Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) (No. 2) Bill Clause 1
Automatic enrolment: persons and earnings affected 1.30pm David
Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1,
page 1, line 3, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert— “(2)
In section 3(1)(a), for “22”, substitute “16”. (3) In section
5(1A)(a), for “22”, substitute “16”.” This amendment would reduce
the age at which automatic enrolment...Request free trial
Pensions (Extension of
Automatic Enrolment) (No. 2) Bill
Clause 1
Automatic enrolment: persons and earnings affected
1.30pm
(Glasgow East) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out
subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
“(2) In section 3(1)(a), for “22”, substitute “16”.
(3) In section 5(1A)(a), for “22”, substitute “16”.”
This amendment would reduce the age at which automatic enrolment
begins to apply from 22 to 16.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in clause 1, page 2, line 8, leave out “3(1A),
5(1C),”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 2, line 10, leave out “3(1A),
5(1C) or”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 2, line 14, leave out “3(1A),
5(1C) or”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
It is, as always, a great pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for
Stoke-on-Trent North on getting his Bill through Second Reading,
and I certainly commit my party to supporting the principles of
what he is seeking to achieve.
Automatic enrolment of pensions is not an issue on which I
disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It is probably the only issue
on which he and I agree these days—that says more about our
political differences than anything else. In a similar vein, it
would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the hon. Member for
North West Durham (Mr Holden), who initially introduced the Bill
before he moved on to the dizzy heights of ministerial office at
the Department for Transport.
It would be fair to say that the finer details of pensions policy
do not generally get people’s excitement levels rising, although
Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks, the hon. Member
for Reading East and I find this stuff quite fascinating and
exciting, so we rub along quite nicely. Although there is not
excitement around pensions policy, there is scope for more
political consensus. I believe that is true of automatic
enrolment, which has generally been a success for our society. My
only real criticism of AE is that there has not been a big enough
attempt to include low earners and those of all ages. The Bill
certainly makes great strides towards tackling that inequity, and
it should help with some of the structural problems, such as the
gender pensions gap, which does not get as much political
attention as the gender pay gap.
I have no great desire to detain the Committee for any length of
time today. I appreciate that the action is very much
elsewhere—of course, I am referring to the local housing
allowance debate in Westminster Hall this afternoon. The Minister
knows and, I believe, understands my long-standing interest in
extending automatic enrolment to everyone over the age of 16, not
22 or even 18, and for it to kick in from the first pound earned.
The latter is particularly important for women, especially those
who work part time and have not previously hit the threshold.
These are probing amendments. I am sure the Committee will be
glad to know that I do not intend to press them to a vote. If
Members want to be elsewhere, fear not; I will not press them to
a Division. Amendments 1 to 4 seek to amend clause 1 to ensure
automatic enrolment in a pension kicks in at the earliest
stage—the age at which tax kicks in. They would put on the face
of the Bill that automatic enrolment begins to apply from the age
of 16, not 18, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North
proposes. Amendments 2, 3 and 4 are merely technical amendments
and are consequential in nature, so I will focus on the thinking
behind amendment 1.
We all recognise that there are changes to the labour market, and
that people’s employment journeys are changing. Many of us left
the Chamber during the Chancellor’s speech when he was just
getting on to that section of the Budget. He recognises that
there are changes to the labour market. Likewise, the Work and
Pensions Committee, on which I sit, is currently undertaking an
inquiry into the plan for jobs and is trying to better understand
some of the changes behind working practices and economic
inactivity.
None of us—not even the Chancellor—has a silver bullet suggestion
for how we fix the issues relating to under-25s and over-55s not
participating in the labour market at the level they were before
the pandemic. Following our recent cross-party trip to the USA, I
know that I and others on that Committee certainly see
apprenticeships as just one example of how we can offer a
different path into the labour market.
That brings me very much to my own experience. When exam results
are sent out, we politicians rightly talk about there being no
wrong path for people’s employment journeys. Some, after school,
move straight into further and higher education.
Increasingly—this is my personal belief—they do so sometimes
disproportionately for our economy. I use this analogy to explain
it to folk: if I have a leaking roof or a leaking pipe, I do not
want a doctor or a lawyer—I want a plumber. Perhaps, as an
economy, we need to pivot a bit more towards some of the
trades.
