The problem is that the contributory principle is based on a Beveridge-type principle, which, given the society at the time, was the male model of working life. However, it has produced many excluded groups. Governments of all complexions, very decently, have tried to bring more and more groups within the contributory system—since 1978 we have had HRP, disability benefits, various credits and the like and now this Bill. We can no longer simply tie this in to a pay-as-you-go system in a mechanical way—you pay it at a point in time. The six-year rule exists to help another group: for example, students and those who work abroad temporarily. There are still groups—these amendments seek to address them—who will remain outside any contributory system, yet most of us would regard their lives as valuable and we would want to see them brought within the system so that they can enjoy as full and as complete a basic state pension as possible.
This amendment would allow head space for that. Rather than having a series of one-off solutions—multiple jobs, grandparents, whatever—producing half a dozen different possible solutions, we can seek to do it this way. If we do not, I can promise my noble friend that, in a couple of years, someone else will return with another Bill trying to make good further deficiencies in a contributory principle that has been stretched and stretched. This is a contributory system that you pay at the end of your life to make good shortfalls.
I am still completely baffled why a delayed payment is inferior and bad whereas a payment within the six years is good. If find that incomprehensible. I am very grateful for the support from all Benches for the amendment. As my noble friend will expect, I shall return to the matter on Report in the hope that he can give me better news and more encouragement than he has been able to give today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Contributions credits for relevant parents and carers]:
Pensions Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 4 June 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Pensions Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
692 c910 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:24:07 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_400328
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_400328
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_400328