I think that we all come into Parliament with the intention of making a difference. I genuinely believe that since 1997 the Labour Government have made a difference to today’s pensioners. We have already heard tributes paid by hon. Members on both sides of the House, remarkably, to the pension credit scheme, and the difference that that has made to the poorest pensioners, especially women. We have the winter fuel allowance, free travel and free televisions licences for the over-75s. In Scotland, there is free help with heating for those who have older houses or houses without central heating. We have done a great deal for today’s pensioners.
Every so often, however, there is a chance in our lives as politicians to change the lives of future generations. The legislation that will come from the White Paper will do just that. The White Paper is not about today’s pensioners. I can understand that when something is called a pensions White Paper or a pensions commission the people to whom we turn immediately for an opinion are those who are presently pensioners. However, they will not be the ones to enrol in the national pension savings scheme. They are not the ones who might have to work longer to make the scheme pay. Current female pensioners will not benefit from the changes in accrual rights for national insurance credits. They have already retired. So, by its very nature, the White Paper is not aimed at today’s pensioners. It is aimed instead at ensuring that we have a structure and a basis for future pensioners so that they can also enjoy the benefits of the country’s prosperity.
There are bold aspirations in both the Turner proposals and in the White Paper. I hope that for the first time we are bringing together political parties from both sides of the House and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, the public as well into a consensus on how we move forward and how we will build for the future on what we have now.
We have come quite a long way. I was on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions for all of the previous Parliament and have been on the same Committee for slightly more than a year during this Parliament. I feel as if I have been living with the proposals from the various Turner commission reports for a long time, but not, I suspect, for quite as long as is felt by Lord Turner and his two fellow commission members. Perhaps it is worth reflecting on Opposition Members’ attitude at the time. That might illustrate how we have come quite a long way.
The setting up of the Turner commission was greeted with a great deal of scepticism. Opposition Members thought that the Government were trying to avoid the issue by putting it out into the long grass and that when the commission reported, the Government would bury the report. That was probably the general feeling among Opposition Members. In fact, the Government have not buried the report, and the level of consensus that we have already seen during today’s debate suggests that we have come quite a long way.
I was disappointed by the amendment tabled by the Scottish National party. Its tone is somewhat sour. That is not the tone of the Conservative amendment or that of the Liberal Democrats—I am not normally nice to the Liberals.
Pensions Reform
Proceeding contribution from
Anne Begg
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 27 June 2006.
It occurred during Adjournment debate on Pensions Reform.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
448 c180-1 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 22:55:23 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_333295
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_333295
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_333295