Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)

My Lords, I shall do my best. I also warmly congratulate the committee. Many of the speeches already made have set out the situation, demography and all the rest of it. The United Nations has described population ageing as “a defining global trend of our time”. The changes taking place here and across the world will transform our workforce, public services, pensions and families. It is worth remembering that when the Queen came to the Throne in 1952, she used to send a telegram to everybody reaching 100. How many did she send in 1952? Some 300. That is the scale of the change. Sending that many telegrams now would be difficult, to say the least. We have to act now. The greatest improvement to our fiscal outlook will come not from simply increasing the state pension age but, as has rightly been said, from enabling more people in their mid-50s and 60s to remain in work. Healthy life expectancy in the UK has fallen by more than two years in the past decade. As the ONS figures show, it is at its lowest level since the present series began—a watershed moment. I will refer to Sir Charlie Mayfield’s Keep Britain Working review. We are growing older and living longer but getting sick sooner. This is not just a problem for the NHS; it is a problem for the economy. He identifies a profession that gets far too little recognition and understanding. It is mentioned in the report and the government response. It is the occupational health profession. As the report says: “In 2024 only 45% of workers had access to OH support … this falls to just 18% among small employers”. If we want to keep more people working through ill health, or returning afterwards, they are a critical group, helping people manage conditions, make adjustments, return after illness and avoid leaving employment altogether. The Centre for Ageing Better, which I applaud, estimates in its report on the looming retirement crisis that more than 900,000 people between 50 and state pension age are out of work but would like to be working. I must quickly shoot forward to the triple lock, because the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, as has rightly been said, has been forthright—saying that it is “completely bonkers” and “very unfair” to younger generations—and we heard more from him this week. Sir Leigh Lewis, the distinguished former Perm Sec at the Department for Work and Pensions, wrote this in a letter to the Times recently: “Of all the policies for which I had some responsibility during my time in government, this was by far the worst. Left unchanged, it will bankrupt our children and grandchildren”. His conclusion was equally clear: politicians of all parties have a duty to admit that the triple lock policy is “unaffordable” and “has to change”. The other area in which I look to for courage is social care. The Prime Minister, with his people-pleasing approach, has said warm words about social care, but this is an incredibly costly programme. Healthcare has always been free at the point of use, but social care has always had an assessment of means. It is essential that there is a proper expectation of what the reality of a social care programme will involve. I hope somebody will produce coherence in this programme. I commend the report.