For others, and I am an example, the path on leaving school is a
vocational qualification at first, such as an apprenticeship. It
is with that in mind that I have tabled the amendments. We know
from House of Commons Library research that, at any one time in
the UK, approximately 572,000 people are undertaking an
apprenticeship, sometimes for up to four years with the same
employer, and from age 16. The Bill before us would exclude those
apprentices from inclusion in automatic enrolment. I do not know
why that is, especially when they are likely to have four years
of contributions.
In responding to these probing amendments, will the Minister
outline why the Government’s preference is for age 18 and not 16?
Have they undertaken a specific impact assessment to age 16? If
so, will they publish it? I know that the Government have
published an impact assessment for age 18. It came through within
the last hour, and I have looked at it, but it seems to extend
only to age 18, not 16.
We all agree that automatic enrolment has been a success and
extending it further to younger cohorts is clearly a good thing.
On that, we will not disagree, but I do not understand why the
proposal is to stop at age 18, not extending it all the way to
16, bringing it in line with the point when income tax kicks in,
and including all workers. I very much look forward to the
Minister outlining the Government’s rationale, and explaining why
they would have any difficulty accepting amendment 1 to what is
an otherwise excellent Bill.
(Stoke-on-Trent North)
(Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir
Christopher. I am grateful to you and to fellow Committee members
for joining me today to scrutinise this important legislation,
especially on Budget day.
The Bill before us contains two clauses. I am grateful to hon.
Members for their support for the expansion of automatic
enrolment into workplace pensions, a long-standing public policy
objective that enjoys widespread support in this House and the
other place, and therefore allowing this Bill to proceed to
Committee, despite the lack of opportunity for a debate on Second
Reading.
The Bill has a clear and straightforward purpose: to allow the
Government to lower the age at which qualifying workers are
automatically enrolled into a workplace pension scheme from 22 to
18, and to allow the Government to increase the overall amounts
being saved by abolishing the lower earnings limit of the
qualifying earnings band for workplace pension contributions.
I acknowledge the work of the Under-Secretary of State for
Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr
Holden)—my office buddy in this place—who championed a previous
Bill in this Session with the same objectives and has handed the
baton on to me, to carry forward improvements to retirement
provisions for millions of our fellow citizens. He is a doughty
champion for people up and down our country, as well as those of
North West Durham. We are very lucky to have such a Member in the
House.
The Chair
Order. The hon. Gentleman may be anticipating that we will get
past this group of amendments, and we will then have a debate on
clauses 1 and 2. I hope he will address his remarks to the
specific amendments that we are debating at the moment.
I am more than happy to do that, and to return later on to the
clauses, Sir Christopher.
I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East for his amendments,
which I understand aim to remove the regulation-making power to
reduce the age of automatic enrolment, and replace it with a new
minimum age of 16 for automatic enrolment and re-enrolment, and
make consequential amendments. I am grateful for his explanation
as to why he believes a lower minimum age would be beneficial. I
would certainly support sitting down and discussing it with him
at a later date, but this Bill seeks to amend the legislative
framework for automatic enrolment to deliver the measures set out
in the 2017 AE review, which considered the matter of a lower
minimum age, weighed the evidence and concluded that starting
from age 18 was the right approach. I am not convinced by the
hon. Member’s arguments to depart from that finding today. As he
knows, the Bill gives regulation-making powers to the Secretary
of State to lower the age, subject to a statutory review and the
use of the affirmative procedure. He will therefore have a
further opportunity to make his case to colleagues in this House
and other stakeholders when that consultation takes place. I look
forward to working with him on that. If I may, I will return to
some wider comments—
(Rutherglen and Hamilton
West) (Ind)
rose—
The Chair
Order. We are discussing the amendments only. We will have the
opportunity to discuss things more generally when we get to
clause stand part.
Thank you, Sir Christopher. I can give way to the hon. Lady—
The Chair
Does the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West wish to
participate in this debate or in the more general debate?
indicated assent.
The Chair
The general debate. I call .
(Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher.
I will address my remarks purely to the amendments.
I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East for his work on the
subject. He made a deeply personal and heartfelt point about his
own experience. However, there has been a wide range of
discussion and debate on the matter, and I believe that this
afternoon we ought to focus on the Bill itself. I am aware that
time is pressing, and given the matters being discussed in the
main Chamber, I will leave my remarks at that for now.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
()
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir
Christopher.
I have respect for the hon. Member for Glasgow East, as he knows.
I listened carefully to what he said. He set out his personal
story beforehand, and it is very powerful. I reiterate the points
made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North and by
the hon. Member for Reading East. This was looked at as part of
the 2017 review, and there will be a statutory consultation to
follow it up.
I must say that in moving the amendment, I had rather hoped that
more consideration and debate would be given to it. With the
greatest respect to the hon. Member for Reading East, I am
baffled that the Labour party has nothing to say. Perhaps that is
consistent with its policy positions these days. It was not that
long ago that hordes of young people at Glastonbury were chanting
the name of the former Leader of the Opposition, the right hon.
Member for Islington North (). This rather strikes me as a
bit odd. I understand that the Government have not always been
the kind of folk who tend to have lots of lovely things to say
about the labour movement or young people, but I am particularly
baffled that this Labour party has nothing to say, nor any
explanation as to why it has arrived at this policy position,
other than to say, “We agree with that lot.”
With that in mind, I have sought to stimulate debate—rather
unsuccessfully—but I look forward to the Bill making progress, I
hope. I do not disagree with the Bill itself, as I said, but when
we come to later stages I hope that we can agree to improve
automatic enrolment further and to give this a little more
consideration than it has been given today. I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Thank you for educating me on Committee procedure, Sir
Christopher. I clearly need to read up a lot more in “Erskine
May”. I look forward to learning it at a later date.
I put clearly on the record my thanks to the Pensions Minister,
my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks. This gives me the
opportunity to thank her for securing Government support for the
Bill, which she has worked tirelessly behind the scenes to do
since entering her office. She has been working to get it into
Parliament and, I hope, implemented as quickly as possible to
ensure this for young people, apprentices, in particular, two of
whom I have in my constituency office. Jessica and Mya are 18,
paid well and will now be able to start building up their
pension, which is totally brilliant for them. I look forward to
having ensured that they provide for themselves in future.
The automatic enrolment framework was introduced by the Pensions
Act 2008 and was gradually brought in for all employers across
the UK, starting in 2012. By January 2023, 10.8 million people
had been automatically enrolled into a workplace pension and 2.2
million employers were complying with their duties, with about an
additional £33 billion in real terms saved in 2021, compared with
2012.
In 2017, the Government carried out a year-long review of
automatic enrolment, with a panel of independent, expert
advisers, resulting in a report, “Maintaining the momentum”,
which set out recommendations to expand the workplace pensions
framework. The proposed measures were widely supported by
parliamentarians, stakeholders—including those representing
employers and workers—and of course the pensions industry. The
Bill is the first crucial step in implementing those
recommendations, in that it will provide the necessary
legislative powers. Helping people to save for later life should
be one of the Government’s key priorities, particularly as the
Bill will have a significant impact on the delivery of long-term
investment to areas outside metropolitan London where there are
fewer young people in part-time jobs.
1.45pm
This expansion of auto-enrolment will mean that everybody has
their own pension in addition to their state pension in
retirement, and has comfort in old age. Research from Onward
shows that the Bill will have a positive impact in areas such as
Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. Around 25% of
employees in my area are not auto-enrolled in a pension scheme.
The Bill tackles that, creating more stability in the long
term.
People who earn £9,000 from two separate jobs, and who work 12 to
18 hours a week, perhaps juggling their jobs around childcare or
caring responsibilities, do not currently get the benefits of
auto-enrolment at all. For part-time workers, the auto-enrolment
rate stands at 60%. That compares with a rate of almost 90% among
workers in full-time jobs. According to Onward, the Bill will
result in roughly an extra third of the part-time workforce being
auto-enrolled, which is an increase of 50%. Research by Onward
suggests that the change will add almost £3.5 billion to the
total life savings of people in our area. That will transform the
life of everyone in Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove, Talke, and the
whole country. The Bill will help put cash into communities, and
will help people to help themselves. It will provide extra
private sector money to deliver the levelling up that we so
desperately need.
Under the Bill, regulations can be made, using the affirmative
procedure, to amend the automatic enrolment framework set out in
the Pensions Act 2008. Those powers can be used to reduce the age
of automatic enrolment from the current minimum of 22, and to
abolish the lower earnings limit of the qualifying earnings band
for pension contributions, so that contributions become payable
from the first pound of earnings. The Secretary of State for Work
and Pensions will be required to carry out a public consultation
on the proposed use of the powers, and to report the findings to
Parliament, before making regulations under the Bill. As the
regulations will follow the affirmative procedure, hon. Members
will have a vote on any proposed secondary legislation.
Clause 1 does five things through regulation-making powers.
First, it allows the Secretary of State to amend the automatic
enrolment framework to reduce the age at which an employer must
automatically enrol a qualifying worker into a workplace pension
scheme. Secondly, it allows the Secretary of State to reduce the
age at which a qualifying worker can be automatically re-enrolled
by an employer. Thirdly, it allows the Secretary of State to make
reductions in the lower earnings limit for pensions
contributions, abolish the lower earnings limit and, if required,
abolish a category of worker known as workers without qualifying
earnings, who can currently ask to be placed in workplace
pensions but do not receive an employer contribution. This worker
category would no longer exist if the lower earnings limit were
abolished, because any worker automatically enrolled, or opting
into a workplace pension, would, as a result of the abolition, be
entitled to an employer contribution.
Fourthly, clause 1 allows the Secretary of State to modify the
requirement in primary legislation for annual reviews of the
lower earnings limit of the qualifying earnings band to take
account of any changes to the lower earnings limit, and to make
consequential amendments. Fifthly, if the Secretary of State
makes changes to the Pensions Act 2008 under the clause, they
must use the affirmative procedure, so that Parliament has the
opportunity to scrutinise and debate the secondary legislation.
In addition, the Secretary of State must carry out a public
consultation on the proposed use of the powers before making
regulations, and must make a report to Parliament about the
consultation.
Clause 2 does three things. First, it sets out the territorial
extent of the legislation. By convention, Northern Ireland
legislates separately to ensure that the automatic enrolment
framework applies in the same way in Northern Ireland as it does
in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Northern Ireland Executive
are expected to take forward their own legislation in respect of
clause 1(2) to (4) prior to the regulation-making powers being
used by the Secretary of State. Clause 2 also makes provision for
the coming into force of the Bill, and sets out the Bill’s short
title.
In conclusion, I am extremely pleased and proud that the Bill
will set us on the path to the next successful chapter in the
story of automatic enrolment. It will bring the undoubted
benefits of pensions saving to our younger people, and to those
hard-working, lower-paid workers who deserve the opportunity to
build a more secure retirement for themselves and their family.
It will help us to build a stronger, more inclusive retirement
savings culture for future generations—for people from Kidsgrove
to Consett, and across our United Kingdom.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair and to serve under your
chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I would like to make some brief
comments of support, as this Bill sits in the reserved space and
naturally will apply in Scotland on Royal Assent.
We have already seen how automatic enrolment has successfully
brought many more members of the public into a pension scheme,
which will only serve to benefit them in later life and in
retirement. Particularly as we are facing a cost of living crisis
and many people are finding it much harder to put away spare cash
for a rainy day, it is important and right that contributing to a
pension from a younger age is made easier. For the younger
generation just starting out in the workplace, retirement looks
like a speck on the horizon—too far off to think about for some
time yet. I am sure we all remember feeling the same; pensions
were the last thing on our mind at that age. It is crucial,
however, to start making those savings earlier in life, so that
there is less pressure later, as retirement approaches and people
have the realisation that they have not saved as much as they
need.
A general lack of understanding about pensions is a real problem
when it comes to future planning. Research by the Social Market
Foundation has shown that most of the population nearing
retirement age do not actually know how much money they will need
to see them through retirement. The typical person aged 50 to 64
has pension savings that are 58% short of what they require. That
adds up to a total annual savings gap of £132 billion across the
country for those reaching retirement age.
I hope that this legislation, if passed, will have some positive
impacts for the harder-to-reach groups in society: women, people
with disabilities, and ethnic minorities. They already have
substantially lower-value pension pots on average. However, I
wonder whether, when eliminating the lower earnings limit for
contributions and laying regulations, the Secretary of State
might consider this being for employers only, and having a higher
threshold for employee contributions in the light of the current
economic difficulties.
I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North on
successfully steering his Bill through its legislative stages so
far. Last year, I was lucky enough to see my own private Member’s
Bill through to Royal Assent—incidentally, it was also on
pensions policy—and I know how much hard work that is for the
Member and for those supporting him, so well done.
Once again, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,
Sir Christopher. I commend the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent
North for his work on this Bill, and, indeed, other Members from
across the House and the wider policy discussion about the
importance of auto-enrolment. As the hon. Member for Rutherglen
and Hamilton West rightly said, pensions adequacy is a very
important issue facing the whole of our society; it is a matter
of great importance. We should, across the House, be encouraging
people to save for their future, so it is important to debate
this issue today.
I particularly want to say, in the time that I have, that
auto-enrolment in itself is a great public policy success of the
last few years. It dates back to the work of the Pensions
Commission for the last Labour Government. The coalition
Government implemented this change in 2012, and there has been
growth in the number of people saving for a pension as a result.
That is a commendable step forward.
However, pensions adequacy remains an issue and it is important
for us to continue to go forward. In doing so, we need to work in
a gradual, sensible and practical way to try to encourage
auto-enrolment, and to work with stakeholders such as businesses,
savers themselves and, indeed, society as a whole to try to take
this work forward. In that spirit, I have some questions for the
Minister.
This Bill will clearly offer real advantages to many younger
people, who will be saving not only a greater sum, but from an
earlier point in their life. That will help to build a much
better pension pot for those pension savers. My questions for the
Minister are primarily about the nature of the consultation,
because as we have heard, it is hugely important that we work
with pension savers themselves, with employers and with other
stakeholder organisations to ensure that there is consensus on
this issue and that policy is developed in a sensible way.
Therefore I would like the Minister to explain to the Committee a
little more about the nature of the consultation: in particular,
what work the Department has done to encourage pension savers,
especially young people, to be aware of the potential to save
more for a pension in the future; the discussion that she has had
with employers, both individual employers and employer
organisations; and what she will do to continue to work with
them, because when this legislation is implemented, it is a step
forward for them—it is a greater contribution. We need to work
with them.
I would like to know what work the Minister is doing with trade
unions. They have a very important part to play in the roll-out
of auto-enrolment. I was glad that the hon. Member for
Stoke-on-Trent North mentioned that and acknowledged the
significant work that they do. I am also interested in the
consultation, in so far as it has reached out to advice
organisations such as Which? and many others that have an
important role in the wider money and savings debate. I hope that
she is discussing with them the importance of this.
My second question is about when the Department hopes to use
these powers. As has been said, the Bill allows the Government
the power to do this and explains how it would happen through a
statutory instrument. However, the Bill does not specify when
this might happen. The Minister has talked in the past about the
mid-2020s. I would be grateful if she clarified how she defines
mid-2020s, and whether she will take into account any other
factors such as the overall performance of the economy and the
nature of any continuing cost of living crisis as we approach
that time.
Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North for
his work on this matter, and I thank colleagues from across the
House. I look forward to further answers from the Minister about
the importance of consultation and bringing stakeholder groups
with us on this important journey.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North
and, in absentia, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my
hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham, on this excellent
Bill, which will expand the benefits of automatic enrolment into
workplace pensions to younger people and lower-paid workers.
I think we all agree that automatic enrolment has been a huge
game changer in the workplace pension savings market over the
past decade. Private sector workplace pension participation among
eligible employees has increased by 44 percentage points since
2012, to 86% in 2021. As has been mentioned a couple of times, it
has been especially transformative for women, low earners and
young people, who historically have been poorly served by or
excluded from workplace pensions. The proportion of women in the
private sector participating in a workplace pension reached 87%
in 2021, above that of men and more than double what it was in
2012.
Thanks to automatic enrolment, the overwhelming majority of
eligible workers are now enrolled in a workplace pension, saving
an asset for the future. Automatic enrolment is re-establishing a
culture of retirement saving for a new generation. However, we
know that there is more to do. The Government have made it clear
that their ambition has always been to deliver on the 2017
automatic enrolment review measures. The review proposed two key
measures: extending AE to young adults aged 18 to 21 by lowering
the age criteria for enrolment; and removing the lower earnings
limit, which would improve saving levels among low and moderate
earners.
Since I took up my role as Minister for Pensions, I have been
determined to make progress on AE expansion, and I am therefore
delighted to confirm that the Government are supporting my hon.
Friend’s Bill to do exactly that. The legislation will mean that
younger workers and those who are in lower-paid employment—often
because they work part time owing to personal circumstances, such
as caring responsibilities—will be able to participate fully in
automatic enrolment. For the first time, every worker will
benefit from an employment contribution if they are enrolled or
opt in; that is key to boosting the overall amounts being saved
into a workplace pension. The powers in this Bill allow a
Government-defined authority to deliver the changes set out in
the 2017 review reforms, which Parliament has debated on numerous
occasions, and I think there is broad agreement that it should
become law.
