Pensions Bill

I answered that question in Committee. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are reciprocal rules between different parts of the EU. Acceptance of those rules is a definition of EU membership, and I regret that the hon. Gentleman continues to raise that question. I should be interested to know why he does so, but it is possible that he would prefer the UK to withdraw from the EU, even though that would mean that our citizens could not benefit from the ability to move freely around it. In fact, apart from that intervention, I believe that the Bill has achieved a fairly good consensus, and that is something that we want to develop. The Bill marks the most significant move towards equality between men and women since Barbara Castle introduced home responsibilities protection in the 1970s. It ends the inequality between men and women in the state pension by putting working and caring contributions on the same basis. Today, only about 30 per cent. of women retire on a full state pension—a staggering figure—compared with about 90 per cent. of men. That is completely unjustifiable and we will put it right through the Bill. The Bill is a comprehensive, integrated package of reform, but it has involved difficult decisions for the Government, business, individuals and the pensions industry. Its progress shows that our reforms have been broadly endorsed by all those groups, which is a real credit to the work of the Pensions Commission and, once again, I congratulate the commission on a report that is a model of its kind. It internalised the trade-offs involved and produced a package that put political parties and stakeholders in a situation where they had to decide not whether to cherry-pick this or that proposal but whether to back the measure as a whole. I congratulate the stakeholders and the other political parties on their approach to the debate. In pensions, consensus is not just nice to have; it is necessary as an essential component of an effective policy. People do not want to put their money away for 20, 30 or 40 years on the basis either of uncertainty about what the system will be or of constant changes. That will make them less likely to save. Through the consensus that we have developed as part of the Bill we will provide them with greater certainty, and it is a real achievement that the Bill is placed to deliver that. That is why consensus is so important. We cannot remove risk from pensions saving entirely, nor can we halt demographic shift, but we can and should remove the risk of political instability. We welcome Conservative support and we shall continue our discussions over the next few years. I look forward to the speech of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) because I am still not quite clear what Conservative policy is on the earnings link, although we had some discussion of it in Committee. His colleague the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond)—in fact, his boss—said on Second Reading that he thought"““restoring the earnings link to provide that stability is affordable now?.—[Official Report, 16 January 2007; Vol. 455, c. 673.]" However, when that point was put to the hon. Member for Eastbourne in Committee, he replied:"““I have said, am saying and will continue to say that it is not our policy.?––[Official Report, Pensions Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2007; c. 165.]" Having complimented the hon. Gentleman on his assiduousness in attending seminars, I ask only that he tell us whether the Conservatives think they can restore the earnings link, whether they want to do it on the same timetable as us and, if so, given their third fiscal rule and the fact that restoring the link will mean increased public spending, what else will they cut to fund it? I look forward to the answers, because it is important that we have not just consensus in theory but fully costed consensus in practice. I finish by paying tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and for Burton (Mrs. Dean) who pushed us to make further changes to the Bill to recognise the crucial role of carers. I am sure that all Members share the fundamental belief that pensioners are entitled to security and dignity in retirement. The Bill provides a solid platform so that people can save; it will give them the ability to build up a pension of £135 a week, which is well above means-tested level, either by caring or working throughout their lives. It puts in place the first stepping stones for the delivery authority and—perhaps most important—it introduces real equality in the state pension system and I commend it to the House.