House of Commons · General Debate
01 February 2023 · 9 other contributors
Opened by Nigel Mills Con Wycombe
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Nigel Mills raised concerns about backbench business in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
Key points
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
Moves for a debate on raising the state pension age to 68, emphasising the need for careful consideration and adherence to the principle of a roughly fixed proportion of adult life in retirement. He supports past reforms like auto-enrolment and the single-tier state pension but urges the Government not to rush any changes given current trends in life expectancy.
Highlights the importance of certainty in pension planning, supporting previous reforms such as auto-enrolment and a single-tier state pension. He argues against the Government's potential plans to raise the state pension age more rapidly due to falling life expectancy data and calls for at least 10 years' notice before any changes are made.
Intervenes to question the justification of raising the pension age based on increasing life expectancy, noting that in Scotland life expectancy is stalling and falling, making it 'bizarre' to use this as a basis for further increases.
The hon. Member Stephen Timms congratulates the hon. Member for Amber Valley on securing the debate and highlights the importance of transparency in government social research publication, as per the 2010 protocol under David Cameron's leadership. He criticises the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) for not publishing reports promptly and calls for the independent reviewer’s report by Baroness Neville-Rolfe and the Government Actuary’s report to be published immediately. Timms argues that these documents should inform public debate before any policy decisions are made, citing recent trends in life expectancy as evidence against hasty increases in state pension age.
Elphicke argues that the pension age changes are unfair, particularly for those nearing retirement. She highlights how people might lose out on significant amounts of money if their pension age is raised to 68 and suggests that rules should respect grandfathering rights. She also emphasises the need for lifelong learning support and anti-discrimination measures in the workplace.
The hon. Member Wendy Chamberlain congratulates the hon. Members for Amber Valley and Dover on their contributions to the debate, stressing that calculating state pension age is crucial as it impacts individuals' lives significantly. She urges the Government to publish reports before making final decisions and highlights the need to base increases on life expectancy, not accelerated plans contrary to current trends in life expectancy. Chamberlain emphasises the importance of remembering the impact on individual lives, particularly referencing the WASPI women who have suffered due to process failures. She calls for early and full communication of changes and mentions Age UK's suggestion that certainty is needed 10 years ahead for retirement planning. Chamberlain also discusses health disparities affecting manual workers and carers, advocating for measures such as flexible working rights, training opportunities, and social security support. She concludes by urging the Government to use this debate to reassure the House of their commitment to fair pension age policies.
Echoes the hon. Member for Amber Valley's appreciation of bringing the debate on state pension age to the House. Expresses concern over reports that the UK Government plans to accelerate the timeline for increasing the state pension age from 67 to 68 by 2034, affecting those born in the 1970s or later. Highlights the injustice faced by women born in the 1950s who had their state pension age increased with little notice, leading to financial hardship and poverty. Cites Age UK's statement warning against accelerating the rise in Pension Age due to its negative impact on millions of people struggling financially. Mentions that more than half of those aged 55 and over rely on state pension as their main income, with many facing caring responsibilities and no savings. Emphasises that raising the retirement age further will disproportionately affect poorer older people who have already undergone a working life of low pay and may face health challenges in retirement.
Pensions are crucial for hard-working individuals who deserve a decent retirement. Criticised the media speculation about potential changes to state pension age, urging the Government to conduct proper consultations instead of leaking information unofficially. Highlighted the current cost of living crisis and the impact of high inflation on pensioners due to government mismanagement. Cited independent research showing that the basic state pension has fallen below the cost of living for a single pensioner in 2023-24. Emphasised the importance of basing pensions policy on evidence and consensus, contrasting this with the current disregard for public consultation.
The Minister reaffirmed the Government's commitment to ensuring older people can live with dignity. She detailed changes in state pension age from 1995 onwards and explained that while Labour had legislated for an increase to 68 by 2044-46, the current plan is to bring this forward to 2037-39 as per the Cridland review of 2017. The Minister confirmed that documents would be published following the review.
The hon. Member inquired about the timing and rationale behind not publishing reports before announcing changes to the state pension age, questioning the public interest in keeping these details hidden.
Government Response
The Minister explained that work was ongoing to complete the review by May 2023. She stated that both documents would be published once the review was completed and emphasised that no decision had been made yet.