Youth Unemployment

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Lorely Burt]

I am sure we agree on the seriousness of the situation and all the different groups of young people who are affected. Unfortunately, the hon. Lady did not answer my question, but never mind.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lorely Burt]

I am sorry, but I will not give way.

Dealing with youth unemployment is incredibly hard, but the Opposition should not make political capital out of a relatively small increase in existing figures that are a legacy of their own figures.

[Rachel Reeves]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lorely Burt]

I have only two minutes. I am very sorry.

The future jobs fund was well intentioned, but ineffective and expensive. It created new positions that were not, by definition, real jobs. It was so ineffective, in fact, that young people who were not on the programme fared better in getting real employment than those who were. It cost more than it saved, and failed to accomplish its targets. Now the Opposition are also calling for a bank levy to raise funds for a youth jobs fund. However, we have already introduced a bank levy, and it raises more each year than they managed to raise with their bankers’ bonus tax.

So what have we done for young unemployed people? We have concentrated on apprenticeships and getting people into real jobs. We have exceeded the targets in our apprenticeship scheme, with the provisional figures showing that the number of apprenticeships has grown by 58% across the UK and some areas showing growth of 198%. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) would like to welcome the 82% rise in apprenticeships in his constituency. The Work programme is designed to ensure that people can get out of a cycle of benefits and get back into work that pays. The jury is still out on the Work programme, but I am really hopeful that the work of specialist agencies, using their skills to find jobs for long-term unemployed individuals, will bear fruit.

I welcome the fact that Labour Members are bringing ideas to the table. As I said, I agree with some of them, but not all. We will listen and we will work with all colleagues in this House for a more prosperous future for all our constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

It is right that we should have the chance to debate youth unemployment today, as our economy continues to flatline and unemployment is rising. It is just a shame that neither the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions nor a single member of the Treasury Front-Bench team has bothered to turn up. How complacent and out of touch this Government are.

The last time we debated the economy in this House was on the day when new figures showed that youth unemployment had reached a 17-year high, with 991,000 young people out of work. Next week we shall have an update on those numbers, but in the last few weeks the Government have done nothing to address the national youth unemployment crisis. It is almost two years since this country moved out of recession, yet the prospects for unemployment and youth unemployment are gloomier than ever. Labour has set out a five-point plan for jobs and growth, and called on the Government to introduce an alternative to their plans, which are hurting but not working. Businesses up and down the country are seeing demand hit. Young people out of work and facing trebled tuition fees are seeing the impact. Families struggling with high VAT and rising energy prices are feeling the impact. All are still waiting for a plan for jobs and growth from this Government. We are all waiting for some leadership from this out-of-touch Government on a jobs and growth plan internationally as well. Every day of waiting is a day wasted, with potential going untapped and opportunities squandered.

[Richard Graham]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment. Can she explain to me how it was that during the 13 years of Labour Government, 5,600 private sector jobs were destroyed in my constituency of Gloucester?

[Rachel Reeves]

What I do know is that in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, as in mine, youth unemployment and long-term youth unemployment is going up on this Government’s watch.

There has rightly been concern from all parts of the House today about youth unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), whose constituency has the highest youth unemployment in the country, rightly talked about the impact on his constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) gave a passionate speech about youth unemployment and its effect in the north-east, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who talked about people in his constituency being hammered by this Government’s policies. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), in whose constituency long-term youth unemployment has risen by 106% in just nine months, was right to talk about the need for a national insurance holiday for small businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), in whose constituency long-term youth unemployment has gone up by 81% in nine months, raised the prospect of Royal Bank of Scotland bonuses of £500 million this year, with no tax on bank bonuses to fund youth jobs—a policy proposed by the Labour party.

[Mr Winnick]

We have heard many eloquent speeches about unemployment from our right hon. and hon. Friends, unlike those from Government Members. In the 10 constituencies in England with the highest jobless rate for 18 to 24-year-olds, eight are in the west midlands, and of those eight, six are in the black country. We should bear in mind the devastation that is occurring once again, as in the 1980s, in the west midlands and the black country.

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is right to talk about the impact on his constituents. That is why we need a five-point plan for jobs and growth across the country, including the black country.

Unemployment is at a 17-year high and youth unemployment is almost 1 million. Despite the complacency on the Government Benches, the Government must do something to tackle the crisis. Long-term youth unemployment is at its highest for a generation, with 120,000 young people out of work for more than six months, up a staggering 64% since January. The number of young women who are long-term unemployed has risen to 37,500—the highest level in a generation. Whatever Government Members say, the number of young people in long-term unemployment was falling when the coalition Government were formed and it is increasing on their watch.

[Paul Maynard]

Will the hon. Lady tell me in how many constituencies, according to the figures she requested from the House of Commons Library, did long-term youth unemployment fall between May 2010 and September 2011? I, too, have the figures.

[Rachel Reeves]

The answer is in a very small minority of constituencies. In the hon. Gentleman’s constituency of Blackpool North and Cleveleys, long-term youth unemployment is up 233%, so enough of the complacency—he should be urging the Government into action rather than going along with their out-of-touch attitude.

Throughout the country, the number of young people looking for work has increased in 196 out of 202 local authorities since September last year—97% of local authorities have rising youth unemployment. Even in the Minister’s constituency of South Holland and the Deepings, 50 more young people have been looking for a job for more than six months, which is a 71% increase since January. I see the impact in my constituency of Leeds West day in, day out: 105 extra young people have been looking for work for more than six months, which is a 66% increase. Those numbers speak of a devastating impact on the lives of individuals and families, and they are the result of this out-of-touch Government’s complacency on youth unemployment.

Rising youth unemployment also shows that the Government’s plan A does not make economic sense. With unemployment at a 17-year high, inflation soaring and growth flatlining, the Government are set to borrow an extra £46 billion in this Parliament—and that is before the Office for Budget Responsibility comes up with its revised forecast on 29 November. We are all paying the price for the Government’s failure to get a grip on unemployment with higher Government borrowing and debt.

[Robert Halfon]

Will the hon. Lady answer the question that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) did not answer when I asked him? Why did youth unemployment rise by hundreds of thousands on her watch and under her Government despite all the taxpayers’ money that was spent on one scheme or another?

[Rachel Reeves]

With long-term youth unemployment up 140% in nine months, the hon. Gentleman should be asking questions of this Government rather than looking back to the past. The reality is that unemployment was falling when this Government came into power; now it is rising. That is the difference between a Labour Government and a Conservative-led Government.

The Government like to blame anyone but themselves—that seems to go for Government Back Benchers as well. First they blamed the snow, then they blamed the royal wedding, and now they blame the eurozone, but the truth is that the economy was flatlining and unemployment was rising before the eurozone crisis hit. They needed a plan for jobs and growth before the problems in the eurozone erupted, and they need to change course now more than ever. It is time they took responsibility for their actions.

In the wake of this national crisis of youth unemployment, what have the Government done? More than a year ago, their very first act was to abolish the future jobs fund, which was worse than doing nothing. The future jobs fund got 100,000 young people into work. Before the election, the Prime Minister said that that same future jobs fund was a good scheme. Why did he cancel it, and why did he cancel it before he had a replacement? The Work programme—the Government’s replacement—is no substitute for the future jobs fund. It has one third less funding and is making less of a difference to young people’s lives.

We need jobs and growth and young people need hope and opportunity. They deserve a plan that gets the economy moving and improves the prospects of those leaving school, college and university. That is why Labour has set out a five-point plan for jobs and growth. A £2 billion tax on bank bonuses will both support the construction industry and guarantee a job for 100,000 young people. What could be fairer than using some of the record bank bonuses to get young people back to work? Bringing forward long-term investment projects— which my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham mentioned—utting VAT temporarily to give immediate help to our high streets and struggling families cutting VAT to 5% on home improvements, and a one-year national insurance holiday for every small firm taking on extra workers, will make a huge difference to small businesses and to the 991,000 young people who are out of work today. This is a five-point alternative that offers hope and unlocks opportunity. It is a five-point plan that would get young people back to work, get businesses hiring and get our economy growing. I urge hon. Members to support this action for the sake of the young people up and down this country who have been tossed on the scrap heap by this Government, just as they were in the 1980s and 1990s under Tory Governments of the past.

It is time to learn the lessons. We cannot afford the cost of spiralling unemployment, or of young people leaving school and college without the hope of getting a job. Call it what you will—plan A-plus, plan B or Labour’s five-point plan—but for the sake of 1 million young people waiting for action, I urge hon. Members to support the motion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

As my hon. Friend will be aware, if we were to delay the whole transition for 10 years we would need to find an extra £10 billion of savings out of the £30 billion in the Pensions Bill. We believe that many of the people who are affected by the transition are affected by a lot less than the two years that the hon. Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) mentioned. We are therefore trying to tackle those who are most adversely affected, and I am confident that we will be able to do so.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

May I take this chance to wish the Pensions Minister a happy birthday?

The House knows that changes to the state pension age mean that 500,000 women in their mid-50s will have their pension delayed by more than a year, and 33,000 will have to wait an extra two years. We all welcomed what the Secretary of State and the Minister said about transition on 20 June, yet in Committee the Government tabled no amendments to their legislation, and we have heard not a word from the Minister or the Secretary of State on what those transition arrangements will look like. With the recess starting this week, what hope can the Minister give to those 500,000 women that the Government will put in place some transitional arrangements for a fairer timetable that gives people the chance to prepare, and gives them some certainty as they look forward—they hope—to their retirement?

