Pensions Bill [Lords]

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Commons Chamber

The Bill creates a 13-week waiting period. Somebody who values their pension rights can still opt in, but the Government listened very carefully to the concerns of smaller businesses. Their judgment was that requiring them to enrol people on day one was a considerable burden. The flexibility of a three-month period strikes a balance. We were being lobbied to specify six months and to exclude small firms altogether, but we judged that a three-month period strikes the right balance.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

May I ask the Minister a wider question on auto-enrolment? As he will know because it has been widely reported in the past few days, a report from Mr Adrian Beecroft recommends that the Government postpone the implementation of auto-enrolment altogether. Has the Minister seen that report? If so, what is his response to it?

[Steve Webb]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that a draft report has been produced and reported in the press, but I can assure him that—as we once famously pointed out—2012 will definitely happen next year. In other words, we do not believe that this important programme should be delayed. Interestingly, the CBI does not believe in a delay, either. It recognises that the biggest firms, which will come in next year, are already planning. In many cases they have already chosen their providers. They are getting on with it, and the last thing we need is new uncertainty about the start of auto-enrolment. We will, therefore, be pressing ahead.

Waiting periods are clearly a trade-off, but today more than ever, we need to realise the impact of what we are doing on smaller firms and businesses more generally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

I welcome new clause 2, but I speak in favour of new clauses 9 and 10, and amendments 18, 19 and 20. I shall also respond to some of the points that the Minister has just made. I shall begin by endorsing the tribute the Minister paid to Evelyn Arnold, who is retiring from his Department this week. I very much valued her advice and the way in which it was delivered.

I welcome the fact that the Government have maintained the all-party consensus on the principle of auto-enrolment, based on the work of Lord Turner’s commission on behalf of the previous Government. I worked closely with Adair Turner in that period, and I pay tribute to him, and to his fellow commissioners—Jeannie Drake, now Baroness Drake of Shene in the other place, and John Hills—for their very important achievement in the commission’s report.

I say “all-party consensus” about auto-enrolment, but—as I suggested in my recent intervention—there has been some discussion in the last few days about the extent of that consensus. I notice that David Prosser, who knows something about all this, wrote in The Independent on Saturday:

“There is a growing fear that the Government is about to announce a postponement of auto-enrolment…every delay in pension reform will mean a more miserable old age for millions.”

I am glad, therefore, that the Minister has reaffirmed that the Government intend to go ahead with auto-enrolment on the timetable that has been announced.

It has been reported that Adrian Beecroft, who has given more than £500,000 to the Conservative party in the past five years and has, coincidentally, been asked to advise the Government on cutting burdens on business, has recommended in an interim report that auto-enrolment should be put on hold and scrapped entirely for small businesses.

No doubt there has been some lively discussion within the coalition about this issue, and it is encouraging to see the Secretary of State in his place on the Front Bench and agreeing with the Minister. The Financial Times quotes a Liberal Democrat official this morning as saying of Mr Beecroft:

“He is an ideological Tory donor recruited to give voice to deeply held prejudices in the Tory party. His report has no evidence base.”

I also noticed that the Liberal Democrat Equalities Minister told The Observer on Sunday that Mr Beecroft’s ideas would be “swept away”. We perhaps heard some sweeping away from the Minister this evening. I am pleased to hear his confirmation—endorsed by the Secretary of State—that there will be no delay in auto-enrolment and that small businesses will not be missed out.

I welcome, therefore, the maintaining of the previous consensus on auto-enrolment, and I hope that the position that Ministers have put to the House this evening will stand. However, I regret the dilution of the previous proposals in the Bill. Our amendments seek to address the watering down of the principle of auto-enrolment that the Government have proposed. The amendments would reduce the proposed three-month waiting period to one month. They would also limit increases to the earnings trigger for auto-enrolment to no more than the increase in either the general level of earnings or the national insurance lower earnings limit. That is to address the concern explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), the Chair of the Select Committee in her intervention a few moments ago. The new clauses would put a duty on the Secretary of State to establish within two years a review into allowing transfers into NEST, and to review any order he makes on contribution limits in the scheme.

The Labour Government were determined to build cross-party consensus on pensions reform, and, thanks to Lord Turner’s commission, we succeeded. That was very important. We know that people have been under-saving for their retirement. It is estimated that 7 million people in the UK were not saving enough to provide an adequate retirement income. According to Scottish Widows, 20% of people were not saving at all for retirement. Overcoming that problem requires the establishment of a system that people can be confident will endure beyond a future change of Government. I welcome the fact that the principles have indeed survived a change of Government.

