Pensions Bill

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore]

I do not know off the top of my head, which is why I am asking for a review. We might be talking about 40,000 women who clearly will not be getting a full pension, but certain of them will have made some contributions; it is not that they will have no contributions. The Work and Pensions Select Committee looked at this and recommended transitional arrangements for those within 15 years of the state pension age when the new arrangements came into force. It is not for ever, it would not go on and on, with a very long tail; but it would provide for those who quite reasonably made plans on the basis of particular expectations.

I have heard two arguments from the Government. The first was a generalisation about how the world had changed. Yes, of course it has changed, and we are not talking about most or all women doing this for ever. Just saying, “Well, the world’s changed”, is not a good enough answer to the fact that some women will suffer detriment if transitional arrangements are not put in place. The second argument was that apparently—I am not sure any figures have been offered up—an increasing number of these women were living abroad. It conjured up images of women much younger than their husbands and living abroad—I do not know whether the Minister had Filipino brides in mind. Nevertheless, it cannot be beyond the ingenuity of the DWP to ensure that people do not take undue advantage. Like I said, these arrangements would not last for ever.

There are a variety of reasons why somebody might not have contributed. They might have made a positive choice not to contribute or they might have been doing voluntary or care work before credits were allowed or without appreciating that they were allowed—we know that a lot of people are eligible for carer’s credits who have not claimed them. There are a variety of reasons. Others will have been in very low-paid or short-hours part-time work and earning below the level of contribution, and they might have concluded that it did not matter too much because of the derived right.

We debated this matter in Committee and I hope that the Government will this time be prepared to accept my new clause. Then, when we have carried out the review, a decision could be made about whether to proceed with transitional arrangements.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I hope the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) will forgive me if I do not follow her line of debate, but we have less than 50 minutes left to deal with something that is complicated, important and a matter of justice.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for saying in the Commonwealth that the Commonwealth is about fairness and justice, and I am going to argue for a significant review of what we do with overseas pensioners. I hope the House will forgive me for reading out a paragraph from Lord Hoffmann in the Carson case concerning regulation 5 of the Social Security Benefit (Persons Abroad) Regulations 1975:

“The general rule, subject to limited exceptions, has always been that social security benefits are payable only to inhabitants of the United Kingdom. A person ‘absent from Great Britain’ is disqualified: section 113(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. But there is a power to make exceptions by regulation. Regulation 4 of the Social Security Benefit (Persons Abroad) Regulations 1975 (SI 1975/563) (deemed to have been made under the 1992 Act) makes such an exception for retirement pensions. But regulation 5 makes an exception to the exception. In the absence of reciprocal treaty arrangements, persons ordinarily resident abroad continue to be disqualified from receiving the annual increases.”

The House might expect that pensioners abroad who do not get the increases are the exception; were the House to think that, it would be wrong. Some 650,000 overseas pensioners get the increase, and they include pensioners in countries such as the United States and Jamaica. More than 500,000—it could be 530,000 or 570,000—do not. They are predominantly in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, India and Pakistan, with Yemen and Japan being two others in the top ten. No one can claim that there is rhyme or reason in that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

Does my hon. Friend know whether the requirement to uprate in the European Union countries is a European requirement that the Government can do nothing about or a Government choice?

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The Government chose and Parliament endorsed that we would have free movement of people and of benefits in this sense, but the Secretary of State will no doubt be able to answer my right hon. Friend with greater certainty. The essential point is that as a country joins the EU—or even EFTA—the entitlement to increases in pensions comes with it.

When preparing my thoughts on this matter, I might have anticipated that the Prime Minister would say that he would give consideration to calls for a wider review of the issue. I might also have expected him to conclude that he was not minded to pursue such a review at this time. That is the gentlest form of saying no that I have come across.

I suspect that, as and when we extend voting rights to British nationals living overseas, either for a period of 15 years or for even longer, as many other countries do, our Members of Parliament who represent those overseas resident voters will start putting the pressure on, and that change will come. The Prime Minister might be anticipating that. He might see the sense and justice of such a change, but, given his position, he has to say no to a lot of popular causes. Perhaps the justice element for which is so rightly praised in the Commonwealth has not quite come to his mind yet.

In fact, I received a letter from the Prime Minister about half an hour ago confirming what I had anticipated. He has said that

“the case for not departing from the position of successive Governments is clear.”

I have already pointed out how the position has changed in respect of the reciprocal arrangements. His letter goes on:

“To do so would cost hundreds of millions of pounds at a time when the pressure on a welfare system is considerable and when we are asking many people who live in the UK to make sacrifices.”

That could be an argument for cutting off increases for all overseas pensioners, but that is not going to happen. The anomaly will continue. It has carried on from 1972 to 2013. If I am still here in 20 years’ time, will Ministers still be trotting out the same arguments that they used in 1972? I jolly well hope not.

I pay tribute to the leaders of the International Consortium of British Pensioners in Canada and Australia. They have had work done by Oxford Economics to make the case for the health care savings. We all know that the majority of costs to the national health service are incurred by people in the last years and weeks of their lives. Which of the people living overseas are the most likely to return to this country for their end-of-life health care? I suggest that it is those living in the United States, whose insurance might have run out and who cannot meet the costs, and people in Europe who might want to return to this country to be treated in a health service they know and in a language they are used to. I doubt that many people would come back from New Zealand, Australia, South Africa or Canada.

The health care question was what prompted us to call for the whole of Government review. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), who came with me last week when the Prime Minister very kindly gave us the opportunity to put some of these points to him.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has already paid tribute to the leaders of the campaign in Canada and Australia. Jim Tilley has told us of the case of an English lady in Australia who is living on £6 a week. The rest of the money that she has to live on is provided by the Australian Government, because our Government cannot give it to her. Does that make my hon. Friend feel proud?

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I find that shaming.

One of the reasons to be active in public service is to identify injustice and to work against it. It might take months, years or decades, but this is a fight for which I would like to see more support from the Opposition and from those on my own side. My hon. Friend has mentioned Jim Tilley. I want to mention John Markham, the director of public affairs for the International Consortium of British Pensioners, who is based in Toronto, in Canada. He has pointed out:

“Approximately 10% of all pensioners live abroad, roughly 1 million people. Of that million, 50% receive annual increases to their state pension, and the other 50% do not, solely based on country of residence.”

That arbitrary, historical decision is unjustifiable.

I am not going to quote back to the Minister what he said about this before he became a Minister. Some people have to go through that embarrassment, but I do not want to subject him to it. I will say, however, as we approach Remembrance Sunday and Armistice day, that the countries in which we have shared war memorials are those most likely to be affected. They are the countries whose people served in the former British empire and Commonwealth armies, and those people are the ones who are not getting the increase.

John Markham goes on to say:

“The recent select Committee on the new single tier Pension Bill declared it to be an anomaly that should be fixed.”

I have mentioned the Oxford Economics report. The Department for Work and Pensions might say that that was just a small survey, and that the benefits would take years to accrue. Well, the sooner we start, the better. The argument for doing it is not that it will pay this country, but that it is right.

I could go through the other arguments used by Julian Ridsdale, but there is restricted time for the debate, and it would be interesting to hear what the Labour Front-Bench team has to say. I know, too, that others wish to speak on this issue and to other amendments in the group. Let me declare the best judgment at the end of this debate. We will say no to clause 20, but we will not force a walk-through Division. That is a way of illustrating what we feel, without unduly taking up the House’s time, when Third Reading is also ahead of us. I hope the House will understand that.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who has spoken passionately about the importance of fairness and justice. I believe that those very same principles underlie the issue I want to raise this afternoon. I want to speak to my new clause 6, while confirming my support for new clause 8. Those new clauses both relate to the group of women who will not qualify for the single-tier pension, whereas men with the same date of birth will.

One of my constituents, Catherine Kirby, has been a passionate and tireless champion for women in her position. Understandably, she feels that she and others in her situation are faced with a dual disadvantage of being subject to an increase in the state pension age under the 1995 Act, while being denied eligibility for the single-tier pension. Not all, but some of these women will be left with a lower weekly state pension compared with men of the same age. No wonder my constituent, like many others, believes this creates unnecessary and unjustifiable inequality and discrimination.

The Minister has said in the past that women in the position of my constituent should defer, but for those on low incomes who are unable to work and do not have a convenient pot of money, that is not an option. He has explained in the past that because the new system excludes additional benefits such as for bereavement, it is not possible for the Government to tell women what would be best for them. For some women, however, that is simply not relevant to their situation. They already know that they would be better off—by £15 a week, in Catherine’s case, which is significant.

The Minister has said that, over a lifetime, most of these women would get more than the average man with the same date of birth, but theoretical lifetime averages are simply irrelevant to the difficult financial situation faced by my constituents and others in the real world. It is their weekly pension income that matters, and I believe that that is what should occupy our attention as their representatives.

I will support Labour’s new clause 8, which calls for a review of whether all women born on or after 6 April 1951 should be included within the scope of the new pension arrangements. That is not my preferred option, however. Not all will definitely lose out, and I do not think we necessarily need a review to find a solution that works for the relatively small but important number of women who may lose out.

My new clause 6 simply gives these women the right to choose to receive their state pension and associated benefits under the new state pension system set out in part 1 from its introduction in April 2016, if they judge it to be in their best interest to do so. It would not require the Government to tell them what to do, merely to ensure that information about the full range of entitlements under the old state pension rules and the new state pension is available to allow women to make a comparison of total weekly income. The responsibility for making a choice would rest fully with the individual.

I believe this group of women deserve a much better deal, and if that means upgrading to the single tier, that should be permitted. If the Government do not do that, it will be an example of blatant discrimination. It would not be difficult to remedy the situation and it would make a huge difference to the women involved. This group of women certainly deserve better. They are the generation who campaigned for equality for women. They began their working lives being discriminated against; the Government can and should give them the right to be included in a new single-tier pension to ensure that they do not end their lives feeling discriminated against, as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

Indeed. The hon. Lady is right. Some women are in that position, but a significant proportion of them have had very limited contact with this country. This is the point that she touched on. Derived rights arise to people who have never even been to the country. They can get a 60% pension or a widow’s pension because their spouse is part of the UK pension system. She is asking us to keep, for another 15 years, an extraordinarily complex bit of the system rolling into the new system. We are trying to deliver a simple and effective new state pension system and we have already introduced transitional protection for the most obvious group, the married woman’s stamp pensioners, which we think needs to be protected. We could have kept the whole of the old system rolling on for another 15 years, but that would have created enormous complexity when we are trying to move to a simpler system.

Were we to follow new clause 5 and the Select Committee’s recommendation and choose 15 years as the cut-off, we could be as sure as anything that we would be under judicial review for someone who was 16 years shy of the line. In other words, if we have a cut-off date, we must have an objective basis for it, and we can find no objective basis for choosing 15 years. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South that because 10 years is the de minimis, 15 years is a bit more than 10. I get that, but so is 16 or 14.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh East said that someone some years ago was told not to buy missing years and now it is too late. I stress that the ability to buy missing years has been substantially relaxed by HMRC so people can buy back as far as 2005-06 on relatively favourable terms. Even by the end of the decade they will still be in a position to buy back missing years. If they have spent the money and they do not have it any more, they cannot do it, but that aside, the ability to buy back missing years still exists. Although buying 10 years costs a lot of money, very few people will be starting from zero. So to reach the 10-year de minimis would not necessarily involve a huge outlay. Many will be over that level already and for those who are not and who have been in this country, the chance to buy one or two missing years will be important.

What we are trying to do is, yes, recognise where we need transitional protection, but we want to avoid such great complexity that we recreate the complex old system for well over a decade in the new one. That is why we reject new clause 5.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Did not the Minister’s last point—that we do not want to continue the kind of discrimination that we had in the past—answer why he should accept amendment 1 and drop clause 20?

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend, as ever, is sharp on these matters. Amendment 1, which stands in his name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), would delete clause 20. As the Chair of the Select Committee pointed out, that would do nothing for any of the overseas pensioners who have contacted us as their MPs; it would only remove the freezing for single-tier pensioners. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) understands that point, but I just want to be clear that if we voted for the amendment, all we would be doing is creating a new anomaly.

In a sense, the Chair of the Select Committee urged us to create that new anomaly. She said that we cannot defend the old one and that we should at least not carry on with it, but by doing that we would create a new anomaly. It is not just about which side of the Niagara falls one happens to live on, because single-tier pensioners would get indexation but nobody else would. I think that we all know what would happen: we would end up back in court. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West referred, quite properly, to the extensive legal background to the issue, because it has been tried and tested by the International Consortium of British Pensioners in a range of courts, and all have found that in many cases what the Government are doing is implementing the law of the land as it has stood for decades.

My hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West and for North Thanet went to see the Prime Minister, and I am grateful to them for doing so. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West referred to the reply he received today from the Prime Minister—I am pleased that he replied in advance of the debate—who stated that, having reflected on their arguments, he did not feel that a further review was appropriate at this point. Obviously, the context he referred to is the £700 million cost of indexing those pensions. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet said that they were not asking for that to be backdated, but I speculate that as soon as we start indexing pensions and stepping them back up to where they would have been, the next court case will come when someone says, “Hang on a minute. Since you froze my pension I have missed out on X amount of money, so I expect that to be paid back as well.” These wedges have a knack of having thin ends. The cost of addressing this, at £700 million a year, is already substantial, but backdating would lead to far more substantial costs, which is difficult to justify at present.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

In addition to the issue of people who will subsequently be bereaved is that of people who will flow on to savings credit, and nobody can possibly know whether, at some point during the course of their retirement, they will move on to that. Although I understand the concerns that have been raised, that group of women have actually benefited from the triple lock that we have introduced. Far from doing them down, as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) has suggested, we have improved their pension position. On his more general point about the position of women in the pension system, this whole Bill is about improving that position. That is why I urge the House to reject the amendments and to support the Bill.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Am I right in saying that, under the procedure of the House, amendment 1, which would remove clause 20, will not be called because of the guillotine?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am not calling it. Unfortunately, that is the procedure of the House, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.