11 WORKING LONGER
402. It is important to draw the distinction between
retirement age and pension age. As well as proposing in the White
Paper to increase the State Pension Age, the Government noted
that it planned "to take measures to support longer working,
as set out in the publication A new deal for welfare: Empowering
people to work, and consider greater flexibility around, and
communication of, State Pension deferral."
403. Recent work by the OECD suggested that there
were three key barriers to working at an older age:[496]
- Financial disincentives (public
pension rules, formal and formal early retirement schemes and
few options for phased retirement)
- Employer barriers (negative attitudes, high labour
costs and strict job protection rules); and
- Weak employability (obsolete skills, inadequate
help for older jobseekers and unsuitable work conditions and poor
health).
404. Chapter 4 of the White Paper sets out measures
to "extend working life in an ageing society." It refers
to the Government's aim to increase the number of older workers
by 1 million,[497]
the New Deal 50 plus and the recent Age Positive campaign.[498]
New legislation comes into force on 1 October 2006 which will
make discrimination on the basis of age unlawful in employment
and training, and compulsory retirement below the age of 65 will
be illegal unless it can be objectively justified. Furthermore,
employers will have a duty to formally consider requests from
individuals to work beyond 65.[499]
The Government has also undertaken to consider in 2011 whether
to abolish the default retirement age.[500]
405. The Government set out in its Green Paper on
Welfare Reform that there were "a number of specific steps
we will take to ensure that messages are communicated consistently
to the over-50s, to help them understand the options available
to them."[501]
406. In a supplementary memorandum submitted after
the White Paper was published, Help the Aged, however, warned
that there was:[502]
"a sense of suspended reality in the way
in which economists and academics factor in an extension of working
lives in order to make the pensions arithmetic look more palatable,
but [
] precious little action on the ground to support this
paper exercise. The Leitch Review is already showing how badly
older workers fare as far as training"
407. Citizens Advice quoted research that "one
in four people aged 50 to 69 has experienced age discrimination
when working or looking for work."[503]
408. The lack of training available for older workers
was particularly criticised, with Mervyn Kohler from Help the
Aged expressing the problem in strong terms: "There are damn
few training opportunities for people over the age of about 40."[504]
The CBI took a different view:[505]
"most important of all is the role played
by employees themselves. The Government and unions have to do
more to motivate older workers to retrain and take advantage of
the training opportunities that come their way".
409. The Equal Opportunities Commission told us:[506]
"Our research report, 'Older workers and
options for flexible work', last year revealed that up to one
million older workers want to return to work. However, too many
are being prevented from remaining in or returning to the workforce
because of a lack of flexible working arrangements, such as flexitime
or job sharing. Less than one in six older (50+) men and only
one in four older women are currently employed on a flexible working
arrangement. This increases the burden of social security payments
for taxpayers and exacerbates the UK's skills shortage".
410. Getting more older people into work will be
necessary both for pensions reform to be successful and for the
achievement of the Government's aspiration to reach an 80% employment
rate. However, as alluded to in the evidence we received, achieving
this aim will be a considerable challenge.
411. Partly because of this complexity, and the
importance of older workers, the Committee has decided to conduct
an inquiry in the autumn into the Government's employment strategy
and will include as part of that a detailed study of this aspect
of labour market policy. We will therefore return to the matter
later this year.
Public sector pensions
412. The vexed issue of public sector pensions was
brought up by a number of witnesses during our inquiry. For example
Adrian Waddingham, from the Association of Consulting Actuaries,
told us "I think there will be political resentment in future
if we do have the "them" in the public sector and the
"us" in the private sector with this huge disparity."[507]
413. On the other hand, Kay Carberry from the TUC
took the view that this was about keeping promises[508]
and that the main agreement reached was "exactly the same
as what is happening in a lot of private sector occupational schemes."
