IFS found that the substitution effect used in the CPI is a better measure for lower-income households, so its judgment is that, on that key difference, the measure that we are using better fits the inflation experience of lower-income households. I am glad she cited the IFS, because it was right on that point.

The hon. Lady raises the issue of people meeting their fuel bills, and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, the cold weather payment is one of Labour’s ticking time bombs. This winter, it was due to fall to £8.50 a week. That was in the spending plans, but my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions agreed that it was not fair—that paying people £8.50 a week this year would not be acceptable. So, we found the money to set it at £25 a week not just this winter, but for the whole Parliament, and pensioners on low incomes are better off as a result.

The hon. Lady asks about the net effect of the changes, glossing over the earnings link, which, mysteriously, was Labour policy but never implemented in 13 years. It is funny how things become implementable in opposition but not when one controls the levers of power. The earnings link on average gives about 2% a year above prices; the CPI change on average gives about 1% a year less than the RPI. So for those with low and modest occupational pensions, the net effect on pensioners of the two taken together will be positive.

We have a package of measures to protect the interests of pensioners. The earnings link over the long run will give a newly retired pensioner an extra £15,000 in state pension over their retirement, compared with the prices indexing that Labour, when it had the levers of power, applied for 13 years. That is what it applied in office for 13 years: the prices link. Within months, we have gone to the earnings link, and pensioners will appreciate what we have done for them.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend have constituents like mine, who are looking forward to increases in SERPs, and who have looked at what they received last year when the RPI was negative and the CPI was positive? Labour Members back then proposed no increase whatever in those pensions. At the same time, looking over 10 years, is it not a little disingenuous to fail to take into account what has happened to house prices over the past decade? It is unlikely to be replicated in the next decade.

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. Many of the letters that I signed as a new Minister were to people complaining about the April 2010 non-increase in pension rates because they were linked to the RPI, which was negative. One of the worst things about using something that is so heavily affected by mortgage interest rates is that a pensioner with savings not only fails to benefit from falling mortgage rates, but is penalised by falling savings rates, so they get a double whammy. Neither factor will affect the CPI.