| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead): Before I contribute, I should inform the House that I have in the Register of Members' Interests a non-registerable shareholding in the Prudential corporation.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak because I want to raise an issue that has not been dealt with in depth in the debate--although it was touched on briefly by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble)--the particular impact of the Government's pensions proposals on women. Women should be concerned about many aspects of the Government's pension proposals.
Before the end of the consultation period on the Green Paper, I participated in a seminar on the impact of the Government's proposals on women. The seminar was organised by the Fawcett Society--the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) also spoke there--and it was unfortunate that no Government spokesman attended. The seminar brought together a number of organisations, academics, union representatives, people from the City, pension providers and women's organisations to talk about the issue. Across the board, everybody expressed concern about the implications of the Government's pensions proposals for women.
The figures on the number of women who have their foot on the pension scheme ladder--a point made by the hon. Member for Northampton, North--show that there is a real problem in terms of alerting women to the need to make pension provision. The National Council of Women of Great Britain published a document called "Securing our Future", in which it set out the results of a survey it had undertaken about women and their attitudes to pensions. The survey showed that almost one third of the women interviewed had no pension scheme in operation; some two thirds expressed concern about their future financial situation; and half were concerned that they would never be able to save enough to secure their old age. Those are figures that should concern us. It is right that the House should focus on them and on the need to raise awareness among women about the desirability of making provision for a pension.
It is particularly unfortunate that, just as more women are getting their foot on to the ladder of occupational pension schemes and are in employment that offers such schemes, the Government are dealing them a blow through stakeholder pensions, introducing arrangements that many people think may encourage employers to cut occupational pension schemes, and increasing the complexity of the system.
Again, I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) talk about the array of pension provisions that will be available after the Government's proposals have been put in place. Some of the provisions are difficult to understand without advice, and that will be necessary. I want to come on to the way in which the Government are ignoring the need for advice on many of their pension proposals. Just as women appear to be getting their foot on to the occupational scheme ladder, the Government are introducing a complex system that will have an adverse impact on them.
That point was taken up by the National Council of Women in its response to the Government's Green Paper. It said:
Having looked at the Government's Green Paper in some depth and detail--it went to many organisations for consultation--and having taken the views of its members, because it believed that the Government's consultation exercise was a proper consultation exercise, the council found that, before the deadline for getting comments on the consultation exercise to the Government, they had gone ahead and published the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. During the seminar, many people commented that they were discussing and debating the impact of the Government's Green Paper proposals on women's pension provision while, at the same time, in the House, the Government's proposals were already being examined in detail in Standing Committee; the Bill had had its Second Reading.
Therefore, many people felt that the consultation exercise was something of a sham. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the shadow Secretary of State, referred to a number of issues where the Government have indicated, through ministerial written answers, that there will be further consultation. I hope that the Government are not doing what they did on the consultation on the Green Paper. I hope that they do not think that, by telling people that they are consulting, everything will be all right. As we saw with the Green Paper, they had made their mind up all along and the consultation exercise was nothing but a sham.
Ms Keeble:
I agree with the hon. Lady that what happens to women's pensions is important. However, does she not accept that, although it is true that women are getting their first toehold on the occupational pension ladder, for quite a long time to come, the pension that will apply to many women will be the state second pension, which, as it is not a funded scheme, will have a substantial contribution from the Government? In setting that up, particularly with the carers pension, the Government will make a huge contribution to the well-being of women pensioners.
Mrs. May:
I will address the impact of the second state pension on women later. All I will say at this point is that I suggest that the hon. Lady looks carefully at the implications of the Government's proposals. When one looks at the proposals in detail, one finds that they are not as beneficial to women as perhaps, on the surface, she may have taken them to be.
I reiterate the concern that I and many others have about the complexity of the pension provision that will be in place after the Government's proposals go through, assuming that the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill is passed. That complexity is of particular concern to women
who are worried that they are not in a position to make provision for their old age, and who feel the need for advice. Faced with that enormous complexity, advice will be important. It is of much concern that the Government do not appear to have accepted the fact that there is a need for advice on their stakeholder pension proposals.
Somewhat worryingly, the National Council of Women survey to which I have referred showed that, although 54 per cent. of the women interviewed said that they trusted a professional adviser, 64 per cent. said that they trusted the media to provide them with pensions advice. That should concern us all. I suspect that many people--women and men--take their advice from newspapers, rather than from a professional adviser. Given the complexity, it is important that advice is available to people as to what the best option is and what they should do in taking out a pension.
