My Lords, I have encountered more upset in relation to this aspect of the Bill than what I would hope was support at having a state pension above the level of income support. Quite simply, we are talking about individuals who have paid their national insurance, who are too old to benefit from the 2016 changes, whose pensions are less than that, and who feel somewhat aggrieved that many people who have not paid their national insurance will qualify for the increased pension after 2016 when they will not. I appreciate that it is all about money, but I wonder whether a full calculation has been done of the net real costs of putting everyone who is entitled to a pension on to the new arrangement in 2016; I suppose that is unless they have qualifications that exceed that. However, I can only think that there would be a significant net-off in terms of other welfare payments if people’s pensions were slightly larger. This is a fundamentally good piece of legislation on which there is relatively cross-party support. However, I slightly warn the Government that this issue—that those who are too old to benefit from the 2016 reforms will often be worse off than those young enough to benefit—is rather spoiling the welcome to these changes.
Pensions Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Flight
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 16 December 2013.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Pensions Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
750 c198GC Session
2013-14Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2022-06-07 15:33:30 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-12-16/13121617000009
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-12-16/13121617000009
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-12-16/13121617000009