The levels of saving among people on low incomes are a particular cause for concern. While 77% of people earning £31,000 a year have savings, that applies to only 56% of people on average earnings and 44% of people on £18,000. The Office for National Statistics has reported that, thanks to the global financial crisis, pension savings fell by £2 billion in 2009-2010. The importance of tackling under-saving has risen even since auto-enrolment was first proposed.

The final report of the pensions commission in 2006 recommended three steps to tackle under-saving: a higher state pension age, restoration of the earnings link for the state pension and the introduction of automatic enrolment—the subject of these amendments. For a long time, inertia had acted against people building up sufficient savings for retirement. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) has commented on the effect of complex products on people’s understanding of the cost of products. Other demands on people’s income mean that people do not get around to saving. Auto-enrolment will harness inertia to the opposite effect by making saving, rather than not saving, the default option. We continue to support auto-enrolment into workplace pensions, and we are keen to maintain the consensus established for it. Partly for that reason, however, we cannot support the watering down proposed in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

This is obviously a balancing act, but one reason for going beyond one month is seasonal workers. Given that the summer lasts longer than four weeks—perhaps not in Britain, but in general—the right hon. Gentleman’s proposals would bring fruit pickers into auto-enrolment. Does that not bother him?

[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.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the danger of starting when incomes are too low is that the amount in the pot might be so risibly low that it would undermine the obvious advantages that auto-enrolment will deliver over the next 20 years or so?

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman has a point—the Minister also made that point—which is that if the threshold was down at the national insurance threshold, the amounts involved could be tiny. What I am suggesting in our amendments is that the way in which the higher threshold that has now been agreed is subsequently uprated should be constrained. If it is not, a large number of people could be undesirably excluded from auto-enrolment at a time when it might be very much to their advantage to be included, particularly if the threshold goes up to £10,000.

The Minister will tell us—indeed, he already has —that people whose earnings are between the contribution threshold and the earnings trigger can opt into the scheme if they feel they are missing out. However, people have always been able to opt in; the problem is that they have chosen not to. That is why we have auto-enrolment. The point is that opt-ins have not worked. We need a step change. It is unfair to exclude people on lower wages, because they need to be part of the scheme too.

Our two new clauses would place a duty on the Secretary of State to review allowing transfers into NEST and the contribution limits on the scheme. The limits on transfers in and annual contributions were a factor in creating consensus on auto-enrolment—the Minister was right about that. They were correct at the time, and helped us to focus the scheme on where it was needed.

The Johnson review that the Government commissioned was clear about what ought to happen next. It made the point that the Government needed to review those two areas before the planned 2017 review. Paul Johnson said:

“Government and regulators should review as a matter of some urgency how to ensure that it is more straightforward for people to move their pension pot with them as they move employer, so that by the time of the 2017 review the more general issue of pension transfers has been addressed and NEST is able to receive transfers in and pay transfers out.”

The Minister suggested that to do two reviews would muddle things, but that is precisely what the Johnson review calls for, and I think that it does so with good reason. The report argues that that will be

“critical to the success of the reform”.

If this review does not occur before 2017, savers will spend years with fragmented savings in numerous pots that they are unable to combine. They will lose out on the benefits of being able to purchase an annuity on better terms as a result of having one, larger pot of money rather than several small ones. In some circumstances, they might also lose out due to higher management charges or as a result of deferred member penalties.

The Minister has offered some encouragement on this. I notice that he told a pensions conference last month of his vision that people will end up with what he described as “one big fat pot” instead of lots of little ones. However, no provision to review transfers in before 2017 appears on the face of the Bill, which means that people will continue to have lots of little pots, and his vision will remain unfulfilled.

It is right that contribution limits are in place while NEST is being established, but we should look again at whether those limits are necessary sooner rather than later. The Johnson review recommended that the Government legislate to remove the cap in 2017, which would be difficult if the review were commencing only in that year. The amendment therefore provides for a review in 2014. We remain wholeheartedly on the side of the consensus over auto-enrolment, but we believe that some changes are needed.

