Pensions Bill

moved Amendment No. 33: 33: After Clause 13, insert the following new Clause— ““Record keeping for future payment on residency basis The Secretary of State shall by order make provision for the secure and permanent storage of relevant data held on the Electoral Register or any additional or alternative database for the purpose of enabling the possible future payment of a basic state pension on the basis of residency in the United Kingdom.”” The noble Baroness said: I am sure that it is completely out of order to say how sorry I am that my noble friend Lady Turner is sitting at the Table as opposed to sitting on these Benches for consideration of the amendment. It seeks to establish a record of residency so that a future Government could, if they wished—and it is entirely discretionary—move to a universal basic state pension. Why? The amendments that we have discussed today seem to show why we need such a universal system. We have been producing half a dozen ways in which to bring within the national insurance contributory system excluded groups—mainly women—whose work and contribution we all value but cannot count. However, they remain outside, whether they are grandparents, people working past the age of 60, people in multiple jobs or those below the lower earnings limit and so on. At the moment, some 30 per cent of women enter retirement with a full basic state pension either on their own or their husband’s record. As home responsibilities protection works its way through, that figure will be 50 per cent by 2010 and, given the change in the 30-year rule, eventually between 70 and 75 per cent. If government statistics are reliable—I am not entirely confident that they can be—by 2030 we will have something like 90 per cent or so coverage for women, as it is for men. I suggest to the Committee that the question that then arises is: why have a rule for contributions that does not fit half the population and then keep bending the rules because it is unfair to keep that half out? If the Government are correct in saying that we will have 90 to 95 per cent coverage, why bother? Why should we send people through hoops and hurdles unnecessarily? But if the Government are wrong and the coverage is less extensive, we will have to revisit the rules and bend them yet again because people must live on something. Alternatively, means-testing and the pension credit guarantee could be extended. In my view, the appropriate response is a universal basic state pension based on residency—a position arrived at in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Turner. He favoured forward accruals on the ground that establishing past residency, or looking backwards, was difficult, and he wanted a universal BSP for those over the age of 75. The amendment is in two parts. The first part says that the Government are required to hold and retain the database, and the second part says that they may—not ““must””—use it for a universal residency BSP in years to come. The Government may say, ““We don’t believe in a universal basic state pension, so why should we start to build up such a database?””. My amendment is about keeping the options open rather than closing them down. In 15 or 25 years’ time, a very different Government with very different views on cleaning up the mess of the benefits system—and a mess it is—may want to do precisely that. If we do not start, we can never do it. Not keeping the records does not keep our options open; it closes them down, and that is never good public policy. Therefore, in this amendment I am bidding for future flexibility, future options and future choice for whatever Government of whatever political complexion may be in power. The question that then arises is whether the amendment is sensible, realistic, workable, cost-free and hassle-free. I believe that the answer is yes. How do we establish residency? I accept that we need a record of residency so that Manuel from Spain, who is here for two years, for example, does not acquire a BSP for life. We may think that 15 or 25 years of residency is appropriate, but could we have a nil-cost and workable database to establish that over time? Actually, we could: it is called the electoral roll. The latest annual report from the Electoral Commission shows that, of people of working age over 45—our target group—who have not moved house in the past 12 months, between 97 and 98 per cent are on the electoral roll. I am told that the amount of churning is very small in this group. Those missing are likely to be second-home owners—those who are wintering in Malta but can none the less register on a rolling basis as and when necessary, or those few who, for whatever reason, do not want to be found. So we have the coverage: 97 to 98 per cent of our target group. Can we keep the records? Yes, we can. Electoral registration officers are already required by law to keep the electoral register for 15 years, so expat voters, for example, can establish the right to vote in the UK. Therefore, 15 years of electoral roll residency evidence is already held by local authorities. Can we use those records? The current usage is governed by the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001, which was a response to Mr Robertson’s court case when he objected to Wakefield Council selling the electoral register with his name on it to Reader’s Digest. The courts held that the unexpurgated register may not be used for non-electoral purposes except by specific regulation. That is fine, but since then we have had two sets of regulations, in 2002 and 2006, which list who may legally have the unexpurgated register and use it. That includes libraries, the police, political parties and candidates. Who is empowered? It may be used in the fight against crime, in the name of national security, by the Home Office, and for vetting employment. Beyond that, local authorities are legally able and in some cases required to sell, under the regulations, their unexpurgated registers to the Financial Services Authority, to the Environment Agency and to credit reference agencies, such as Experian and Expedia. The chief executive of the electoral officers’ association has told me—he authorised me to quote him—that all that is necessary, in addition to the regulations, is a regulation empowering the register to be used for such pension purposes. It is simple. We had such regulations in 2002 and again in 2006 and we can do it again if we so choose. So the electoral register provides almost complete coverage. It is already retained for 15 years. If we were brave, we could probably introduce a universal BSP in the next five years. The information is already made available to the FSA and to credit reference agencies. In the course of the dozens of regulations that we shall receive over the next year or so in this House as a result of the Bill, all that is needed is an additional one, permitting this use. That is all. I am sure that my noble friend will not argue that as a society we can use the electoral roll to establish residency for a hire-purchase agreement for a car but that we cannot possibly use it to establish residency for a basic state pension. I repeat that this amendment would not commit any Government to introduce regulations making it possible to introduce a universal BSP, but it would give any future Government the choice to do so; they would not be able to make that choice unless we put such a power into the Bill. I believe that the amendment is desirable for wider reasons, which we have argued about in relation to the contributory principle. We do not want any more tweaks to an over-tweaked system if we can help it. This is certainly workable because it already works. One amendment and it would be legal and its costs would be nil. I hope that such an amendment will, in due course, have the support of the Government and, if necessary, of the entire House. It is the only way by which the option will be left open for future Governments to change the structure, should they wish. The amendment requires only that the data be held for that purpose—not that it must be used but that it may be used. I think that the Government have an obligation to keep that choice open for Governments who come later. I beg to move.