|  by Lynne Jones MP July 2002 As I write this piece, I have two images in my mind. The first is of
    Margaret Thatchers tearful exit from Downing Street. The second is a Steve Bell
    cartoon depicting two statues: one supported on a solid platform with the word Beveridge,
    the other a crumbling mess, entitled Blair verbiage. Even the most powerful eventually
    fall and what matters is the legacy they leave. The foundations of the welfare state
    introduced by the Attlee Government are still strongly supported today whereas Thatcher is
    largely discredited. How will people view the Blair/Brown period ten years after they go,
    as they inevitably will? What will people think of those who unquestioningly went along
    with their tinkering? Though there has been a large number of weighty review documents and
    exhortations to reform and modernise, the Labour Governments policies have largely
    developed in a piecemeal way with no consistent principles. Brown is trying to remodel
    himself as the heir of Bevan on the back of the welcome increase in funding for the NHS.
    But, if he really believed that a publicly funded NHS is the most modern and rational
    policy, he would also be advocating free long-term care and minimal means-testing in the
    social security system.  Following the debacles over lone parent benefits and the 75p pension
    increase, the Government did act to make amends. Families with children and pensioners
    have benefited greatly from extra spending but we now have a system that is so complex
    that it will be easy for less generous future governments to unpick without people
    understanding the consequences until it is too late. Despite Blairs statement in Prime Ministers Question
    Time on 20 October 1999 that "we are well on the way to formulating the right
    framework for pensions in the future" the pensions system is today seen as being in
    crisis. The means testing now inherent in the system does not encourage those who can to
    save more. Over half of final salary occupational schemes, have been closed, with more
    closures on the way. Now the Government is saying it is considering making it compulsory
    for workers to contribute to stakeholder pension schemes. But these are simply money
    purchase private pension schemes with a cap on administration charges. They are still
    subject to the vagaries of the stock markets and come with no guarantees on outcome. It is
    unlikely that they will provide either the value for money or the security as the same
    amount of investment in a decent state earnings-related pension  a choice now denied
    as a result of this Governments legislation. Dont be fooled by the concept of
    the state second pension (SSP) as a more generous version for low-income workers. The
    combination of SSP and the basic state pension (BSP) will have a lower value as a
    proportion of average earnings than the BSP alone when it was linked to earnings. In 2050
    even more people than today will be retiring with a pension that is less than the
    means-tested pensioners benefit (currently named the minimum income guarantee). No wonder committed members despair and there is no inspiration for
    young idealistic people to want to join the Party. Time is running out to create a legacy
    to be proud of but all of us who adhere to our basic socialist principles have a
    responsibility to do our best to bring this about. I have consistently argued that the best way of removing perverse
    incentives is to raise the state pension to the level of the minimum income guarantee so
    that it is higher than the Governments planned level for the combined BSP and SSP.
    Restoring the earnings link will then ensure that pensioners benefit from rising
    prosperity. Detailed proposals to achieve this have been put forward by the Institute for
    Public Policy Research. If the official retirement age is increased to 67 by 2030 (not
    unreasonably given increased longevity) it will cost no more than the Government is
    planning. Please respond to the Labour Partys consultation on "a modern welfare
    state" by supporting the IPPR proposals on pensions. I will be posting my own
    response on my website, www.lynnejones.org.uk.  back to top |