---

Pensions Bill [HL]

Thank you, cautious is a much better word. It will be somewhat cautious, but I will make a commitment at the end of it, based on what might be achievable later. I start saying that many of the changes that have been made have already reduced the problem, and I know that the noble Baroness would have been involved in making those changes. I am thinking in particular of the reduction to a 30-year contribution making up a pension. The estimate now is that in only a few years’ time 90 per cent of women and men—both genders for different reasons—reaching state pension age will be entitled to the full basic state pension. The noble Baroness and I talked about the figures. I referred to about 50,000, but we have had another look. About 65,000 women and 15,000 men in the whole workforce have two or more small jobs, which are individually below the limit but together take them about the limit. If the universal credit does its job, we are looking for an expansion in mini-jobs; so that should be a growing figure, which would be desirable. The 30-year contribution level has made it less of a problem because it means that someone can miss out on national insurance contributions and credits for almost 20 years of their working career, yet still get a full basic pension. That is why the figures have reduced so much. I also point out that if it is not done carefully, many people would be worse off as a result under the proposals. Many women who care for children or a disabled person would be credited with national insurance contributions anyway. Under the proposal, they would have to pay national insurance for little or no gain. Nor would it help people who get working tax credit to supplement low earnings from such jobs because they, too, get national insurance credits already. I am trying to say that this is not the most simple of things to introduce given the different pressures. My noble friend Lord Boswell was concerned that it would not help employers offering this kind of work. Clearly, within the existing system, aggregation would be extremely difficult and disproportionately costly for employers. There is no straightforward way under the existing system to aggregate earnings under the national insurance contributions system—the aggregation and the calculation would be difficult; the reporting, collecting and so on would impose a lot of administrative burdens. That is clearly why this has not had purchase in the past. I do not want to sound overcautious. This is an idea on which the noble Baroness seized immediately that she read the universal credit paper. The point is very simple. When we have a real-time system, a lot of things that are simply impossible today will become possible. This country’s welfare system will undergo significant reform; we will have a very different system in the future. I will make the commitment to look, as we develop the technology for this system, very hard at making sure that it incorporates the flexibility that would allow us to look at achieving some of these things. I do not think that there will be one magic wand and we are free. There are a lot of issues—I have tried to point out some—regardless of technology. But we can make sure that technology does not become a barrier for us to look at this in a new way. If it works and makes sense, clearly, we will be able to pursue it, but not in the context of the Bill. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.