[Steve Webb]

I thank the hon. Lady for her good wishes for my birthday, and reciprocate by offering her good wishes for her wedding later this summer.

On the specific issue that the hon. Lady raises, she and I have spent the best part of 20 hours debating such things in Committee over the last couple of weeks. The Government wanted to give the Opposition the chance to bring forward some fresh thinking, and we were therefore rather disappointed when they simply retabled the amendments that they had tabled in the House of Lords. We were looking for some fresh thinking—but as it has not come from the Labour party, we will have to do it ourselves.

Pensions Bill [Lords]

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

The coalition agreement states that the parties agree to

“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.'”

The Secretary of State’s provisions clearly breach the coalition agreement, so what has changed?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

With respect, I have just said that there are certain elements that would not be legal. That is all that I am saying. The hon. Lady can go on about this point as much as she likes, but I have answered her. She might not like my answer, but that is the one I have decided to give. The fact that the women who will be affected will remain on the same level of retirement but will be in retirement for two and a half years longer than men is an important feature. I stand by the need to equalise women’s state pension age in 2018.

[Joan Walley]

rose—

[Rachel Reeves]

rose—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I give way to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley).

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves]

Is the Secretary of State honestly saying that the policy has been changed because of legal advice? If that is the case, will he publish that legal advice today before the winding-up speeches and before we vote? Will he also confirm that this is a breach of the coalition agreement?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I do not publish legal advice, but if the hon. Lady reads the coalition agreement, she will see the reasons. I ask her to study it carefully.

I know that the hon. Lady is sincere in what she is saying, but I say one thing to her. She made it clear on the media earlier that it is the Opposition’s policy to move the rise to 66 to 2022 and for it not to start before 2020. That would cost £10 billion. She will presumably have worked that out. Where does she intend to get that £10 billion? We have heard nothing from the Opposition about debt reduction or the financing of future pensions. She should know that her policy would cost £10 billion, and she should consider that important issue.

[Rachel Reeves]

The Secretary of State rightly acknowledges that we have put forward proposals that would save £20 billion. [Interruption.] Has he looked at whether the increase to 67 could be brought forward, which would take us up to a saving of £30 billion? Can we find a compromise on those proposals, which would not cost women aged 56 and 57 so much money?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We agree, then, that the hon. Lady’s proposals would cost us £10 billion. We are on Second Reading, and if she wants to raise the same point or table amendments in Committee, she can do so by all means. The Bill as it stands is exactly as we set out, with equalisation of the age in 2018 and the rise to 66. I have no plans to make any changes to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman would have more credibility if we had heard, at any point in the past 13 months, a single specific proposal for a painful cut with unpopular consequences for a defined group of constituents who would write to all of us, but we have heard none, although we might be about to hear from the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), who gesticulates at me.

[Rachel Reeves]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here for the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), in which my right hon. Friend set out Labour’s proposals to increase the state pension age at a faster rate than in the previous Parliament while still giving people 10 years’ notice. Our proposal would mean that no one would have to wait for more than a year and would not disproportionately affect women of 56 or 57. So although the hon. Gentleman is making a very nice speech, it is not based on facts.

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Lady’s intervention betrays exactly what got her Government—or the Government whom she supported, because she was not in Parliament when they were in government—into such trouble. The only nettles that Labour is willing to grasp are those that will grow in 10 years’ time. There are no nettles now being grasped and there are no decisions that Labour, were they in government, might have to explain to the British people—there are only bills being deferred for later generations. I am afraid that the hon. Lady has revealed the shallowness and hollowness of Labour’s position by bringing forward one cut—one deprivation—that would come in only 10, 20 or 30 years’ hence, when all of us will be pushing up daisies or collecting a somewhat deferred pension.

Let me round up by saying that I hope that people, including even some of the women who will be affected so directly by some of the proposals in the Bill, will have respect for hon. Members on the Government Benches because when we reply to letters from constituents complaining about the unfairness of any of the Government’s individual proposals we are not going to take out the flannel and the soft soap—the first implements that Opposition Members reach for—but are going to explain the situation that the country faces. We are going to explain that, as before in our history, sacrifices are going to have to be made and everybody is going to suffer. Everybody will suffer some loss, but in doing so we will create a country and a public finance platform from which this country can grow again, from which we can make investments again and from which we can help those who need our help most. It is only with that honesty and that ability to admit the difficulty of our circumstances that we will earn the respect of the British people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Today’s debate has shown the concern and anger that exists at the rapid rise in the state pension age. Members on both sides of the House have had the chance to show that they are listening to their constituents, and they now have the chance to assure the women who will be affected that they understand their plight and are willing to vote down these changes.

We have heard from 20 Back Benchers today, but only two—the hon. Members for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) and for Witham (Priti Patel)—have spoken in defence of the policies as they stand. That was a brave decision to take, but I believe that it was ultimately the wrong one. The reasons for the concerns being expressed across the House are clear. As many hon. Members have said, under the proposals, 500,000 women will have to wait more than a year longer for their state pension, with 33,000 having to wait two years longer.

We all know that life expectancy is increasing, so the state pension age needs to rise. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) pointed out that the women writing to her understand that, too. However, it cannot be right for a particular group of women to have their state pension age increased at a faster rate than anyone else’s with such little notice. All hon. Members have emphasised that point today. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) said that there was no evidence that life expectancy was increasing for 57-year-old women at a faster rate than for anyone else, so why are those women being asked to shoulder so much of the burden? My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) said that the changes will start to kick in in just five years from now, in 2016, giving much less notice than the 10 years that Age UK, the Turner report and the Pensions Policy Institute recommend.

Let us think about the women who will be affected, as my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Thamesmead, for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and for Sunderland Central did in their eloquent speeches. The women hit by these changes are the backbone of our families. They are the mums who took time off work to bring up their children, the daughters who are helping their parents as they get older, and the grans who are providing child care for their children’s children, to help their children to balance work and family life. They are the women who have done the right thing. They have looked after their families, they have worked hard and they have played by the rules. They want to look forward to their retirement, not worry about how to make ends meet as they see the pension age being changed again. Moving the goalposts so near to retirement is unfair and unjust. A year ago, the Government seemed to get it. The coalition agreement said that women’s state pension age would not start to rise to 66 before 2020. However, that promise has been breached, and women are being hit hard.

The last few weeks have been filled with speculation that the Government were about to perform a U-turn. We have heard rumours of numerous proposals and options. However, the Secretary of State told us this afternoon that he was going to stand by the proposed timetable, although only this morning the Financial Times reported him saying:

“I understand there are issues and problems and I’ll constantly look at ways to see whether there’s a way of doing”

something about that. What is the truth? Hon. Members who spoke today seemed to think that concessions will be forthcoming for the women most affected by the Bill, but what assurances can the Pensions Minister give to that effect, as we are none the wiser after today’s debate?

Given the double-speak, it is no wonder that utter confusion reigns. The women affected and everyone else planning for retirement need time and they deserve certainty. Even the hon. Members for Grantham and Stamford and for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) say they want certainty in policy, but these proposals are inducing the exact opposite—huge uncertainty. What the Government are offering is utter chaos. It is another example of the shambles at the heart of this Government and symptomatic of what is fundamentally wrong with their approach. Ministers should listen, consult, assess the impact and only then make policy. At the moment, things are happening the wrong way round. That is why the Government are in this mess.

Hon. Members have picked up on many clauses this afternoon—including my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South and the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart), who spoke thoughtfully about the benefits of automatic enrolment of workers into occupational pensions. Automatic enrolment was introduced by the last Labour Government and is set to mean an extra 7 million people saving towards their retirement. As my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) and for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) have said, we regret the watering down of auto-enrolment, as well as the waiting period and the increased threshold before people become enrolled automatically.

Of course, the issue we have heard most about today, on which I shall focus the rest of my comments, are the changes to the state pension age. I will build on the thoughtful speeches made by so many Members of all parties, including my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South and my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North, but also the hon. Members for Arfon (Hywel Williams) and for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott).

The plans we have debated today simply do not meet the test of fairness. These changes mean that half a million people will have to wait more than a year longer for their state pension. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford called these women “rough edges”; I call them 500,000 women and their families who have had their plans blown out of the water so close to their retirement date.

[Nick Boles]

Will the hon. Lady give way? This is outrageous—

[Rachel Reeves]

Yes, I look forward to hearing whether the hon. Gentleman really believes that 500,000 women are rough edges.

[Nick Boles]

I apologise, Mr Speaker, that in the heat of the moment I did not wait for the hon. Lady to give way. I thank her for that at least, but she has made the outrageous assertion that I referred to the women as “rough edges” when I was saying that the policies had some rough edges. I think she should withdraw that outrageous implication.

[Rachel Reeves]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Grantham and Stamford will feel very reassured that he does not regard them as rough edges, but speaks of the rough edges that have resulted from this Government’s policies.

These changes mean a loss of income of up to £10,000 for these women. For those in receipt of pension credit, the loss is closer to £15,000. There is something particularly perverse about targeting this specific group of women. As my hon. Friends the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) have said, the average 57-year-old woman has just £9,100-worth of pension savings compared to £52,800 for a man of the same age—a sixfold difference. About 40% of 57-year-old women have no private savings to fall back on, so how can these changes be fair?

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) and my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen South, for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun have said, all this goes against the coalition agreement that stated that the changes would not start to kick in before 2020. The Secretary of State says that the breach reflects legal advice, but when I asked him to place it in the Library, he did not guarantee to do so. I do not think there is anything illegal about sticking to a commitment and I urge Ministers to publish that legal advice and explain the breach. No one in the country voted for these policies. It is not what coalition MPs signed up to, and there is absolutely no obligation on Government Members to support the breach when we vote this evening.

During this afternoon’s debate, we have heard very few attempts to defend the proposals that we are now being asked to vote on—and I am not surprised. Time after time, Government Members have called for a rethink. Having heard the depth of anger up and down the country, the Government’s excuse that women are living longer simply does not hold water. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) raised the issue of increasing longevity, but he still concedes that these changes are unfair. After all, he will have to explain to the 1,000 women aged 56 and 57 in Ipswich why they will have to bear the brunt of increasing life expectancy for everybody. The same is true of the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans), who pointed to increasing longevity but ultimately concluded that the Government’s proposed changes are unfair on the 1,000 women aged 56 and 57 in his constituency. This applies to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who has 1,100 such women in his constituency to answer to.

The hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) referred to the Government’s introduction of a triple lock guarantee, but he too has serious problems with the Government’s plans. After all, he will need to explain himself to the 1,200 women aged 56 and 57 in his constituency. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) referred to unintended victims of the proposals. There are 1,300 unintended victims in his constituency. The hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) defended the broad direction of Government policy, but referred to the unfair treatment of the 1,200 women aged 56 and 57 in his constituency. The hon. Member for Cardiff Central spoke in support of pension reform, but was nevertheless vocal in her opposition to these particular proposals. Given that her constituency contains 700 women aged 56 and 57, no wonder she wrote on her website this morning that the Government needed to

“think again about these plans and find a way to make them fairer”.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh West, whose constituency contains 1,100 women aged 56 and 57, thinks that the changes are too severe. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford talked of the 1,300 women aged 56 and 57 in his constituency. I wonder what he will say in reply to the letters from his constituents that I am sure are building up in his office. Will he say that the proposals are just the side effects of the rough edges of this policy? The hon. Member for Witham talked of people living longer, but expressed no understanding of the 1,000 women aged 56 and 57 in her constituency. I hope that they were listening to her remarks.

[Nick Boles]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachel Reeves]

I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman once, and I will not do so again.

All the Members who have spoken today—indeed, all Government Members—should think carefully about how they can consistently defend those women and vote for the Bill. In the absence of any concessions from the Minister, I urge Members who think that the changes are unfair and disproportionate to send a message to the Government and vote them down.

I have talked about the way in which the Bill will affect a great number of women and what that entails for them, but what we are really talking about are real lives. We have heard some powerful and moving stories in the Chamber today, particularly from my hon. Friends the Members for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) and for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham). However, I want to touch on the story that was shared with us by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, the story of her constituent Linda Murray. Linda started work at the age of 16. Although she has worked throughout her life, she has never had the benefit of a workplace pension, or had the means to provide one for herself. She works 47 hours a week for a dry cleaner, and it is hard manual work: the sort of work that was described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North. Linda is no longer with her husband, and full retirement is not an option for her, at least for a few years. Her take-home pay is £267 a week, and she faces the impossible task of having to save £1,200 just to be able to work part-time from the age of 64. She is extremely worried about her future. That is just one story from one woman, but each and every one of us in the Chamber will have heard countless more from women in our constituencies who are approaching retirement with fear and trepidation.

At the heart of the issue is fairness. It is not about increasing longevity: we know that people are living longer, and that is a good thing. It is not about the restoration of the earnings link. That is something for which we legislated, and it is a good thing that people will be better off. [Interruption.] We legislated for it, and we welcome it. It is not about the flat-rate pension that is at some point down the track, and may or may not benefit the women about whom we are talking today. No; today’s debate is about half a million women who are being treated without fairness or justice by a Government who act first and think later.

We celebrate increasing longevity, we support the earnings link, and we welcome simplification of the pension system. We would work with the Government on all those things, but any changes in the state pension age must meet two tests. First, people must be given adequate notice and, secondly, there must not be a disproportionate impact on one group. We have set out an alternative that would equalise men’s and women’s state pension ages by 2020 and increase the state pension age for men and women to 66 by 2022.

We would work with the Government on proposals of their own as long as they met the two tests that we have set out. I think that that is what many Government Members seek from the Government. In that way we could save money, make pensions sustainable, show fairness, and treat people with dignity and respect. Right now, the policy is in a state of chaos. Ministers need to get a grip. We have heard many pleas for concessions, but none has been forthcoming. The mood in the House today has made it clear to the Minister that he must think again. I urge him, and his Government, to do so, and I urge hon. Members to vote down the Bill this evening.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend raised this important issue, I think, in last Wednesday’s debate when we were startled when she declared an interest in the question. Were we to address the concerns of that group of 33,000 women, we would find that women born one month before or after—who might be affected by a few months less, but still significantly—would ask for a change as well. The short answer is that to delay the whole thing till 2020, as some have suggested, would require an additional £10 billion to be found. She will understand why that is not possible.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

The early-day motion calling on the Government to rethink these unfair changes to the pension system has been signed by 180 hon. Members, including 23 Liberal Democrats and three Conservatives. More than 10,000 people have presented a petition to Downing street asking the Government to think again, and the campaign is backed by Age UK and Saga. If the Government can U-turn on forests and, just last week, announce a U-turn on sentencing, surely they can listen and act upon the concerns of women now approaching retirement with fear and trepidation.

[Steve Webb]

To the extent that we know what the hon. Lady’s policy is, it appears to be: to put it off for a decade. Unfortunately, one of the problems with the previous Government’s approach on so many difficult issues was to put them off and assume that somebody else would pay. On pensions, that would require another £10 billion to be paid by tomorrow’s national insurance payers. Does she think that that is a fair burden, given that the people retiring shortly will benefit from the greater longevity?

Post Office Card Account

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing this debate, which I know will be welcomed by people up and down the country who rely on post office services in their local community and value the Post Office card account. As she said, this debate is a chance for the Minister to alleviate some of the concerns felt by sub-postmasters and postmistresses and their customers. Consensus is building on the importance of guaranteeing Royal Mail business for the Post Office. I hope that the Government will take note.

Two key issues are at stake. The first is ensuring access to pensions and benefits, especially for vulnerable people and those in rural communities. The second is ensuring that the post office network as a business is viable and vibrant in the long term. The importance of both those issues rings true in my constituency, where temporary closures include the Hawksworth Wood post office, which has been closed for nearly a year, despite Government promises that there would be no more post office closures. Since the closure, local residents have had to travel to other areas for the post office services that they value, either tackling a long, steep hill or paying for a bus to another part of the city. The closure has been devastating to the community served by the post office. It has been particularly hard on older people and more vulnerable people, as many hon. Members have said, because the face-to-face service that they are used to is extremely valuable.

I am sure that many hon. Members have experienced similar closures in their constituencies and know at first hand the difficulties that they create. Currently, 424 post offices are temporarily closed, 417 of which have been closed for a prolonged period. It is vital that we strive to keep post offices open and help them adapt to changing demands from their customers and, particularly, to protect the vulnerable. Post offices are at the heart of many of our communities, and we need to make it easier for them to survive. The business generated by the Post Office card account can help them to do so.

Labour did not get everything right on post offices, but POCA in the post office network was a proud achievement. POCA was introduced by the Labour Government to improve financial inclusion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) said. That is particularly important in deprived and remote areas. I am proud of Labour’s decision to introduce POCA and the decision in 2008 not to allow it to leave the post office network, which would have diverted business away from the Post Office and jeopardised the viability of many of our local post offices.

About 4 million Department for Work and Pensions benefit and account payments were made through POCA in 2010, to a group of customers who rely on a simple service to receive their pensions and benefits. Many of them are elderly: 55% are pensioners. POCA is a core aspect of Post Office business and a key driver of footfall, but it is also designed to promote basic financial inclusion. Unlike most financial products—I say this as someone who used to work in financial services—POCA has huge support among the people who use it. When the POCA contract was on the agenda in 2006, as has been said, it generated 4 million signatures in support of keeping it in the post office network. I believe that that is the largest ever peacetime petition.

A Help the Aged survey of its members also found that they were overwhelmingly in favour of the service. Help the Aged’s report highlighted the importance of post offices, particularly to older people who rely on POCA, and POCA’s popularity in rural areas where no local bank is easily accessible. That is also an issue in some of the most deprived urban areas.

The Post Office card account has several key advantages for its customers. Some 71% of people without access to a bank account depend on POCA to receive payments. POCA customers are often people who cannot or do not want to access bank accounts; 30% have no other bank account. According to Age UK, someone from an unbanked household is 23 times more likely to use a POCA than someone from a household with access to bank accounts. POCA is also the only facility for receiving benefits or pensions open to people who have been declared bankrupt. Another good feature is that the facility offers no risk of getting into debt. POCA also offers a crucial facility for people with mobility problems. Almost 10% of Post Office card account holders have a second card that can be given to a carer to draw cash on their behalf, a facility not available through high-street banks.

POCA was introduced as part of a wide-ranging approach to financial inclusion as a simple facility for people who could not or did not wish to use a bank account. However, POCA alone is not enough to ensure that older, vulnerable and hard-to-reach customers are financially included. To do so, the Government could work to identify links with credit unions and consider carefully what steps are needed to increase the accounts’ functionality in the interests of post offices and their customers. Like other hon. Members, I urge the Government to increase POCA’s functionality and consider whether direct debits could be introduced. Even now, people with a Post Office card account but no bank account do not get the direct debit service that helps save money and time on utility bills and other payments, a service that most of us take for granted.

There are, of course, risks involved in introducing direct debit functionality. The Treasury financial inclusion taskforce has documented the excess charges often incurred by new users of bank accounts, and they must be taken into account, as average losses are £140 a year and charges are focused on the poorest households. Consumer Focus also has concerns, but none the less supports a more flexible POCA account, and its research indicates that POCA users do too.

The coalition agreement said:

“We will give Post Office card account holders the chance to benefit from direct debit discounts and ensure that social tariffs offer access to the best prices available.”

In answers to parliamentary questions, the DWP has also said that research is being conducted on the subject. What steps have been taken to ensure that that promise is delivered?

Members are keen to ensure that POCA lasts beyond 2015 and that we have some certainty about the future, as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli said. The year 2015 may seem like a long way off, but POCA customers and sub-postmasters—like many Liberal Democrat MPs, if I may say so—look to 2015 with some trepidation.

When exploring options for increased functionality, it is important to consider that the Post Office has unprecedented access to the consumers whom credit unions are best able to support. Credit unions do an immense amount of good in our communities. The Leeds and Bramley credit unions have a tangible impact on the lives of my constituents, too many of whom, lacking access to the services that credit unions offer, are driven into the arms of loan sharks. However, credit unions in my constituency lack a shop front and a high-street presence. The post office network could help change that.

Despite sending a mixed message with the financial inclusion fund, the Government have supported credit unions and could take a serious step to support them by linking them with the Post Office when considering the Post Office card accounts. Will the Minister update us on what practical measures the Government are taking to support that aim? Hon. Members support credit unions as an important source of affordable finance within our communities and welcome the opportunity to increase footfall in our post offices.

We must make it easier for post offices to survive. POCA is one of the services that ensures the viability of post offices. About 20% of total visits to post offices, or 6.5 million visits a week, are made to access POCA payments. POCA brings in a significant portion of income for sub-postmasters up and down the country. The National Federation of SubPostmasters has estimated that it provides 10% of sub-postmasters’ net pay. In rural and deprived areas such as Truro and Falmouth, Argyll and Leeds West, that proportion jumps significantly: it is about 12% in deprived urban areas, for example. Indeed, 15% of sub-postmasters earn £400 or more a month from POCA transactions. Nationally, POCA brings in about £195 million a year.

POCA customers ensure vital footfall and additional income to ensure that post offices remain at the heart of our communities, but a Government supposedly committed to preserving the footfall have already failed one test by handing the green giro contract to PayPoint. Now 250,000 people who would previously have gone to post offices to collect their green giros will no longer do so. That is a negative step that could damage our post offices and reduce the services available to customers.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

The hon. Lady will be aware, as has been said, that the previous Government initiated a competitive tender and set criteria for bidding. All of it was undertaken according to strict European Union competition rules. If one of the two bidders was substantially cheaper than the other, does she think that the Government should have gone with the higher bidder?

[Rachel Reeves]

As the Minister knows, that decision would have been outside my domain, but we should consider the Labour Government’s decision in 2008 to award the Post Office card account to the Post Office rather than continuing with the tender. That is an example of what this Government could have done if they had chosen to do so, but they did not.

In evidence to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs for its report on postal services, the general secretary of the Communication Workers Union, Billy Hayes, described the decision to remove green giros from the Post Office, at a time when the Government were committed to increasing the use of the post office network, as being

“about as joined-up as spaghetti”.

This is a hit to the footfall in post offices, and I urge the Government to ensure that POCA remains a Post Office account.

With the POCA contract subject to competition tendering requirements, and considering the fact that only 4,000 of approximately 12,000 post offices are viable independent of the shops in which they operate, the stakes for the future POCA contract could not be higher. Moreover, with Government commitments to the post bank seemingly in the long grass, as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli has said, and with little tangible progress towards making the Post Office the front office for government, what assurances can the Minister give us that POCA will be part of securing the commitment to maintaining post office services?

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Lady has mentioned—with, I think, approval—the remarks of Billy Hayes from the CWU about this Government’s approach. Does her party support Billy Hayes’s mantra of no cuts?

[Rachel Reeves]

That is outside the domain of today’s debate. I quoted what Billy Hayes said about taking the green giro account away from the post office network. I do not think that he supports that. I think that he would have preferred to have kept it in the post office network. That is the context in which I quoted his comment that the Government’s policy is

“about as joined-up as spaghetti”.

[Richard Graham]

What does the hon. Lady estimate would have been the cost to Government of re-awarding the green giro contract, and how would her party have funded that?

[Rachel Reeves]

As the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth has said, it would be good to see the Government working on a more joined-up basis. Savings for one area of government put costs on another area of government, and this is a prime example of that. It also goes against the commitments in both the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat manifestos. They would have put more services into post offices, but awarding the green giro account to PayPoint goes against those principles.

[Mr Reid]

The hon. Lady keeps forgetting that it was the previous Labour Government who wrote the tender specification, which could have specified the need for an extensive rural network. That would have meant that only the Post Office would have qualified, so why did her Government not specify the tender in that way?

[Rachel Reeves]

As I have said, the Labour Government did not get everything right in relation to post offices. The Labour party is using the period of our policy review process to look at a large number of our policies. I return to the point, however, that both the Liberal Democrat and Conservative manifestos made it clear that those parties were committed to giving more services to post offices, not to removing them. That is why the decision on the green giro was so disappointing, because it went against those commitments.

To return to another point that I made earlier in response to the Minister’s question, although POCA was put out to tender, the previous Labour Government recognised the public concern, ended that process and gave POCA to the Post Office. That decision was welcomed by our constituents and by post offices up and down the country.

[Richard Graham]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachel Reeves]

I will, but we need to get to the Minister’s remarks, so this will be the last intervention that I will take.

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her generosity. It is worth highlighting the fact that the commitment in my party’s manifesto was to maintain the post office network. The commitment by this Government to provide £1.35 billion to make sure that Post Office Limited maintains that network is the single most important example of expenditure to maintain a post office service that I can think of over the past 15 years. Does she not agree?

[Rachel Reeves]

The Conservative manifesto said:

“Nothing underlines the powerlessness that many communities feel more than the loss of essential services, like post offices”.

We all know, however, that removing services such as the green giro from post offices makes it harder for them to be viable in the long term. The Government may be giving money in one way, but they are taking money away from post offices by removing from them services such as the green giro.

Today’s debate has been consensual, with representatives from all parties saying that they want to support their local post offices. We should welcome that consensus and try to work together to support post offices and the people who use them in all our communities. That has been the tone of my remarks. I have admitted that Labour did not always get things right, and it would be good to hear other Members say that not everything that their parties are doing is right in representing the people whom we are here to serve—our constituents.

In conclusion, we have heard useful and interesting contributions from Members who represent both urban and rural areas, who know first hand how important post offices are in their communities. I have set out what I think are the key questions surrounding POCA and some wider questions that the Government must answer on the future of postal services.

I have already quoted the Conservative manifesto, but the Lib Dems also promised a post bank as a central plank of their efforts to keep post offices open. People who rely on the post office are keen to know what is happening now that those two parties are in government. They are keen to hear whether the coalition partners are making POCA part of realising their pre-election promises, both up to and beyond 2015.

The post office is at the heart of communities up and down the country. In an era of falling trust in financial services, the Post Office remains a beacon of hope for restoring trust. I welcome this debate—I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth again on securing it—as an opportunity to lend support to POCA and post offices, and to emphasise that decisions about POCA should be made with the intention of making sure that the post office is a viable and vibrant part of our communities in both urban and rural areas, offering services that pensioners, families and the most vulnerable in society rely on.

State Pension Age (Women)

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on securing this debate on such an important and unjust matter and on her early-day motion 1402, which has secured 138 signatures from across all the main parties.

I also congratulate Age UK on the campaign that it has been running. Those of us who get the tube to work in the morning and come up the escalators and into Portcullis house will have seen the posters that adorn the walls. They tell the stories of some of the women who will be affected by these changes. Some of those stories have been related by hon. Members from all parties this morning.

My hon. Friend spoke about some of the organisations that have provided support on this matter, such as Age UK, which I have already mentioned, and Saga. There have also been supportive articles in the Daily Mail and The Guardian. There is a broad coalition against the proposal, and we hope that the Government will take on board some of criticisms of the Pensions Bill, especially of clause 1 and the increase in the state pension age.

People who are approaching retirement say, “This is a bit like a horizon. You can always see it in the distance, but you can never quite get to it.” As my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) and for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) have said, the goalposts just keep moving, and that does not seem fair, especially when people are trying to make the right decisions. They plan, contribute, bring up families and care for relatives, yet they are being penalised.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with my constituent who said that she felt discriminated against when she started work 30 years ago because she was barred from joining a personal pension scheme? She feels discriminated against now because of her date of birth and the fact that her pension will be delayed.