I shall also be listening with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) in favour of her new clause 1. I was pleased that the Minister sounded well disposed towards it, although we shall need to know precisely what is going to happen to make its aims a reality. I hope that we can make progress in that area, as well as in the others that I have mentioned in my speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I welcome the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) to his place. Notwithstanding our earlier little exchanges, I unreservedly welcome him. I am sure that he will be a great asset to his party, and I look forward to other clashes and debates that we may have as time goes on. I thank the Members on both sides of the House who served with distinction on the Public Bill Committee for their help in scrutinising the Bill. They have had to hang around for quite a long time, but we are where we are now. I also thank the Opposition for their approach to many of the positive debates on the Bill’s clauses. May I also extend my appreciation to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) for chairing the Committee sittings through those longer moments?

It is also right that I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Pensions Minister for his commitment to taking this important legislation through this House. If there is anybody in government who has championed the cause of the low-paid in pensions, it is him. It is a privilege and pleasure to work with him in this coalition—a very firm coalition in our case. On a departmental point, may I back him up on what he said about one of our civil servants, Evelyn Arnold, whom the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) knows? She is retiring after a long time and has seen so many of these things go through, and it is right for us to thank those who serve us without normal comment. So, without question, I thank her for the time she has spent, on behalf of all parties in government, getting this sort of legislation through.

Over the past few months, a number of amendments were made that I believe have improved the Bill, and I shall run through them. With the blessing of the House, I do not intend to spend much time on them because we have been through them a lot. Amendment 1 related to the consumer prices index underpin, where we have listened to concerns and responded by ensuring that schemes that use the retail prices index will not have to uprate by CPI in the years when it is higher. We have heard the issues raised on deferred member charges and, having listened, we have extended an existing reserve power to cap charges to also cover deferred members. That enables the Government to protect all scheme members from high charges regardless of what might come in the future, which is an important feature. Thirdly, we have also made an amendment to clarify the definition of money purchase benefits in light of the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Houldsworth v. Bridge, ensuring that schemes and members continue to have adequate protection.

The House will be aware that we have listened and responded to concerns about the women most affected by the accelerated rise in the state pension age. Last week we announced that no women will see their state pension age increase by more than 18 months. We have always been clear that our policy will not change and we will still equalise the state pension age by 2018 and increase it to 66 by 2020. We have, however, honoured the commitment I gave on Second Reading to ease the transition process for those who are most affected. I listened with interest to the debate, but the point that is sometimes missed is that the adjustment means that nearly 250,000 women will have a lower state pension age as a result of the change, as will a similar number of men: 500,000 people at a cost of just over £1 billion in the next spending period. We should not sniff at that.

[Stephen Timms]

rose—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Before I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, let me make a small point. I understand why the Opposition want to trumpet a great deal about this. Having sat in opposition, I understand that getting self-righteous about such things in defence of others who raise them is exactly what Opposition Members do. As some of my hon. Friends said earlier, however, unless the Opposition can guarantee that they will reverse the measure if and when they come into government, in essence they are doing something quite cynical by raising the hopes of women outside, knowing only too well secretly that they will never make the change. If I give way, I would like to hear that the Opposition absolutely plan to reverse this measure and change it in government.

[Stephen Timms]

One thing the Opposition are entitled to do is ask the Government to explain why they are doing what they are doing. At a time when the Government are increasing the state pension age by one year for many people, what is the justification for picking out 500,000 women and treating them more harshly than everybody else?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I think the right hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that question. It is wholly part of the process of equalisation and of moving everybody on at the same time for the extra year’s increase. That answers his point, but, as he knows in his heart of hearts—I consider him a reasonable man in his dealings most of all—the real point is that had Labour been in government, I suspect that they would have done almost exactly the same things.

The generation below my generation is likely to retire on a lower income in retirement, the first generation to do so, as a result of all the problems we have had with the economy—which the previous Government left for us and for which we never get an apology—and the reality that not enough people have been saving. We are about to condemn a generation of people who will struggle to save for their pensions and who will have to pay off elements of the debt that we—this generation going through Parliament—have overseen while at the same time paying for those who are already in retirement, and we must do something to help them rid us of that debt so that they do not pick up such a large proportion of it and are not saddled with it as they attempt to bring up their children and earn a living at the same time.

