Pension Age Equalisation Negotiations (Hansard, 11 October 1989)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley)
My Lords, negotiations with the European Commission on the draft directive, which includes equalisation of pension age, continue. We shall, of course, have regard to the report of the Select Committee of this House, which was chaired by the noble Lord, on Equal Treatment of Men and Women in Pensions and Other Benefits.

§ Lord Allen of Abbeydale
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I confess that it does not come as any great surprise. In considering the response to the draft directive, will the Minister bear in mind that Mr. Peter Lloyd, who was a Minister in his department, said in evidence to the subcommittee that it might be possible for a decision to be reached even before the report of a current OPCS survey was expected early in 1991? The noble Lord will recall, on the other hand, that he said in the debate on 27th July merely—and not very helpfully—that a change was unlikely this century. Does the Minister not agree that it would be highly desirable to have a reasonably early decision, including a decision on the timetable, so as to put an end to the speculation and uncertainty that surround this matter which is of great importance to millions of people? Could he not be just a little more forthcoming?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I am not sure that I can be. The noble Lord will remember, that: I said when we debated his report on 27th July that it was unlikely that we could reach a decision this century. All I can say is that this is a very complex matter which requires very careful consideration of a number of issues. We feel that it would be unwise to make a precipitate decision.

§ Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, will the Minister inform the House of the position now in relation to bridging pensions? Noble Lords will recall that this issue arises specifically because we have unequal pension ages in this country. In the debate on the report to which reference has already been made it was said on behalf of the Government that this matter would be raised in Brussels. Indeed we recommended that it should be. The lack of any positive view on this question is causing a great deal of uncertainty in the pensions world.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, noble Lords will remember that I said we would write to the Commission. In September we approved the terms of the letter which was forwarded to our permanent representative to the Commission. It has now received that letter. We have obviously not yet received a reply to that letter. No doubt the 299 Commission will wish to consider the matter before responding.

§ Baroness Platt of Writtle
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is hardship and uncertainty for both sexes because of the inequality of pension ages? Is he aware how helpful it would be if the Government would announce a firm date in the future—and I understand that it will have to be in the future—so that employers and employees, men and women, could work constructively and plan for the achievement of this most desirable objective?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I understand the remarks of my noble friend. However, I can only reiterate the fact that this matter is very complex. We feel that it would be unwise to make too hasty a decision.

§ Baroness Lockwood
My Lords, as this matter has been discussed during the past 15 years, does the Minister agree that it would not be a hasty decision on the part of the Government? When he says that it is unlikely that a decision will be effected before the end of the century, is he talking about the commencement or the end of the phasing in period?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, on 27th July I said that it would be unlikely that we would be able to achieve equality of pensions this century.

§ Baroness Phillips
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister will receive exactly the same pension as a man at a given date which has nothing whatever to do with being male or female? Surely if the Government can sort out that matter they can sort out this issue.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Baroness knows that the issue of state pension age is very complex. For historical reasons women receive their pensions at 60 and men at 65. It is very difficult to change that situation, so that people have the same pension age, without causing problems for those who are planning their retirement who might at the moment be only in their 40s.

§ Lord Monson
My Lords, since the life expectancy of men is six or seven years shorter than that of women, is the Minister aware that on average men draw their state retirement pension for 11 or 12 years less than women, despite making exactly the same contributions? Is this not grossly unfair, and ought it not to be rectified as soon as possible?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, as I have just said to the noble Baroness, the reason for the difference in age is historical. It is very difficult to change that. Obviously, because women live longer, they will receive more in pension than men. But we cannot change these matters overnight.

§ Lord Hayter
My Lords, there is no doubt that other European countries are far more advanced than we are in this matter. Has the Minister been able to inform himself about that aspect?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, that is not the case. Some other European countries have the same pension age; others have different pension ages for men and women.

§ Lord Stallard
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that my memory does not go back the 15 years to which the Minister referred in his reply, but 30 years. We were told that it was a complex issue under discussion. We are still receiving the same reply. Can he recall that the Secretary of State for Social Services in 1988 said that the Government accepted the principle of ending discrimination between the sexes. It was not a question of whether, but of how and when. I submit that the European directive and the report of a Select Committee of your Lordships' House have given us the how. We are asking the Minister now to say when. Having accepted the principle, the complexity has gone. Will the Minister now tell us when the principle will be implemented?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, in the debate on the 27th, if I remember rightly, the noble Lord suggested that he favoured 60 as the qualifying age for both sexes. The noble Lord knows that that would be far too expensive an option to consider. The Select Committee put forward the idea of the decade of retirement but accepted that there were problems. The Government see problems in that. I can only go back to what I said earlier: it is a highly complex matter.

§ Lord Gisborough
My Lords, in view of the enormous contribution that women make to the economy, in particular in times when we have fewer people working, would it not be much better if the retirement age of women were put up to 65?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Lord may say that. It would achieve savings, but it could not be done overnight because there are many women in their 40s who have made their plans for retirement on the basis of retiring at 60.

§ Lord Seebohm
My Lords, does the Minister agree that during the next decade there will be a great shortage of skilled labour and that we want people to retire later rather than earlier? Any legislation that will hinder that aim would seem to be very harmful to the general economy.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, as the noble Lord will no doubt be aware, we abolished the earnings rule for pensioners from 1st October of this year. That, I hope, should help to solve that problem.