Proceeding contribution from Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Monday, 20 June 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Pensions Bill (Lords).
Pensions Bill [Lords]
As there were 25 contributions to the debate, I want to try to respond to some of the points that were made, and then I will certainly give way some more. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans)—indeed, Cardiff was well represented in the debate: by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) and by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), who raised issues relating to Allied Steel and Wire—pointed out Labour's track record on pensions. He was right to do so, because although one or two Opposition Members glossed over history, he reminded us of the 75p pension increase—something that can never happen again under our triple lock. He reminded us of the failure of the previous Government to get to grips with Equitable Life; of the tax grab by the previous Chancellor and Prime Minister on company pensions. That is not a proud record. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, made a characteristically thoughtful contribution and I am grateful for her support for our abolition of the default retirement age. The link to that issue has not often been made in today's debate. The previous Government were planning to raise the state pension age to 66, 67 or 68—but to leave it as legal to sack people for turning 65. There is a logical flaw there, and I am sure the House is ahead of me on that. It is therefore right that we have taken away employers' ability to sack people for the ““sin”” of turning 65. I am also grateful for the hon. Lady's support for our going ahead with the National Employment Savings Trust and the flexibility around auto-enrolment in 2012. She asked whether our £10 billion estimate of the cost of delay to 2020 was a gross or net figure. It is a net figure, taking account of benefit offsets. However, a lot of the points that she and a number of other Members made would apply whenever we raised state pension ages. For example, it was the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce), I think, who asked, ““What will happen to volunteers? What will happen to carers?”” Those are important questions, but they would of course arise whenever state pension ages are raised—and she supports a party that legislated to raise the pension age to 68. She is right that these issues need to be addressed, but they exist not specifically because of this Bill but because of legislation that is already in place.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 530 c124-5
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Age Contributions Capital rules Women Judges Personal savings Low incomes Workplace pensions Pensions State retirement pensions Reform Tax allowances Retirement Uprating
- Legislation
- Pensions Bill (HL) 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 16:34:52 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_750677
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_750677
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_750677