[Stephen Timms]

The Secretary of State is explaining why the state pension age needs to be raised and our amendments did not oppose the increase of one year. We are still waiting, however, for some justification why this particular group of 500,000 women must wait more than a year—longer than everyone else—to reach their state pension age.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I think I have explained that. As I said earlier and as the right hon. Gentleman knows well, the acceleration is about reaching equalisation in time to move the age to 66. We can bandy this subject about, but the point remains that the Opposition must come to terms with something quite important. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, who opened the debate on Report, suggested that £11 billion—he insisted on saying £10 billion, but I must tell him that the figure is £11 billion—was no great problem and not an issue in the great scheme of things. That is, in a sense, the problem. I remind him that to save £5 billion in real terms today straight off, we would have to cut the education budget by 10%. That is the nature of how we would have to find the money.

I simply say to the Opposition that I understand the rules of opposition—goodness gracious, we spent enough time in opposition ourselves—and the temptations that come with opposition, but realistically they should be saying to all those women that we have made a major move. We are prepared to spend an extra £1 billion to make sure that those who were excessively caught in that trap are not any more. I think that is fair and reasonable and that the Opposition need to explain to women up and down the land why they are making a big fuss about this when they know, cynically, that they would not overturn this if they came to government. That is a very cynical position to be in—to whip up this emotion outside and then calmly and quietly say, “Of course, we can’t change it.” I am afraid that is bad politics and bad decision making.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

The Bill certainly has some welcome features, as well as some very regrettable, unwelcome features. I shall touch on both aspects in my contribution.

The recommendations of the Pensions Commission chaired by Lord Turner were broadly accepted across the House. As Pensions Minister at the time, I was extremely impressed by the energy and commitment brought to their task by Lord Turner and his fellow commissioners, John Hills and the now Baroness Jeannie Drake. They were successful in putting together an all-party consensus, which has endured. We will continue to work consensually with the Government as far as we can for the strategy that was developed in the review.

The first element of that was auto-enrolment into a low-cost national scheme. I agree with the Secretary of State about the significance of that change and I welcome his confirmation that the Government will not move away from their commitment to auto-enrolment. The second element was an increase in the state pension age, and re-linking the level of the state pension with earnings was the third.

But it is not fair for the costs of this trinity of measures to be borne disproportionately by any one group in society, whether that group is defined by age, occupation or gender. The Bill would unfortunately affect some groups far more than others. We have just had a debate touching on the fact that young people and agency workers, who move jobs more frequently than average, are likely to lose many months of employers’ contributions because of the changes, as well as the chance of building up a savings habit, because of the introduction of a waiting period in auto-enrolment. Up to a million people on low wages would be left out of auto-enrolment owing to the increase in the level of the earnings threshold. But most significantly of all, and this is what gives us a real problem with the Bill, half a million women aged 56 and 57 will find themselves waiting up to 18 months longer for their state pension, and a third of a million will be waiting a full 18 months extra, with too little time to plan for the change. That is a serious problem.

We welcome the Government’s recognition that the original Bill was wrong, and what we have now is certainly a welcome change. I make no bones about welcoming the change that has been made, the concession in response to the big and entirely proper campaign that took place, but the Bill still leaves half a million women in the lurch. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) led the argument against the original ill thought-out plans, and I welcome the change that has occurred, but, with so many women still affected, Ministers cannot claim that they have solved the problem.

We understand why the state pension age is being increased by one year for many people, because the Secretary of State set out why and our amendments did not oppose the increase, but what has struck me about tonight’s debate is that no Government Member supporting the Bill has provided any justification why it is being increased by more than one year for half a million women—and not for a single man. What is the justification for picking out that group of half a million women and treating them more harshly than everybody else?

Why are those women being picked out for worse treatment? We have been given no justification at all, except that it will save a lot of money. No doubt it will, but the Secretary of State has a responsibility to develop a policy that can be defended, that has some rationale to it, not simply telling us, “Well, this is going to save us a lot of money.” There needs to be some justification for the change that is being made, and no justification—at least none that I can understand—has been made at all for picking out that group of half a million women.

The Pensions Policy Institute recommends that 10 years’ notice be given for people to plan for a change in their pension age, and the Turner report recommended a longer period, but the plans in the Bill still give some women as little as five years, and that is simply not enough. It is just not fair to those affected to impose on them such a big change with so little notice.

Those women have relied on an implicit contract of reasonableness and fairness between government and citizens when planning their retirement, and, if the truth is that government cannot be trusted to keep its side of the bargain, how are people expected to plan for pensions saving at all? Pension saving is inherently long-term in character, but it simply will not happen if the Government make a habit of sudden policy lurches that undermine the assumptions on which people have been encouraged to build in the past, so it is no wonder so many women feel so badly let down by what the Government have done.

We are talking about a 10-year period beginning in 2016. Under the coalition’s plans, unless they are to continue the current effectively zero-growth policy indefinitely, those savings are about the long-term sustainability of the pensions system, and we support, as our amendments tonight supported, the proposal to find further savings, if necessary, by bringing forward the date at which the rise to 67 years old occurs, as long as people have time to organise their affairs and to plan accordingly. The sudden unpredictable lurch, not mentioned by either coalition party in the general election campaign or in the coalition agreement, has caused the problem.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) stated on Report, our objection to this part of the Bill is that it achieves these very large savings solely at the expense of one age cohort of women, apparently on a wholly arbitrary basis. The data are very clear. Women have substantially lower savings than men, yet a group of women—older women who have the least time to plan for the change—are being asked to bear the cost. The Bill simply fails the fairness test, and for that reason, in particular, we cannot support its Third Reading. We understand that Ministers are worried about rapidly plunging popularity among women voters and we are told that they are puzzled about why that is happening. They should just take a careful look at the unfairness in this Bill, and they will find a ready explanation there. We will not support that unfairness in the Lobby tonight, and no one else who values fairness should do so either.

The third of a million women with a wait of an extra 18 months will lose, just in state pension, pension payments averaging £7,800, and if one allows for pension credit and other passported benefits, we are talking about significantly greater sums still. Those women, if they are not working at the moment, will find it hard to find new jobs in the current labour market. Given that 37% of them are currently not in work, how are they supposed to make up that shortfall? We have been given no answers to that question.

As I think we would all agree, the design of the future pensions system should maintain inter-generational fairness. Imposing such large costs on one group of women means that the Bill fails to meet that fairness test. What became of the Burkean compact between generations to which Conservatives once subscribed?

[Jenny Willott]

rose—

[Stephen Timms]

I will gladly give way to a non-Conservative.

[Jenny Willott]

Is the right hon. Gentleman able to answer the question that was posed by several hon. Members earlier in the debate, and then again by the Secretary of State, about whether he and his party would plan to repeal the proposals on women’s pensions and pension age if they were to come into government after the next election, given that the changes would not have taken place by that time and they would have the opportunity to do that were they so minded?

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East answered that question earlier in the debate. Our view is that there have been too many changes and we would not propose yet another. The hon. Lady needs to explain the justification for picking out this particular group of half a million women and treating them more harshly than everyone else whose state pension age is being raised only by one year. For a third of a million women, it is being raised by a year and a half, and for half a million, it is being raised by more than a year. We have had no explanation and no attempt at a justification. Is it an accident or some kind of mishap? It certainly should be put right, and sadly it has not been put right in the changes that the Government have made.

There are other problems in the Bill. It dilutes the plan for auto-enrolment that was supported across the House. The proposals will leave many low-paid and agency workers outside auto-enrolment, and we think that they should not be left behind. Moreover, the gains from these exclusions, in lower costs for employers, will be small. It would be quite wrong to exclude people just because they work for small companies, as the Conservative party donor Adrian Beecroft is apparently arguing. I greatly appreciate the assurances that we have had about that during the debate, and I hope that Ministers will continue stoutly to resist any such moves if they are promoted from elsewhere in the coalition. The Pensions Commission made it clear that extending the benefits of pensions saving to more people who work for small firms is one of the prizes from this reform, and we must not throw it away.

The Secretary of State is absolutely right to argue that this is a pro-growth, not an anti-growth, change in making it possible for more people to save for a decent retirement. Of course it is right to be concerned about the plight of small firms in the zero-growth economy that we seem to have. I commend to the Government the national insurance holiday for small firms that take on additional workers that is proposed by my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor. We remain strongly supportive of the policy of auto-enrolment. We are disappointed, however, that the Government are seeking to water down the proposals around which the all-party consensus was hard won.

We welcome the consensus on the basic building blocks for a more sustainable pensions system, but the Government are quite wrong to load the cost of change so disproportionately on one group of half a million women. For a long time, they did not listen to those women at all. When they did, they came forward with a half measure. The sense of grievance that they have instilled in the women affected will not be readily dispelled. We are pleased to have won a concession, but many people will still be deeply disappointed. For that reason in particular, I urge Members to decline to give the Bill a Third Reading.