Proceeding contribution from Nigel Waterson (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 10 December 2009. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Pensioner Poverty.
Pensioner Poverty
I was coming to that issue, but I shall deal with it now. We think that anyone who tinkers with the Turner consensus does so at their peril. It was a painfully achieved consensus, and is the only game in town as far as long-term pension reform is concerned. The shadow Chancellor felt able to bring forward the timetable for raising the state pension age because Lord Turner has subsequently said that he wished he had been more radical. That is our reason for the line that we take, which I know is different from that taken by the hon. Gentleman's party. I have a couple more points. Decumulation is a dreadful word, but it is an important issue that one or two people have touched on. People must know more about the choices that are available to them as they approach retirement, particularly those about finding a better deal for annuities—the open market option, or OMO as it is called. To return to the point made in the last intervention, it is important to have good thinking about whether people choose to work longer. Already, 1.3 million people are working beyond the state pension age. There are problems with the default retirement age. The situation is particularly bad in parts of the public sector and particularly local government, where as soon as someone is 65, it is goodbye. Many people resent that. Those points were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) and by the hon. Member for Rochdale. There are benefits from working longer. Boosting incomes is an obvious one. There are many health benefits for some people. There are clear issues about longevity, physical jobs and so on that need to be examined, as I am the first to accept. It is a question of choice, but it is a good way of boosting incomes, apart from the other benefits to be had. Of course, one of the things that we did—in the Pensions Act 2004, I think—was to allow people to defer their state pension for five years and take a lump sum. That is one of the best deals around, as far as I can make out, as long as people are around to collect it. I have a final quick thought on restoring the earnings link. The hon. Member for Luton, North particularly talked about that, as did other hon. Members. The Select Committee recommended that it should happen in 2012. My understanding is that the Government are currently committed to it happening some time in the next Parliament, if they are in power. It is about time that they came up with a specific promise on that. This has been a bad few days for the Government's flagship policies. Tuesday saw the imploding of their Green Paper on social care. Yesterday saw a further undermining of personal accounts and pensions policy generally. This Government, like their flagship policies, are holed below the waterline and it is time for a fresh start.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 502 c168-9WH
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- Westminster Hall
- Subjects
- Poverty Economic situation Pensioners Low incomes Pensions Older people Social security benefits Social security State retirement pensions
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2026-02-05 18:41:08 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_601583
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_601583
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_601583