Lord Turner, giving evidence to us in December, took the view
that it was "perfectly reasonable" to have salary related
pensions in the public sector, as long as there was a "process
of continual adjustment so that as life expectancy goes up the
generosity and cost of public sector pensions is kept reasonably
stable."[509]
414. The Rt Hon Frank Field MP told the Committee:[510]
"I do think one of the areas the Government
will have to attend to after it has done its White Paper is to
seriously begin a review about public sector pensions and their
financing, the different ways that they are financed and the impact
on taxation and council taxation as well. I also think that
in that review our own pensions, as part of the public sector,
have to be put into the equation, and one of the questions voters
will want answered is that certainly in the past the public sector
rightly got what was thought to be more generous pensions because
they had a worse pay deal. Is that currently true, has relative
pay in the public sector caught up or in some instances advanced
over the private sector? If that is so then it seems reasonable
one looks at the other side of the equation as well. Given this
is an area where people's prejudices can be paraded about quite
easily, it would be very, very useful for the Government to start
collecting the data so that we can have an informed discussion
rather than merely shuffling our prejudices".
415. The DWP memorandum set out the situation from
April 2006:[511]
"The earliest age from which a pension can
be taken will be raised from 50 to 55 by 2010. This applies to
all non-state pensions. The normal pension age for members of
public sector pension schemes will increase from 60 to 65, initially
for new members only."
416. Responding to questions after his statement
to the House in May, the Secretary of State said "let me
remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that several negotiations
are taking place now, scheme by scheme, to change the terms of
those [public sector] schemes. It is right to change those terms,
and the negotiations will continue."[512]
417. He expanded on these points when he gave evidence
to the Committee:[513]
"We are not going to change our position
on that. [
] We have negotiated change to the public sector
pension schemes and they are going to save the taxpayer significant
amounts of money over the next few decades, but, fundamentally,
people tend to confuse two quite different things here. In relation
to the public sector, we are talking about the normal pensionable
age in those schemes going up from 60 to 65, and for existing
workers they will stay at 60 where that is the existing age -
they will stay at whatever their existing age for the NPA is for
those schemes [
] They overlook the fact that, if, for example,
you take the Civil Service, there is a huge amount of change and
churn in employment in the Civil Service. I think last year it
changed by about 10%. So, by the time we get to 2026, when the
first increase in the State Pension Age takes place, there will
be, I think, only a minority of people in the Civil Service who
can still retire at 60, and by the time we get to the end of the
process of increasing the State Pension Age, I think it will only
be 3% of civil servants who will still have an entitlement to
retire at the age of 60".
418. We agree with the point made by the Rt Hon
Frank Field MP that informed discussion, rather than "merely
shuffling our prejudices" is necessary for a debate on the
future level and terms of public sector pensions. We recommend
that the Government commission an independent review, which includes
involvement from both the private and public sectors, about the
future terms, benefits and financing of these schemes.
496 Presentation by Mark Keese, Employment, Labour
and Social Affairs, OECD to a High-level OECD Parliamentary seminar
on the "Policy Implications of ageing populations",
23 February 2006, based on an OECD publication, Live Longer, Work
Longer, available at http://www.oecd.org/document/42/0,2340,en_2649_34747_36104426_1_1_1_1,00.html Back
497
White Paper, para 4.5 Back
498
White Paper, para 4.11 Back
499
Ev 367, para 14 Back
500
White Paper, para 4.13 Back
501
Department for Work and Pensions, A new deal for welfare: empowering
people to work, Cm 6730, January 2006 Back
502
Ev 167 Back
503
Ev 298, para 4.9 Back
504
Q 123 Back
505
Ev 363, para 73 Back
506
Ev 129, para 58 Back
507
Q 183 Back
508
Q 404 Back
509
Oral evidence taken before the Work and Pensions Committee on
14 December 2005, HC (2005-06) 618, Q 20 Back
510
Q134 Back
511
Ev 367, para 14 Back
512
HC Deb, 25 May 2006, col 1657 Back
513
Q 359 Back
|