---

Pensions Bill [HL]

My Lords, I, like others, very much support these amendments. I have here the coalition programme for government, drawn up 10 months ago. On page 26, it makes seven promises on pensions, relating to the earnings link, the Hutton review, a review on early access and so on. I agree with almost all of them and the coalition Government are honouring almost all of them—which is great—except for one. The coalition programme states: "““We will phase out the default retirement age and hold a review to set the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66, although it will not be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women””." I agree with the coalition programme on that too: it is a clear and reasonable promise that was made just 10 months ago. We need to equalise, in a steady way, and that coalition commitment would have delivered that. Now in this Bill, just a few months later, that key coalition agreement promise—the one that most directly affects women, and poorer women at that—has been torn up and junked. Whereas women before 2016 are seeing their pension age rise gradually, in steps of one year for every two years, suddenly from 2016 the rate at which their pension age is deferred extends, so that they have to wait three years instead of two and four years instead of three. From then on, half a million women will have to wait more than one year for their pension, 300,000 for more than a year and a half and 33,000—as the right reverend Prelate emphasised—for two years. It means that Susan, born in March 1953, will reach pension age at 63 in 2016. Her cousin Barbara, born a year later in March 1954, will reach pension age in March 2020, when she will be 66—one year younger, and she waits a further four years for her pension. Is that fair? Of course not. Is it necessary? The Government ran two arguments in their impact analysis and in Committee: first, given the deficit, that we need to find savings even from the pensions of the poorest women to sustain fiscal futures; and secondly, given increasing life expectancy, that we need to raise the pension age faster than anticipated. Neither of these arguments, in my view, is valid. Given the deficit and the need to find savings—as has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord McKenzie and others today—and given that this acceleration starts in only 2016, we are already beyond the deficit period. Anticipated savings of £30 billion—virtually all from women—are not part of the four-year plan. Is it necessary, however, for longer term fiscal stability? In the longer term, yes; it is the speed that we are objecting to and the unfairness for women dependent on the month in which they are born as to whether they get a reasonable or a very bad deal from the state. It is a lottery, my Lords. The Government, unlike the markets, should not engage in lotteries with people’s pensions. As for fiscal sustainability, there are plenty of options, including, for example, treating pensions like ISAs—taxing them on the way out, which would save rather more money than this. As for increased longevity—the other argument made by the Government—the stats were known 10 months ago when this coalition promise was given. Indeed, the Marmot report of just last December pushes the argument the other way. As we know, the gap between men and women’s longevity is closing fast. That is good. But for healthy, disability-free years, the Marmot report shows that the difference between social class 1—the best-off—and social class 5 is 17 years. That is in a report to the Government—a difference of 17 years in healthy, disability-free life expectancy. In other words, it is poverty and not just gender that most determines healthy life expectancy. Poorer women not only do not live so long as the better-off, but have fewer years of their reduced life expectancy free from disability. It is precisely these women, and some men—those at the bottom, the poorest with the poorest health—who will be most hurt by these proposals. We will be making them poorer still. The two arguments of the Government—savings and fiscal stability, and increased longevity—are either not relevant or not new. The coalition programme, with eyes open just 10 months ago, entered into a promise that could and should be honoured. Whom will this change hurt? Not so much the women who want to continue to work; not so much the women with good occupational pensions. Neither of those groups is so dependent on the state pension. The ones who will be hurt—the right reverend Prelate has already indicated this—are the women who all their lives have juggled part-time jobs and caring responsibilities for their children, their grandchildren so that their daughter can work, and now their own frail elderly parents. One-third of women between 55 and 59 are not employed. Why? This is because half of them are disabled or in poor health, and over half the rest have family responsibilities including caring. They will have no other income but their state pension. It is on the backs of these women—the poorest, the frailest, and those with the heaviest burden of home care—that the Government propose to save much of their £30 billion. Such women are not going to rejoin the labour market, despite the absurdly optimistic figures in the impact assessment. Their health is not always good, their skills are out of date, and their confidence is low. Few employers will want them in the labour market. Instead, these women will linger longer on lower benefits, finally entering retirement later, poorer and more defeated than before. Your Lordships—all of us, I hope—have always been among the first to protect such women, recognising the value of their unwaged work for their families, and recognising their vulnerability as disabled people. We know that the Government are not only forsaking a coalition agreement made 10 months ago but, worse, forsaking thousands of women who have done their best for their families and society over the years. That is not right. Your Lordships have protected such women in the past. I hope that you will continue to do so today by supporting my noble friend’s amendment.