[Rachel Reeves]

I could not agree more. That is a big issue and one that I will address later. For a number of reasons, this group of women are particularly ill-equipped to deal with the changes that the Government are trying to force upon them.

I want to pick up on a couple of points raised by the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke). The proposals go against the coalition agreement, which states:

“The parties agree to…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.”

These changes bring forward the equalisation of the state pension age to 2018, which is not mentioned in the coalition agreement, and they raise the state pension age for women to 66 in 2018—two years earlier than promised in the agreement.

Although there is increasing pressure on the Liberal Democrats to stick with the coalition agreement, there is no obligation on the Minister to support this breach or for coalition MPs to vote for it. No one in the country voted for this at the general election a year ago, and it is not what coalition MPs signed up to when they made their promises in the rose garden. We have heard a great deal from Liberal Democrat Members today. I hope that that means that people who are approaching retirement can feel that their MPs will not support these proposals.

To reiterate points that have already been made, 2.6 million women and 2.3 million men will have to wait longer for their state pension than they previously had been told. Some 500,000 women will have a delay of a year before they get their pensions and about 300,000 women will have a delay of 18 months or more. Unfortunately, 33,000 women who were born between early March and early April 1954 will have to wait another two years before they receive their state pension. I have been lobbied by a huge number of women on these issues, not least by my own mother who was born on 30 March 1954. She very much hopes that the Minister will be listening to every word that I say today.

There is fewer than five years’ notice before these changes take effect. The Turner report says that people should be given at least 15 years’ notice, and the Pensions Policy Institute believes that these changes do not give enough notice. Women need longer to prepare for changes in the state pension age because they tend to become part-time workers sooner than men of the same age.

As of April 2011, the basic state pension is worth £102.15 a week. Pension credit is worth £137.35 a week. Those women who are seeing a delay in their state pension age of two years face a loss of pension income of more than £10,000. For those in receipt of pension credit, that loss is closer to £15,000. That does not take into account the passported benefits that come along with a pension.

Longevity is increasing and Members from all parts of the House welcome that, but we cannot move the goalposts every time an actuary changes his forecast. Six months before the election, the Minister himself said:

“Pension policy needs to be stable and predictable years ahead, not made up on the back of a cigarette packet.”

I agree with the Minister. Although his words are still on his website, he is now making policy up on the back of that cigarette packet and it is hitting women particularly hard. Indeed, the recently published Green Paper on the flat rate pension consults on reasoned mechanisms for increasing the state pension age, which is a recognition of the unfairness that is being imposed on women by the Pensions Bill, which is just about to come to the House. That Green Paper does not include consultation on arbitrary changes with five years’ notice. The reason that it does not consult on those types of changes is because the Minister, his Department and the Government know that they are unfair. So why is he forcing them upon women who are 56 or 57 years old?

My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central talked about the savings of women who are 56 or 57. There is something particularly perverse about targeting that specific group, because those women who are 56 or 57 now have average pension savings of £9,100, compared to the average pension savings of men of the same age of £52,800. At retirement, pension savings of £9,100 work out at £564 a year or £11 a week. The reasons for the difference in the average pension savings of men and women are varied, but the key point is that these women I am talking about are not in a financial position to absorb the changes being proposed at such short notice.

These women have earned far less during their lives than men of the same age. In 1980, the gender pay gap was 28.5%. When these women were in their 20s, they were earning on average almost 30% less than men of the same age. The gender pay gap has been closing since 1980 and it is now about 16%, but the point is that these women have suffered inequality throughout their working lives. They now face a double whammy and are paying the price for getting us there too quickly.

In addition, a lot of these women have worked part-time at some point in their life, particularly when they were bringing up children. In fact, many of them are also working part-time now, to help to care for elderly parents or grandchildren. As other Members have said already, these women are the big society. They are doing the caring work that we value as much as their work in the workplace. Of course, many of them have also had interrupted careers and have not paid full national insurance contributions. The Minister’s own Department estimates that women are entitled to receive £30 less in their basic state pension than men. All those points show that these women are more reliant on the state pension than their male equivalents, first because they have much lower private occupational pension savings and secondly because they are in not such a good position as men to increase their savings in the next five years.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

The hon. Lady quite properly raises the issue of the big society by talking about volunteering, caring and so on. Under our proposals, the equalisation at the age of 66 will be in 2020. Under Labour proposals, it would be in 2026. In 2026, every single point that she has just made would also be true, would it not?

[Rachel Reeves]

The point is that these women will have time to prepare for changes if they happen in 2026. Changes in 2026 were legislated for in 2008, which meant that the people we are talking about today had 18 years’ notice of any changes. That is very different from the changes that the Government are introducing because they will start in 2016, giving people just five years’ notice. That is the point that Members are making today. We are not saying that we do not think that there should be any changes to the state pension age, because with increasing longevity it is right that people should work longer, but it is not right to move the goalposts and leave people so little time to prepare for changes.

As I said earlier, the loss of pension income for someone who has to wait two more years for their state pension is about £10,000, or it can be up to £15,000 if they are on pension credit. It is not feasible that that group of people can make up that difference in a five-year period, yet that is what the Minister is asking them to do.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

In Newport, 1,500 women will be affected by this change. Some of them have contacted me to say how betrayed they feel about it. Presumably, however, hundreds of them are unaware that it will happen. Is it not true that many women are not only not being given enough time to prepare for the change but are unaware that it is coming in a very short period of time?

[Rachel Reeves]

Yes. That is another point that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead made earlier. Many of the women who will be affected by this change have written to us, but even more women have not done so. The reason they have not written to us is not because they are happy and fine with these changes. By and large, it is because they are not aware of them. They are aware that they will have to work for longer than they had previously thought, because of the changes made in 1995 that will equalise the state pension age for men and women by 2020, but they do not know that those additional changes are coming down the line. So they are making changes now—as I said before, many of them are moving to part-time work so that they can care for elderly parents or young grandchildren—unaware that these additional changes are coming down the line. I think that people will be particularly worried or scared about what the future holds for them.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she agree that, if those women do not hear the Minister say that he is revising these proposals because they represent an unintended anomaly, they can only conclude that they are being selected as the victims of an intentional injustice and that they are to suffer a drive-by hit on their pension rights?

[Rachel Reeves]

Yes. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention also touches on a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) made earlier when she talked about the importance of people having trust in the pensions system. Unless we trust the pensions system and can have some certainty about what the future holds for us, it is very difficult for people—both men and women—to prepare for the future.

I want to quote something else that the Minister has said. In October 2009, he said:

“The Tories still seem to think that as long as women have husbands they don’t need to worry about their pensions.”

I wonder whether he has changed his views now that he is in government with the Conservatives. As the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole said earlier, women have been consistently badly served by the pensions system, both occupational and state. In opposition, the Minister campaigned for women pensioners, but now that he is in government he is hurting them hard. I wonder why he is doing that, when he is under no obligation to do so. I repeat that these changes were not in the coalition agreement, so he has no reason to support them.

Of course, the Minister has claimed that these women have jobseeker’s allowance to fall back on. But as hon. Members have already said, that does not seem to be the point. Talking about JSA is an insult to those who have worked their entire lives, especially because JSA only provides about half the income that the pension credit provides and about two thirds of the income that the basic state pension provides. These women do not want a handout. They legitimately want to receive the pension that they have contributed to on the date that they were promised it. Again, that brings us back to the issue of trust. It is so important that people have trust in the pensions system.

We have heard a lot of stories today about how these changes will affect great numbers of women, because every one of those 500,000 women who will have to wait an additional year before they receive their state pension has a personal story. We have heard some of those stories already. I want to tell Members two stories that I have heard that I think are particularly powerful. The first is from Barbara Bates, who says:

“From the age of 15, I have worked every day of my life, apart from a few years when I stayed at home to care for my disabled husband until his death in 2003. Since 1995, I have thought that I would retire in 2018, when I will be 64. I have based all my plans for the future on this. I now have to wait an extra two years to retire—in April 2020, when I will be 66. I feel robbed—robbed of two years of freedom, and robbed of more than £10,000 that I would have received as my state pension. The basic state pension will be my only retirement income, and I have no extra means of coping financially. I will have no option but to try and carry on working. I have osteoarthritis in my thumbs and wrists now, which makes the lifting and cleaning work in my job harder: I’m not sure how I’ll manage to the age of 66.”

I will read out another story, from Linda Murray:

“I started working at 16 and have worked full-time ever since, apart from a brief period of part-time work when I was caring for my mother. I work in a very physically demanding job, at a dry cleaners, for 46 hours each week just to make ends meet. I have never had the means to save for a private pension. When I started work, private pensions were not readily available for ordinary workers. We paid our contributions and assumed that we would draw a state pension and that it would be sufficient. Due to my circumstances, I know that full retirement is no longer an option. My plan was to greatly reduce my hours when I received my pension and return to part-time work. Now I estimate that I would need to save at least £12,000 just to be able to work part-time from the age of 64. Saving anything is impossible. I will not be able to continue working these demanding hours until the age of 66 and I am deeply worried about my future.”

It is people such as Linda and Barbara who I think most of us went into politics to serve, yet the Minister, who in opposition campaigned so much for women, is now hitting them hard, as I said earlier. These are stories, not numbers, and they hit home hard. It is wrong to hurt a group of women disproportionately, by giving them such little notice of a change when they have such little chance of making up the difference in income that they will lose.

