| Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill
|
|
Mrs. Lait: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The Chairman: With this we may discuss new clause 20—Alternatives to annuities
Mrs. Lait: I hope that Committee members can concentrate with the repetitive din going on outside. Perhaps if we develop headaches, we can resort to some product from the pharmaceutical industry. Mr. Rooker: It is investment in London. Mrs. Lait: I am sure that it is investment in London, but it is probably not new houses on brown-field sites. For some time now, one of the underlying problems that has been a concern to pensioners and people who are approaching pension age is the poor deal that they are receiving from obligatory annuities. New clause 19 addresses that problem. New clause 20 addresses the issue of income drawdown, which is a related but separate issue, so I shall deal with it separately. I should declare the fact that my husband is working under an income drawdown system, although I am glad to say that he is not 75 and having to take the obligatory annuity because he would be a very unhappy chap if he was. He would be unhappy because annuities are not good value at the moment. They are not good value first, because the national health service is managing to keep us all alive for much longer and, secondly, because there are not many long-dated gilts in the market. That means that people who have been prudent and who have been saving for some considerable time under the rules of anything other than an occupational pension scheme are having to purchase low value annuities, which are not meeting their expectations for their retirement. To a certain extent, the Government have recognised that, because they published a consultation document, to which responses were required by 29 February. I appreciate that it is a little early for them to have received any serious response. Indeed, I recognise that should we be able to persuade the Government to agree to our sentiments in principle, new clause 19 would be seriously defective. In fact, I imagine that we would need a large and complex Act to replace annuities, but the new clause is intended to open up the debate about how people can better provide for themselves. [Interruption.] Ah! That is nice. Do you think they have stopped for tea? I am relieved that the pile driving has stopped temporarily. I hope they have a very long tea break. Most pensioners who have been sufficiently prudent to save for themselves find that their pensions are not as good as they had hoped. The Government's consultation document is timid and does not begin to think through whether an annuity is the best way for people to provide for their retirement. Many people maintain that there is a real necessity to ensure that as few people as possible are a drain on the state, and annuities provide for that. Somebody might have a large pot of money when they retired and immediately blow it. After a year or two of spend, spend, spend, they would have got rid of the £100,000, £200,000 or £250,000 that they had saved, and would immediately fall back on to the state and provisions such as the minimum income guarantee. There are ways around the situation. The retirement income working party suggested only last week that everyone should be obliged to take an annuity that would provide them with an income at least equivalent to the minimum income guarantee. That would be a compromise. People would be able to put their money in an occupational pension fund. Fund managers could invest it more sensibly in the stock market or property, for example, so that it yielded in higher returns. People who have been able to look after their pension pot have found the past two or three years to be profitable.
4.45 pmI hoped that the new clause would widen the debate on annuities. Annuities suit people who want to know that they will have the certainty of a monthly income that they do not have to think about when they retire. They are prepared to accept that the returns are not good. Others are interested in investment and want to take steps to improve their position. The compromise might be to have a smaller annuity to provide the equivalent of the minimum income guarantee and to allow everybody either to manage their own pension pot, or to arrange for pension fund managers or investment trust managers to do it for them. The City is there to provide. We had long debates during the last year's Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill Committee about the provision of annuities and about how bad a deal they were. I vividly remember saying that the City would be able to come up with instruments to replace them. Government Members were sceptical that the City could do that, but it has in the past year. New ideas are emerging to help people to manage their pension pots better than through investing in annuities. Over time, a wider range of instruments will become available. I would like to encourage the Government to create the circumstances in which people are able to use more than old-fashioned annuities. Another idea is that there should be a link to a longer-term average rate of return on pension funds. Such rates are published and can be tracked over the past 50 years. With due weighting to ensure that the regulators were happy, an income stream might be based on them. I am sure that the great financial brains of the City could produce such an instrument. I encourage the Government to think more widely than they did in their consultation document and to allow people to benefit from the money saved for their pension. Such savings are huge—equalled only by the wealth that might be invested in a house—and should be made inheritable. An annuity ends with the death of the owner. It would be a huge pot of money if one had a reasonable pension. It seems iniquitous that it cannot be put into the pot of inheritable wealth. Indeed, if such a thing were to happen, it could go some way to solving the costs of long-term care for those with that level of pension income. I turn briefly to the 75-year rule and the income drawdown. We have said before that the labour market is changing. Demographic changes will probably mean that more people will work for longer. However, more people may retire earlier, having another, third life before reaching retirement age. Why does it have to be the age of 75 if people are living healthier and longer lives? What is it about 75 that makes the Government insist that, however well they have managed their pensions investments, people must buy an annuity then? I see absolutely no need for an age limit. It should be possible for people to decide when they wish to buy an annuity. By abolishing the 75- year rule we may get rid of annuities for those who wish to go down the income drawdown route. Indeed, because of the poor return on annuities, I understand that last year a third of all pensioners opted for income drawdown at 75. A market exists, which shows that people resent the annuity. What is it about the age of 75 that requires am annuity to be purchased? The simplest way to get rid of annuities is to get rid of the income drawdown, leaving it as an option, and opening up the pension market. That would give people flexibility and diversity, which would allow them to invest tax free as much as they could. We should not consider that to be a tax break for the rich. We should encourage people to make the most of their pension funds, and we should get rid of the income drawdown at the age of 75. It is with pleasure that I move the new clause. Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam): I offer my apologies, Mr. O'Brien, for not being here at 4.30 pm. Angela Eagle: It is the second time. Mr. Burstow: As the hon. Lady says, it is the second time. I am happy to put that on record. I apologise also to the Minister of State, as he would have prepared notes to respond to the amendment. I regret not being here. Mr. Rooker: It is worse than that; I studied them. Mr. Burstow: He has studied them, for which I am grateful. My only reason for rising, Mr. O'Brien, was to apologise to you and to the Committee for not being here on time. Mr. Rooker: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's short speech. It is not easy for members of a minor party always to be here, and I do not criticise him. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) raised what seemed to be two issues, but what were one issue compartmentalised. I shall try to respond to both aspects, but I must enter a caveat. I am not trying to cop out of the argument, because we have joined-up government and collective responsibility, but the Committee will appreciate that many of the rules that govern annuities are made by the Inland Revenue. Those rules are made to defend public money, and changes in those rules are essentially a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, so I cannot deviate from my prepared text. An Annuity is a guaranteed sum of money. Recently, I received a deputation from a group that cannot accept pensions because of its religious beliefs. As it put it to me, an annuity is a gamble with God's gift: one's life. Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): The brethren. Mr. Rooker: Yes, the brethren. That is what an annuity amounts to—it is a gamble. Some people will live a long time and others a short time. The guarantee is made whether the annuity is flat rate or indexed. For people who live a very short time after they have taken out the annuity, the pot is lost because the annuity has been purchased, which makes the system fluid. The matter is complex and involves many millions of pounds and years of commitment. I do not wholly buy the argument that because annuity rates are low, the current circumstances are bad compared with those of the past. I shall give the Committee an example of what I mean in a moment.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2000 | Prepared 7 March 2000 |
