Pensions Bill

Of course, as a loyal Labour Member, I welcome the Bill, but the welcome is fairly cool because the Bill is not as generous as I would have liked it to be. In any case, I have to welcome it, because I have not been able to express the dissent that I wanted to express on subjects that have been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones)—the earnings tie and the age of retirement. It is ludicrous that those two major issues, which are of overwhelming importance, are not even being discussed on Report. I hope that they can be covered far better in another Chamber, because they need to be discussed, and the situation needs to be changed. I welcome the Bill because it is a solution to problems, and particularly because it improves the position of women, although it is not before time. The situation has been monstrous, but it will be changed, thanks to the Bill. I also welcome the Bill because it provides a platform for the future, when I hope that we can eventually be more generous, but it is not a platform on which I want to stand in Grimsby and tell my constituents, ““However old you are, hang on until 2015, and you’ll get a better deal.? That is not the kind of result that I wanted from a Bill as all-encompassing and all-important as this one. It does nothing for current pensioners, and we could have tackled the two problems together. First, on the earnings tie, some 21 per cent. of pensioners are now below the poverty line; that is 2.2 million people. The earnings tie could and should have been restored by now, or much earlier. We will restore it eventually, but eventually is a long, long time away, and many of us will not actually reach it. Let us face it, our pensions are among the lowest in the world. They are lower than pensions in many of the countries that are new entrants to the European Community, including Slovenia, Latvia and Estonia. The Cheeky Girls will not be retiring to Wales; they will go back to Latvia, Estonia or wherever to get better pensions than they would get if they stayed in this country. It is monstrous that our pensions should be so low, compared to those of those new entrants. We need to help. Our poverty line is 60 per cent. of median earnings, and pensioners should not be required to live below that line. We can only ensure that they do not by restoring the earnings link earlier. I agree that pension credit goes a long way; it is a salutary innovation of the Government’s that I have long welcomed. The pension credit, née the minimum income guarantee, is a welcome development, but it is means-tested, and because the increase to the basic pension is not as closely allied to the increase in earnings as it should be, means-testing, which is implicit for pension credit, will increase enormously. The gap between the pension credit and the actual pension will be much wider as time passes. Means-testing channels a limited amount of money to those most in need, but it is not claimed by many people who need the money, so it is an inefficient way of increasing pensions. We should therefore restore the direct tie to earnings. My second point of dissent concerns the raising of the retirement age, which will be painful for many people. It is ludicrous to expect people in hard manual jobs whose physical strength is often broken by a life of hard manual labour to carry on working until they are 68. Fishermen, for instance, lead a tough life, and the pension arrangements in the industry are very bad. French fishermen retire on a full pension at 55. What am I to say to the former fishermen in Grimsby? Should I tell them to carry on fishing when they are over 65, over 60, or over 55? It is ludicrous to introduce such measures, as the system must be graduated. We must channel pension support to the poorest and to people whose jobs involve hard manual labour. After all, people in the poorest areas live 12 years less than people in the richest areas, and the pension system should be able to cope with that situation. I wish to brief, and I shall not wander over two previous debates, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) did. I welcome the Bill—it is a cool welcome—but I worry intensely that it does nothing for people now.