Labour accepts and celebrates increasing longevity and therefore we accept that there is a need to increase the state pension age, as we did when we implemented the recommendations of the Turner report. However, making changes to pensions must be done in a fair way, giving people enough time to prepare for them.

What Labour now proposes is no more changes before 2020 and, if the Government accept the amendment to the Pensions Bill that they rejected in the House of Lords, we will support the state pension age increasing from 65 to 66 between 2020 and 2022. That would achieve a £20 billion reduction in expenditure, would affect equal numbers of men and women and, crucially, would affect 1.2 million fewer people than the Government’s current plans. It would give people nine years—not just five—to adjust to the changes, and no one would have to wait more than a year longer than expected to claim their state pension, to which they had contributed throughout their lives.

We will not let this matter go and nor, do not think, will the women affected. We must hold the coalition to account on its agreement.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

Has my hon. Friend been given any indication as to why this group of women has been so unfairly targeted?

[Rachel Reeves]

We will hear from the Minister in a moment, but we heard the arguments being rehearsed when the Pensions Bill was debated in the House of Lords. We are told that we first need to reduce the budget deficit but, as other Members have said, these provisions will not change that deficit in this Parliament and if the Government’s plans to eliminate the structural deficit in this Parliament come true, I do not see why changes on this scale will be needed in the next Parliament.

The Government’s other claim is about longevity, but longevity is not especially increasing for women aged 57, so why are we particularly targeting women of that age? If the Government wanted to look more broadly at longevity and increases in the state pension age, they would, I think, get cross-party support for that. It is particularly unfair and disproportionate to harm a group of women who have five years to prepare for the changes and have so little chance of making up the difference in lost income, which is what the women who have been writing to all of us are saying.

My final quote from the Minister is:

“a pension promise made should be a pension promise kept.”

He and his colleagues should heed that, and we are not alone in our thinking. Age UK, the unions, Saga, The Guardian and the Daily Mail are all arguing for the Government to think again, and Age UK has organised a mass lobby of Parliament for a week today.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

The change to the pension provision was not in the coalition agreement and will do nothing to reduce the deficit by 2015. It will, however, as my hon. Friend has said, hit 5 million hard-working people, 500,000 of whom are women who will suffer particularly harshly. Does she agree that this is another example of hard-hearted Tory policies hitting the ordinary working person?

[Rachel Reeves]

I agree, but I would also go a bit further: not only was the change not in the coalition agreement—reached just a year ago—but it contradicts it. The agreement states that the state pension age for women will not start to rise to 66 before 2020, but under these proposals that rise will start in 2018. For that simple reason, coalition MPs from both the Liberal Democrat and the Conservative parties are under no obligation to support the changes.

The lobby of Parliament organised by Age UK for a week today will give a voice to those who are adversely and unfairly affected, and I hope that the Minister will spare some time to meet some of the women who are hit by the changes and are coming down to Westminster to oppose them.

The Bill has had its First Reading in the Commons and we are awaiting its Second Reading. I once again urge the Minister to honour the coalition agreement to which he signed up, to admit that the impact of the proposals is unacceptable, and to revise the timetable so that no one has their pension delayed by more than a year and trust can be restored in the pension system, a system which the Minister, in his heart, believes is so important.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on securing this debate, and I very much welcome the fact that so many Members from both sides of the House have attended. I agree that the matters we are debating are important, and the hon. Lady has made her points in a measured and thoughtful way. I will try to respond to each of those points in turn, and also to some of the other contributions that have been made.

I shall start with what appears to be an element of consensus, although the more one looks at it the less of a consensus it seems. It has been welcomed that people are living longer, and there is an acceptance that state pension ages need to rise, and as far as I can see that is about the limit of the consensus. The current schedule for raising the state pension age, which is to 66 in the mid-2020s, 67 in the mid-2030s and 68 in the mid 2040s, is incredibly slow relative to the improvements in life expectancy that we are seeing. The Turner commission, which has been mentioned, said that one could look at a principle for raising the state pension age, for example fixing the proportion of life spent in retirement, but the schedule that we have inherited does not deliver on that. We need, therefore, to look at more rapid increases in the state pension age to 66, 67 and 68.

It has been implied that what we are doing is somehow extreme, but if we think back to 1990, for example—before the Pensions Act 1995, which increased the state pension age from 60 to 65—the typical woman retiring at the age of 60 would get a pension for 24 years. Even with our plans, in 2020 the typical 66-year-old woman will get a pension for 24 years. That context is important, because the improvement in life expectancy to which we are responding is astonishing. It is not just that we are all living a bit longer and life will carry on as before. Life will not carry on as before, not for the Government, society, the health service or the pension system. We are moving into a totally different world, to which very gradual incremental change will not respond sufficiently. The previous Government did not grasp that fact, and simply pushed it off into the middle distance.

[Rachel Reeves]

Is there any evidence that 56 and 57-year-old women’s longevity is going up particularly fast compared with everyone else’s? If not, why is the Minister disproportionately affecting that group of women?

[Steve Webb]

We had to take a judgment about not affecting people who were within a few years of retirement, those who were 58, 59 or so and were set to get their pensions in their early 60s. We took the view that change for them would be too soon, which is why nothing at all changes before 2016. However, having gone past that initial point, the crucial group—the one-month cohort, which a number of Members have mentioned—will, assuming that the Bill gets Royal Assent this summer, get six years and eight months’ notice of the change. I accept that notice, which has been mentioned by several Members, is the key issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

In a moment. The pace of improvement in longevity is breathtaking. Between 2004 and 2008—the longevity projections of 2004 are, I think, what the previous Government’s legislation was based on, and those of 2008 are what we have now—life expectancy at pension age increased by well over a year in just four years. It is almost like a runaway train. We can always say, “Let’s wait another decade,” but one of the problems is that there is a trade-off, because, as I have said, what has been missing from this debate is the people who have to pay.

Delaying for 10 years, which is what I think the hon. Member for Leeds West is suggesting, does not mean a free lunch. It would mean a £10 billion national insurance hit on today’s workers and today’s firms. If she were wearing another hat, the hon. Lady would be saying, “The recovery is fragile and we need to do more for jobs and to boost the economy,” but what she is saying is that we should levy another £10 billion of national insurance on today’s workers, including low-paid women who do not have much pension, and today’s firms, which may have to lay off people who will not then be able to build up decent pensions. There will be no free lunch if we delay.

[Rachel Reeves]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

There is a queue. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Wirral South first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

I hope that the hon. Lady will respond to our consultation on the right process. She raises the important issue of how we strike a balance. The fact is that one in six of us alive today will live to be not 88, but 100, and that figure is increasing all the time. How do we strike a balance between that and giving people notice? We could have a principle of always giving people x years’ notice, which would mean that it would not matter if longevity improved dramatically after that point. That is part of what we are consulting on and there are trade-offs. I hope that the hon. Lady will respond to that.

We are moving into a world in which pension ages will not be the rock-solid certainty that they have been in the past, because they cannot be. The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who has left the Chamber, said that this is like someone starting a job but having their contract changed halfway through. On that basis, people start paying national insurance at 16, have a guaranteed pension age for the next 50-odd years, and have another 20-odd years after they start drawing a pension. Therefore, the second that they are in the system at 16, nothing can change until 70. That is economic madness. There has to be some adjustment, but I accept that it has to be done in a measured way, which is why we are consulting on an appropriate mechanism.

[Rachel Reeves]

I fear that, at this rate, the Minister will start sending pensioners back to work if they live too long. Returning to the review, would it not have been better to have done it and find out what the right trade-off is before increasing the state pension age for 57-year-old women with such little notice?

The Minister says that Labour is saying that we have to find another £10 billion or £30 billion for these changes. This is about cutting spending—the Government are cutting £30 billion of spending. I do not want additional spending. First, Labour wants to halve the budget deficit in this Parliament. Secondly, our proposals would cut £20 billion-worth of spending, so we are not asking for additional spending. I would like that put on the record.

[Steve Webb]

Unless there is some free money to be had somewhere, delaying for 10 years must cost somebody something. It is fantasy economics to think that we can get 10 billion quid from somewhere. The hon. Lady must agree that that £10 billion would have to be paid by today’s workers and today’s firms. It has to come from somewhere—perhaps the hon. Lady thinks that it could be magicked from the air—and there is a trade-off between today’s workers and today’s pensioners.

Time is short, so I will conclude my response to the debate. I welcome and recognise the point that, ideally, we would give people more notice than we have. I fully accept that. The difficulty is that delay, which is always the easy option, has a huge impact on the state of the nation’s finances and on our response to a world in which people are living substantially longer. Our goal is to strike a fair balance. I will certainly reflect further on the contributions of my hon. Friends and other Members. As has been said, throughout my career I have campaigned for a fairer pensions system for women. I believe that some of the proposals that we are talking about for the next generation of retiring women will make a huge difference to their quality of life. Some of the points that have been put on the record today have been made forcefully and effectively.

State Pension Reform

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a short statement about state pensions. The coalition has already taken steps to support current pensioners by reintroducing the earnings link for the basic state pension. Indeed, we went one step further with our triple guarantee, which will mean that a pensioner retiring today can expect to receive about £15,000 more in basic pension over the life of their retirement. However, the pensioners of tomorrow face a new landscape. With longevity continuing to increase, future pensioners can expect to work for longer and they may not have the same levels of housing equity. They are less likely to have the certainty of a final salary pension and from 2012 we will introduce a new system of automatic enrolment into workplace pensions.

Today, the Government are publishing a consultation document, which looks at whether the existing pensions system is suitable for meeting the challenges of the future. This Green Paper marks the next step in the coalition’s plan to create a system that is fair and simple for pensioners and that rewards those people who do the right thing and take responsibility for their future. It is right that we ask people to take responsibility for their retirement by saving over the course of their working lives, but it is also right that the Government should play their part by ensuring that we support those who make the right choices for their future and those of their families.

If we want to encourage pension saving, the key is getting the state pension system right. The current system has been in a sort of permanent evolution for decades, which means that planning for retirement is fiendishly complex. The Green Paper sets out two options for reform, neither of which involves spending more money on future pensioners than has already been forecast through the existing system. The key is to spend the money we have better. The objective is clear: to move to a simple, contributory state pension system that provides flat-rate support above the level of the means-tested guarantee credit, which would be easy to understand, efficient to deliver and provide a firm foundation for further saving.

The first option involves bringing forward existing reforms so that the state pension would evolve into a two-tier, flat rate system more quickly. The second, more radical, option is to move to a single-tier state pension. Both options are for future pensioners; pensioners who have already reached state pension age by the date of reform would not be affected, so no existing recipient of state pension would see their income reduced. For future pensioners, we would also continue to honour the contributions that people have built up to the date of reform. The option of a single-tier state pension would be a marked improvement on the current system, which is dogged by complexity and confusion. During the transition, many would receive their single-tier pension from a combination of their state and contracted-out scheme, as happens now, which means that they would receive less than the currently estimated £140 directly from their state pension.

Let me give hon. Members an idea of just how confusing the present UK pension system is for the average person. The Pensions Commission has described it as one of the most complex in the world and a departmental survey on attitudes to pensions found that barely one in four people agreed that

“they knew enough about pensions to decide with confidence about how to save for retirement.”

Worse still, few people have a clear idea of what their state pension will be worth when they retire. Critically, the current system actually discourages some people from putting anything aside; the mass reliance on means-tested benefits leaves people unsure whether they will benefit from the savings they make. Automatic enrolment into workplace pensions with employer contributions are due to start from next year, so we need to give people more clarity and certainty about what they will get from the state, thereby giving them a firm foundation for decisions about saving to fund their retirement.

For women, the low-paid and the self-employed, the state pension system can produce unfair outcomes. As a result, people in those broad groups are far more likely to have poorer state pensions, which we will address. Under a single-tier state pension, for example, the self-employed would be able to build up as good a state pension as anyone else. They stand to gain around £1.40 a week of state pension for every year of national insurance contributions that they make, up to a maximum of 30 years. That could provide them with a state pension of around £140 a week, instead of the current rate of £97. Currently, less than 50% of women in their late 40s or early 50s are expected to get £140 a week from state pension income in retirement. Our proposals would address that. We are clear that reform on this scale could take many years to deliver, but the prize—providing clarity to savers and all those planning for their retirement —is a real one.

There are two other, related issues. The Government recognise that means-tested benefits play an important role in targeting support where it is needed most and provide an essential safety net for the most vulnerable. However, means-tested benefits add to complexity and can be a real disincentive to saving for many people. Therefore, in addition to consulting on the two state pension options that I have briefly mentioned, the Green Paper seeks views on whether the current system of means-tested support would best meet the needs of future pensioners. On the state pension age, as life expectancy projections continue to be revised upwards, we also have a responsibility to ensure that the pensions system is sustainable and that the costs of increasing longevity are shared fairly between the generations. Therefore, as well as reforms to the state pension, we are consulting on the most appropriate mechanism for determining future changes to the state pension age.

As the coalition addresses those issues, I shall be seeking as many views and contributions to the debate as possible. We shall be asking all interested parties—hon. Members, employers, pension providers, members of the public and specialists—to work with us to ensure that we deliver the state pension system that the people of this country deserve. If we want future generations to take responsibility for their retirement, we need to deliver a simpler and fairer state pension system that acts as a foundation for people to build up to a decent income in retirement. Fairer, simpler systems that reward people who do the right thing and take personal responsibility for themselves and their families—these are precisely the same themes that run through the welfare reforms being implemented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, from the universal credit to the Work programme.

With the Welfare Reform Bill we have set out how the coalition will transform working-age benefits to make work pay and tackle the root causes of poverty and welfare dependency, but we also need people to save for their retirement. We need automatic enrolment and employer contributions to work. With today’s Green Paper we are setting out how we plan to transform the pensions system and create a simple, decent state pension that is easy to understand and efficient to administer. We need to ensure that saving for the future pays. I am proud to be part of this bold, reforming agenda. Today’s Green Paper is a step on the road to a radical reform of the state pension system, and I commend this paper to the House.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement—half an hour before he got to his feet. Given that the pensions Minister and the Secretary of State chose to announce the most positive elements of the Green Paper to the media over the weekend, I cannot help feeling that I am the only person who still has not seen it. Today we have heard proposals that include a universal flat-rate pension and further increases in the state pension age. Although in principle the move to a more simplified system is welcome, it raises a number of important questions.

The Labour Government recognised the importance of pension reform. Labour made great inroads, particularly in lifting more than 1 million pensioners out of poverty and in recognising the vital role that people—mainly women—play as carers. The Labour Government reduced the number of years needed to qualify for a basic state pension to 30, helping women, while more generous credits for carers have ensured that more people are now entitled to a higher level of the state second pension. Labour also introduced automatic enrolment, helping the up to 8 million people who previously did not put money aside for their pensions to save. Although we welcome the fact that the Government are continuing with automatic enrolment, we disagree with the watering down of some of those proposals.

Previous changes to the state pension mean that, based on new accrual rates and assuming 30 years of national insurance contributions or caring credits, a low-paid woman or someone in a caring role would be entitled to a basic state pension of £102.15 a week, plus £43.50 in the state second pension, totalling £145.65 a week, or more if she had 40 years of contributions. The figure of £140 a week that the Minister set out must be seen in that context. Pensioners and families must assess the proposals carefully to ensure that they are not worse off than they would have been under Labour’s plans. Can the Minister give some reassurances about the other benefits that pensioners receive, including free TV licences, prescriptions, eye tests, support with council tax, bus passes, the winter fuel allowance and cold weather payments? In the Budget we saw a cut in the winter fuel allowance, despite rising energy prices and two successive cold winters. Will the Minister explain how he will account for those benefits in the new system, or say whether we will see further cuts, by stealth or otherwise?

I have a few brief questions about affordability and fairness. The Chancellor announced in his Budget that the reforms would cost no more than the current system, yet the Pensions Policy Institute estimates that a flat-rate pension at a guaranteed credit level will cost almost 1% of GDP after 13 years. That must imply that although some will be better off under the Government’s plans, some will also be worse off. The Minister has spoken eloquently about the potential winners, but the distributional impacts are critical, so will he confirm who will be worse off under the new proposed system?

On fairness, the Minister has said that accrued rights will be protected. Forgive me for being a bit sceptical, but he said the same about the switch in uprating from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index. However, in this instance I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Can he guarantee that someone in their 50s who has worked all their life on average earnings and has never contracted out of the state second pension will still be entitled to a more generous state pension than someone who has not paid in? If not, does he think it fair that those contracting out and getting defined benefit pensions in retirement could receive the same state pension as their counterparts who have paid full national insurance contributions throughout their careers? If those who have paid in get more than £140, will the change really be cost-neutral? If some will get less than £140 based on lower contributions, will the Minister ensure that no one falls below the guaranteed credit level? In what way can that be called a flat-rate pension?

The Government’s proposals could have serious implications for the future of defined benefit schemes, because they will end the rebate for those on DB schemes. Given the importance of occupational savings for retirement income, as the Minister said, what are his estimates of the generosity of DB schemes—and, indeed, their overall survival—given the changes? The changes in contracting-out touch on a wider point. The post-world war welfare state is based on the contributory principle. We welcome the news that any new flat-rate system will keep contributions at their core, and that anyone with 30 years’ national insurance contributions will be entitled to the newly formulated pension. However, given the Chancellor’s announcement that the Government intend to merge tax and national insurance, will the Minister explain how the contributory principle will work in practice if that merger takes place? Will he also give a reassurance that taxes will not go up for pensioners, who of course do not pay national insurance?

The other, less briefed elements of today’s Green Paper include the automatic mechanism for increasing the state pension age to make future increases fair and smooth, with time for people to plan. The move comes too late for the 500,000 women who will have to wait a year longer before they receive their state pension and the 33,000 women who will have to wait exactly two years before receiving their state pension. Does the Minister now recognise that the accelerated timetable for the state pension age for women in their 50s does not spread the cost fairly or, with just five years’ notice, leave enough time to prepare?

To conclude, the Green Paper does nothing for today’s pensioners, because a flat-rate pension will be for only new pensioners. Today’s pensioners are suffering at the hands of this Government, with an increase in VAT to 20%, which sees pensioners worse off by £200 a year, low savings rates and a £100 cut in the winter fuel allowance. Although a flat-rate pension of £140 sounds good in theory, the Chancellor says that there is no new money, so who will lose out? It is quite likely to be families on average earnings, or just a bit more, who have worked hard and brought up a family, paying their full national insurance contributions. Some people will be worse off under the reforms, yet the Government want to talk about only the winners. In the final chapter of the review, the Government suggested that a crude formula could be used for uprating the state pension age. They have already hit women in their late 50s with a two-year increase in their state pension age; now they want to use a formula that pays no attention to health in later life, so we will all be waiting longer and longer to get our pensions.