It appears that the Government have accepted the need for advice on stakeholder pensions, but only if the individual concerned pays for the advice. Therefore, what has been billed as a wonderful low-cost option that will be of enormous benefit to people on lower incomes has its drawbacks. The Government did not properly consider the need for advice when they first looked at those pensions, although I note from the comments of the shadow Secretary of State that advice is one of issues on which we are to have a consultation exercise, sham or otherwise.
I have mentioned a concern about the impact of the proposals on occupational pensions. That is a real issue that needs to be addressed. There is a concern that some employers will look at stakeholder pensions and say,"It is easier just to let employees take out stakeholder pensions and not to provide occupational pensions for them."
That would be a retrograde step. The provision of occupational pension schemes has been of enormous benefit. As I have said, it is extremely good news that many women are now able to get their foot on to the occupational pension scheme ladder. Sadly, many of those may now find that the ladder is pulled away from them by the Government's policy of introducing stakeholder schemes.
It has been difficult for women to make provision for the pension that they want because, as the hon. Member for Northampton, North said, they are more likely to have interrupted career patterns and periods when they are not in employment. They are more likely to be in part-time jobs, where earning levels are not significant. It is important that we look at the implications for those women, and the means by which they can ensure that they make pension provision for their elderly years.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North lauded the second state pension. She believes that it is particularly beneficial because it will provide pension credits and make available a pension for carers and for women who look after their families. However, as I cautioned her in my response to her intervention--I am sorry that she is no longer in the Chamber--she should look in more detail at the Government's provisions. The regulations that Government are proposing, and the criteria that they are setting for second state pension credits, will significantly
disadvantage many women, namely, those who choose to stay at home to look after children aged between five and 16.
If one is looking after children, under the Government's proposals, one will qualify for credits for the state second pension only if the children are under five years old. Therefore, someone who chooses to remain in the home to look after her family members who are over five years old will not benefit from the state second pension. Many women would be disadvantaged by implementation of the proposal. Once again--as in so many other aspects of the Government's welfare proposals--single-earner couples in which the wife chooses to stay at home to look after the family will be hit.
What about the Government's proposals on carers? The hon. Member for Northampton, North made quite something of them, saying that they will significantly benefit carers. Interestingly, however, those on the minimum wage will have to work only about 18 hours a week to reach the lower earnings limit, whereas those caring at home for someone in receipt of disability benefits will have to provide 35 hours of care a week to qualify for state second pension credits.
Therefore, the Government--far from recognising that caring is a beneficial occupation, which it is, and that we should be grateful to the many people who stay at home to care for elderly and disabled relatives--are setting the credit qualification threshold significantly higher for carers than for those who are in the workplace.
I have not made up those points, which were made also by the Pension Provision Group in its Green Paper response--which was produced by the Department of Social Security. The group went on to say that the value of the state second pension
Ministers should reconsider the value contributed to society by those who are not in the workplace. Women who stay at home because they have decided to look after their families are contributing value to society, as are those who stay at home because they have decided to care for an elderly or disabled relative. Those people are playing a valuable role in society, and they should not--consistently--be dismissed by the Government, as they would be by the Government's welfare proposals.
"We do not . . . think that the present proposals are adequate. They present a confused picture of piecemeal provision. Having to choose from a mix of public and private schemes will leave most people feeling confused and (perhaps rightly) insecure."
I have met representatives of the council who have spent considerable time examining the Government's proposals and raising concerns with them. The council has raised a particular concern. It was mentioned at the Fawcett Society seminar that I attended; I have heard others make the point.
"earned by working just enough to reach the lower earnings limit will be much greater than it would have been for SERPS. The reward for combining a modest amount of paid work with caring responsibilities will therefore be greater."
The impetus behind the current proposals--as in so many of the Government's actions--is to get people into the workplace. The Government are saying that people will benefit if they not only look after a relative with a disability, but do some work. The abiding theme in so many of the Government's proposals, including those on disability benefits, is that one is of value in society only if one is in the workplace. I do not hold that belief. However, I tell the Government that they should carefully reconsider their proposals, specifically those on disability benefits, which most starkly demonstrate their motivating theme.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |