Proceeding contribution from David Crausby (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 1 March 2012. It occurred during Backbench debate and e-petition debate on CPI/RPI Pensions Uprating.
CPI/RPI Pensions Uprating
Despite all the detailed arguments about geometric or arithmetical calculations, the reality is that CPI will pay out less than RPI. Even the Treasury calculates that the difference between the two measures is 0.5% per annum, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) revealed some even more disturbing figures. That difference explains why the Government have changed the measure without consultation or negotiation. They have done so to cut both their costs and the earnings of those who will be affected. This is not an efficiency measure that will benefit us all; it is simply transferring money from poor pensioners to the Government or to private pension schemes. Although I abhor any reduction in the earnings of poorly paid workers, I accept that it is perfectly legitimate for an employer or the Government to argue that a change in their financial circumstances means they simply cannot afford to continue to pay the same levels of remuneration. In turn, the employee, either individually or through their trade union, is then entitled in any free society to make a decision on whether they are going to accept that reduction in pay or seek employment elsewhere—or look for a different pension scheme. That is why I believe that this issue of changing the payment of pensions should be dealt with in two parts: the future should be dealt with differently from the past. It is one thing to say that any pension earned from now on will be dealt with by indexing it to CPI, but to say that the arrangement will cover the whole of someone's pension life is another. It reminds me of the story of the young, inexperienced trade union representative who called his members to a meeting to announce that he had met their employer and had good news and bad news to report. He informed them that the bad news was that he had been forced to accept a pay cut on their behalf. When asked what the good news was, he said that he had managed to get it backdated. It should be a fundamental principle that employees should be aware of what their pension will pay when they qualify for it, because they will, thus, be able to make an objective decision about whether they should pay in and be part of the scheme. Pensions, once earned, are like earnings: they are the property of the individual and not the property of the employer or the Government. The employer and the Government should just be custodians of the pensioners' invested money, and they should look after it prudently and honestly. Pensions are deferred wages, and backdating a pension cut is like backdating a wage cut—it is ridiculously unfair. In these circumstances, it is little wonder that working people are suspicious about saving up for their pension.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 541 c462-3
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Civil service Judgements Local government NHS Police Workplace pensions Public sector Teachers Uprating Retail prices index Consumer prices index
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 15:52:21 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_813674
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_813674
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_813674