On the questions from the hon. Member for Reading East, the
Government are clear that implementing the expansion of automatic
enrolment can only take place following consultation. That will
be a consultation on the implementation approach and the
timetable. He mentioned employer and employee engagement in
particular. We absolutely need a full comms campaign, and—to the
points raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow East—we could also
look at what we can do for 16-year-olds. Even if we do not get
quite where the hon. Member for Glasgow East wants us to with the
age, I think there is more we can do to encourage them to opt in.
We can discuss that as part of the consultation.
Trade unions were part of the original 2017 work, and I am very
grateful to them for that. We have spoken to them frequently
since, as we have to employer organisations. We will hold a
series of roundtables now as we move towards the consultation,
and we will involve them in the consultation. On timing, I would
like to launch the consultation in the autumn, with this Bill
going through, I hope, in the near future. I cannot say anything
further than “mid-2020s”, I am afraid, but as soon as I am in a
position to update the hon. Member for Reading East, I will of
course do so.
Our objective is to maintain the broad political consensus for
workplace pensions, which has been an important part of the
success of the reforms since the beginning. The approach taken in
the Bill to guarantee meaningful and detailed consultation to
help implement the changes will help to build enduring support
for this important work to boost the retirement aspirations of
millions of our fellow citizens. Once again, I congratulate my
hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North and I commend the
Bill to the Committee.
2.00pm
May I put on record my thanks to you, Sir Christopher, and to
everyone who has contributed to this short, constructive debate?
I thank all Members who agreed to serve on the Committee, in
particular the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, who
has become a good friend in the House and a done a lot on
pensions. Also, he may not want to admit it, but the hon. Member
for Glasgow East and I are good friends, but I am sure that he
will not put that on any endorsement leaflets any time soon.
On a point of order, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not
wish to mislead the Committee inadvertently. We cannot have that
on the record; my constituents will deselect me.
I look forward to doing a podcast with the hon. Gentleman very
soon to discuss all the great work that he does in the House as a
SNP Member.
The Bill makes certain that people in areas such as
Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, where nearly one in
four people are not auto-enrolled in a pension, will have more
financial security in the long term. It will simplify the process
to mean that for just a few pounds a week, and through the power
of compound interest, people could be £30,000 better off in
retirement. That is absolutely transformative, which is why the
Bill is critical.
I also thank the hon. Member for Reading East, whom I hugely
admire in the House. I assure him that I too will keep the
Government’s feet to the fire from the Government Benches so that
we get an actual implementation date, because I do not like
references to wishy-washy mid-2020s. I want to see a date firmly
in writing. I am delighted that the consultation will take place
in the autumn and I look forward then to hearing about a firm
date.
I want to finish by again thanking my hon. Friend the Member for
North West Durham—he deserves another shout-out—for his support
throughout the passage of the Bill and for putting the case
forward with Onward, a fantastic think-tank, which has done a lot
of work with him to put the argument. I am delighted and proud
that he was very kind in asking me to carry on his great work as
he ascended to higher office and as I descended at the same time.
I thank the Minister for getting the Bill supported by the
Government, and for how she has worked with me, officials and
obviously the Treasury, twisting arms wherever necessary to get
the Bill over the line and, I hope, on the statute book.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the
House.
On a point of order, Sir Christopher. I thank you for chairing
the proceedings in Committee and pay tribute to the Clerk, Chris
Wilson, for his help in drafting amendments. I look forward to
the Bill proceeding to the other House.
The Chair
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point of order,
and I am sure that he speaks for everyone in expressing thanks to
everybody. I add to that thanks to our hon. Friend the Member for
Castle Point (), who has facilitated more
progress on Private Members’ Bills during this Session than I
think we have ever seen in the past.
Today is a very poignant day to be debating this particular Bill
because the Chancellor has made quite an important announcement
on the issue of pensions. As I was leaving the Chamber in order
to be on time in this Committee a number of people said, “Now you
are going off to top up your pension immediately following the
announcement.” That is by the bye. I thank everyone for attending
the Committee sitting, and congratulate the hon. Member for
Stoke-on-Trent North on introducing the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.
|