We welcome the intent behind today’s Green Paper. We want a more progressive and less complicated system, but I am yet to be convinced that today’s Green Paper will achieve that.

[Steve Webb]

I did write the hon. Lady’s words down—in principle, she welcomed the Green Paper, so I am grateful for her warm comments about our proposals. She asked a number of specific questions, and I shall try to respond to them.

The hon. Lady seemed to imply that women would get £145 anyway, so wondered why we needed to do anything. That, however, is decades away. Equality between men and women in the state pension system is decades away, and we think that is too slow. Many women who did their child rearing in the ’80s and ’90s got no state second pension protection because it did not exist at that time. They will be retiring over the coming years and we are now bringing forward that protection for them. We do not want to wait 20 years for equality.

The hon. Lady asked an important question about passported benefits and we will need to consider the implications of these changes for those benefits. She had the cheek to suggest that the winter fuel payment had been cut in comparison with what she would have provided if she were in office. She will be well aware that we are sticking precisely to the budgets that her right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, wrote. He will know perfectly well how much he put aside for the winter fuel payments, and we are doing exactly what he planned.

The hon. Lady asked about the Pensions Policy Institute and its estimate that a £140 flat-rate pension would cost 1% of gross domestic product. What she may have misunderstood from the report is that the question it asked was what it would cost if that amount were paid to everybody. That is where its figure came from. We are saying that we will create this for new pensioners, because new pensioners face a new world in which they will work longer, retire later and have fewer final salary pension schemes, so we need a system that is fit for them.

The hon. Lady sought reassurance on two points and the answer is yes to both of them. We will honour past service and we will make an adjustment, as I said in my statement, for contracted-out periods.

The hon. Lady asked about the future of final salary pension schemes after 13 years of decline under Labour. She will be pleased to know that the National Association of Pension Funds—the trade body for company pensions —welcomes these reforms and supports them, but we are in dialogue with those operating large final salary pension schemes to discuss how these changes will impact on them and how we can work with them to move towards the sort of simpler scheme that they and we want to see.

The hon. Lady asked about merging what the Chancellor referred to as the operation of the tax and national insurance system, which is certainly at an exploratory stage, but he has made it clear that pensions will be protected under these changes and that the contributory principle will remain.

Finally, the hon. Lady asked about the mechanism for raising the state pension age. She referred to a crude formula, but there are options in the Green Paper. One is to have an automatic mechanism for raising the pension age as longevity increases; the other is to adopt a more nuanced approach to take account of a range of factors. We would welcome feedback on that.

Overall, I think the hon. Lady welcomed our proposals, particularly the fact that they will benefit women and self-employed people and will lead to a fairer system. She said that she wanted to see a fairer system; in office, the Labour Government never delivered one, but through this Green Paper, we will.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

Tempted though I am, we do not propose to abolish retirement. What my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said was that we need to take account in a more automatic way. I do not recognise the improvement of one year per year, although it is rising very rapidly. The key is that we need to do things with proper notice and make sure people have successful longer working lives and therefore build up bigger pensions when they come to draw them.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I could not agree more with the points made by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders), because the Government’s proposals mean 500,000 women will have to wait for more than a year longer before they receive their state pension, while 33,000 women will have to wait for exactly two years longer. With 10,000 signatures now on a petition calling for a rethink, and full-page letters in today’s Times and Telegraph asking the Government to think again, will the Minister now accept that the strength of opposition both in this House and outside is too great for the Government not to think again?

[Steve Webb]

I am surprised the shadow pensions Minister chose not to raise the issue of the state pension reform announced by the Chancellor in the Budget statement, which will be of particular benefit to this group of women. Many of the women who are aged about 57 spent considerable amounts of time out of work bringing up children, and we will reform the state pension system so that they get a proper pension for the first time.

Social Security

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Thursday 17th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central) (LD)]

Like the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), I refer to the Welfare Reform Bill, although we are debating the uprating orders. With the introduction of the universal credit when the Bill becomes law, the complicated changes that we are processing in these orders will become a thing of the past, which I think we welcome on both sides of the House. It will be much simpler for people to understand their entitlement to benefits, and there will be a much better deal for many people who are in receipt of working-age benefits.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady says that we will not debate uprating in the future, but because the Government have reneged on the universal pension, we shall be debating uprating for pensions every year.

[Jenny Willott]

I shall clarify my remarks in case anyone misunderstood me. I said that we will not be debating complicated uprating changes every year. Clearly, there will still be a debate every year, I assume, on the uprating of benefits; I should hate to think they will be frozen in future. I shall talk about pensions later in my remarks.

According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the universal credit will mean that 2.5 million families will be better off. They will get more money, which will in time help to reduce the total benefit bill by making it more worthwhile for people to get work and remain in work and off benefits. That should generate support on both sides of the House, as it is something we all want families to do.

As well as an improvement in prospects for those on working-age benefits, as the Minister said, this morning the Government introduced changes that will make a significant difference to pensioner incomes. The level of pensioner poverty in the UK is a complete disgrace in a civilised country. During the shadow Minister’s remarks, it slightly got me that he seemed to criticise the Government for not sticking to the CPI increase for pensions and going for a larger increase in pensions this year. In 2000, the previous Government were happy to see an increase of only 75p in the state pension, which most of us found stingy, measly and completely unforgiveable. At least, this Government are tackling pensioner poverty and are willing to do something serious about it.

Labour’s efforts to lift older members of society out of poverty resulted in a massively complicated, overly bureaucratic system based on means-tested benefits that has left 2 million pensioners still living below the poverty line. Clearly there is something wrong with the current system, so I am delighted that real progress is being made to safeguard the value of the basic state pension. Current pensioners will now be protected by the triple lock, which is welcome. I am delighted that a Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment is being implemented by the Liberal Democrats in government. What we promised we have delivered, and the state pension will increase by earnings, 2.5% or CPI, whichever is greatest. People over the age of retirement will have the protection they deserve. As the Minister said, the amount can be quite significant. We are talking about £15,000 over a person’s lifetime, which will make a significant difference for a large number of pensioners and will, I hope, have an impact on pensioner poverty.

I am glad to see that change. However, I believe that we are still building up problems for future generations of pensioners. Current pensioners’ circumstances will improve significantly, but the ticking pension’s time bomb was not tackled by the Labour Government or by previous Governments. I would like the current Government to take the bull by the horns and ensure that we do not end up with a problem in decades to come. Far too many people are not saving for retirement. Auto-enrolment will help in that regard, but people need to know that it will pay to save. We must reduce the amount of means-testing to ensure that people know that, if they save while they are working, it will benefit them in retirement.

We have an uncertain jobs market. There are no more jobs for life. Occupational pension schemes are closing at a terrifying rate. Many occupational schemes are defined-contribution, rather than defined-benefit, and far less generous. Even with the triple lock, problems will increase. I would be grateful if the Minister told us what the Government plan to do in the long term to tackle the time bomb. The triple lock will make a significant difference, but we need to look at the whole pension system to ensure that we reform it in decades to come so that it is more appropriate to the needs of society.

Clearly, a big issue is the move from RPI to CPI. I understand why people are concerned about that, but I say to pensioners who are worried about the impact on their basic state pensions that they will be protected by the triple lock. As the Minister made clear, the majority of people on public sector pensions will be protected from a potential reduction in their long-term benefits by the triple lock on the state pension, so they will end up better off in the long term. The impact on people will not be as great as many Opposition Members have said it will be.

I can see that benefits come with the change to CPI. It is more stable. It means that we will not face issues such as the one that arose last year when benefits were frozen, which caused significant hardship for many millions of people. CPI is also a more appropriate system as 70% of pensioners own their homes outright. As the Minister said, there is a negative impact for those pensioners as the rate of mortgage interest is taken into account under RPI. They do not benefit in any way from the massive fluctuations that that can generate in their pension increase.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Reeves Excerpts

Monday 14th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance are available as safety nets, but I appreciate that that is not what many people will want. The vast majority of the women in this birth cohort are still working. In the world that we are going into, we anticipate that more people will work into their 60s—that is part of the change. Many of them will be able to support themselves, perhaps through a part-time job, to cover the gap in years.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

The Minister’s response is inadequate. The Government’s coalition agreement is clear. Under the Government’s plans, the state pension age will start to rise to 66 in 2018, not in 2020 as promised in the coalition agreement. Some 33,000 women, currently aged 56, will have to wait exactly two years longer to get their pension, with little time to prepare. The average retirement savings of those women will provide them with just £11 a week in retirement. They simply do not have the savings to draw on to accommodate these moving goalposts. Does the Minister honestly believe that these changes for women are fair and proportionate?

[Steve Webb]

I have common ground with the hon. Lady on two points. First, I deplore the fact that the pensions policies of the previous Government have left women in this group with so little pensions savings to draw on. Secondly, she is right that we could go more slowly. We could, as she has proposed, delay until 2020 before doing anything, but we would then have to find an additional £10 billion that the present schedule provides for us. I have not yet had the letter or parliamentary question from her suggesting where that £10 billion might come from.