| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): When can we debate the contents of early-day motion 219?
[That this House notes with alarm that of the 600,000 people who were victims of pensions mis-selling, only 10 per cent. have so far been compensated; supports the Economic Secretary in her recent efforts to ensure that those pension companies which engaged in mis-selling are encouraged to settle matters of outstanding compensation without undue delay; supports Government measures to protect and help those who are victims of mis-selling; and calls on the pensions industry to ensure that such a situation as the mis-selling never happens again.]
The motion makes it clear that 600,000 people in Britain are still awaiting compensation because they were mis-sold personal pensions. Is it not a terrible scandal that companies with national names that are so well respected are behaving so abominably in terms of compensating their victims? They sell pensions, sometimes in a quarter of an hour, but it has taken them seven or eight years to compensate their victims. They move with the speed of a striking snake on speed when selling pensions, but when it comes to compensation their reactions are those of an arthritic sloth. Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the House that the my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will report on what progress has been made in compensating these unfortunate people?
Mrs. Taylor:
My hon. Friend is quite correct to describe it as a national outrage and, as he says, hundreds of thousands of people are involved. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who is on the Treasury Bench, made the first of what will be regular statements about the state of affairs in respect of action on the issue. She will review the position in the autumn and will make further decisions about what action is required as and when they are needed. Those involved in the pensions industry should be under no illusions. My hon. Friend will keep up her actions, as many people have waited too long for justice.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall):
Reverting to the subject of the timetable motion, may I assure the Leader of the House that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches do not oppose in principle the programming of the legislation.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
However.
Mr. Tyler:
Indeed, there are some advantages. One can ensure proper opportunity to debate all sections of important legislation and obtain proper consultation with outside interests, but--[Interruption.] I always like to oblige the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
Has the Leader of the House checked that the Bill as it stands complies completely with the very tight constraints for a money Bill under section 1(2) of the Parliament Act 1911. If it does not, there could be major problems in the other place. Will she also address the question of Standing Order No. 50 in the other place? It is headed:
Mrs. Taylor:
Clearly, if there is a delay anywhere, we could not begin the summer recess on the date that I have announced. Of course, the Bill has been checked in the usual way and complies with all the regulations.
I turn to the scale of the Bill. It will bring some major benefits to many people and it is important that we should press ahead on that basis. We have agreed through the usual channels that what Opposition Members believe are the four main items will be debated on the Floor of the House. We have also been accommodating about the issues that should be taken in Committee. I think that we have been generous compared with other years in the total amount of time provided.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington):
My right hon. Friend will know that one of our hon. Friends is bringing in a Bill on fox hunting, which many of us will want to support. Is she prepared to consider arranging a special debate on fox hunting in the next few weeks to enable us to put the case for the Select Committee on Agriculture to carry out an early and urgent inquiry into the whole question of fox hunting so that the many thousands of people involved may at least feel assured that their case has been heard in Parliament before we have legislated?
Mrs. Taylor:
I can hold out no hope of a special debate on fox hunting of the kind that my hon. Friend wants.
Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster):
The Leader of the House will understand that until we see the details of the timetable motion, we are dealing with shadows. I heard what she said about sittings, but it sounded to me as if there will be an acceleration in lapsed time, which puts a considerable strain on those interests in my constituency who will be wishing to advise on the Bill as it goes through
Mrs. Taylor:
I have no idea whether the Bank of England was consulted. I am not sure of the relevance to the timetabling of business in Committee. As I have said to Opposition Members, we published the Bill as early as possible in draft form so that extra consultation could take place over the weekend. In fact, we went further than usual because we published it on the Internet.
Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough):
Did my right hon. Friend see an article in The Sunday Times that suggested that meetings were taking place between manufacturers of contraceptive pills and health Ministers that might lead to a prescription charge for contraception of up to £8 a month? Does she agree that many women throughout the country would be extremely concerned if such a charge were introduced? Will she take steps to ensure that Parliament is made aware of whether that is the intention of health Ministers?
Mrs. Taylor:
There is no need to make Parliament aware of any change, because The Sunday Times report is wrong. No proposal has been made to stop free contraceptives and no meetings of the kind described in the article have taken place; nor are they planned.
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset):
In view of the decision to put a timetable motion on the Finance Bill, will the Leader of the House make time for a special debate on the windfall tax? I am especially concerned that the windfall tax could be applied to companies other than those mentioned in the Bill, including, for example, BP. Her noble Friend, Lord Simon, who is chairman of BP, will be able to tell her that part of the privatisation process for British Gas included the sale of its exploration interests to BP, which gained a large windfall from that purchase from the Government.
BP, Cable and Wireless, and other companies could fall within the definition in schedule 1 to the Bill and that is so important to the stock value of so many companies--indeed, to the value of the shares that Lord Simon holds--that we should have a special debate on how the windfall tax will apply, to ensure that the definition that the Government believe they have a mandate for is properly applied.
Mrs. Taylor:
I can confirm that the first debate on the Budget in Committee of the whole House will be on the windfall tax. There will also be provision for debate on the windfall tax in Standing Committee.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
I have heard some phoney arguments in my time, including those on the so-called guillotine on the Finance Bill. Some Tory Members have been running to the Table Office for several weeks to try to find out when the recess will begin so they can go on holiday, yet they are now complaining. I have a suggestion for my right hon. Friend. If the Tories are so keen on staying, we will stay beyond 12 August when the grouse season starts and then we will see what happens.
May I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate on air safety, because British Airways is now training cabin crews in a few days to man aircraft whose crews are
legitimately out on strike? For many people, flying is a nervous matter, and ill-trained cabin crews will make it even more frightening. We should have a debate so that all those matters can be aired.
Mrs. Taylor:
I got the feeling that my hon. Friend was taking Members with him until he mentioned 12 August. The protests from Opposition Members have been somewhat half-hearted and, for some weeks, I have received inquiries from them about recess dates.
"No clause to be annexed to a Bill of Aid or Supply foreign to the matter",
and states:
"The annexing of any clause or clauses to a Bill of Aid or Supply, the matter of which is foreign to and different from the matter of the said Bill of Aid or Supply, is unparliamentary and tends to the destruction of constitutional Government."
Has she been briefed that the Bill as it stands completely and utterly falls within the natural constraints of a money Bill? If it does, all the issues of timetabling in this House could fall by the wayside. Is she confident that, if there is a delay in the other place, we can still begin the summer recess on the date that she announced?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |