| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.27 pm
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford, South): We should start by remembering why we are here. This is an Opposition debate on pensions, so where are the massed ranks of Conservatives who want to tell us how badly they feel? It is good to see sinners repent, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has reminded me.
I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) because I respect his concrete contribution to discussions on pensions.
Mr. Viggers: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene so early in his speech. I shall tell him why the Conservative Benches are rather depleted: a huge Conservative rally has, most unfortunately, happened to coincide with the debate.
Mr. Sutcliffe: The mind boggles. What passes for a huge Conservative rally these days? We shall wait with bated breath for that rally to tell us something about Conservative policy, particularly on pensions.
The debate is about the Opposition trying to embarrass the Government on pensions. However, the only people who should be embarrassed about their pensions policy are members of the Conservative party. It is as though, on 1 May 1997, they drew a line under what had happened before then. They take no responsibility for what the previous Government did.
I am happy to be able to speak today as I have been unable to do so recently because of the protocol surrounding Parliamentary Private Secretaries. Pensions are vital to the people of the United Kingdom. The debate's focus has been narrowed to the detail of pensions, rather than the big picture. The Secretary of State has rightly pointed out that that big picture is important to Labour.
As the hon. Member for Northavon reminded us, pensioners need not be patronised. They know what happened under the previous Government. They know who tried to introduce value added tax at 17 per cent. on energy--the Conservative party. They know who broke the link between earnings and pensions--the Conservative party. They know who deserted the health service and created health inequality among pensioners--the Conservative party. Therefore, we will take no lessons today from the Opposition about missed opportunities on pension policy.
Occupational pensions play an important part in the way forward. The Green Paper sets out opportunities; but the previous Government missed opportunities when the Labour party tabled amendments to the Pensions Act 1995 to improve protection for workers, for member trustees and for pensioner board members to enable them to join occupational pension schemes--all dismissed by the Conservative Government.
If the Opposition are to learn any lessons, they must tell us why they did not improve the situation for British pensioners, and why British pension provision fell to the lowest level in the EC.
Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove):
The Labour party is now in government. If the hon. Gentleman believes what he is saying so strongly, why do not the Labour Government restore the link with earnings for the basic pension? It is very simple.
Mr. Sutcliffe:
We will cover such issues as we proceed with the debate.
Because of the nature of today's debate, it is important that we set the scene and judge the Government's pension record. We cannot do that without examining what went before. A group of pensioners visited the House yesterday
on a trip organised by Age Concern and they said to me, "You're not doing badly for 20 months, given that the other lot had 18 years." I accept that we must be modest and not raise expectations, as the Liberal Democrats say, but pensioners will not be patronised. They know what has happened to their incomes and to the society in which they live, and it is right that the Government should look to the big picture.
The Government inherited a complete mess on welfare reform and social security. The budget was running out of control and there was no direction. [Interruption.] If one studies social security matters in detail, one knows how the budget is divided up and that pensions account for a big part of that.
A measure of society is how it treats its older people, how they fit into society and how they feel about themselves. Therefore, all aspects of Government policy should relate to the pension framework. As well as pension provision, we need an improved health service. We have to create an economic environment where pension value remains constant. We must create a situation in which people who have worked hard all their lives have the opportunity for a decent retirement. The Opposition should learn to choose debates on subjects on which people outside share some of their concerns. They do not share their concerns when it comes to developing pension policy.
I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead. He knows the work that went into the pension review and how the former Minister of State, Department of Social Security, our hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), listened to people throughout the country on pensions. He listened to voluntary groups, pensioners, and people such as Jack Jones and Barbara Castle--people with a view on pensions--and we have set down a particular route. I know that there are concerns about the long term, but, in the short term, we have been successful in trying to alleviate some of the problems faced by pensioners.
I made available an extra £21 billion for the winter fuel payment. It is hard for Labour Members to listen to Opposition Members carping about such measures, because we know that they have a real effect on people's lives. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) may mock, but such measures are important to people out there. We must remember that we represent real people. The Chamber is not simply for political point-scoring; it is for governing the country and governing with consent. If we had a poll now to discover in whose hands pensions would be safest, I am sure that people would agree that they would be safest in the Labour party's hands, not the Opposition's.
Miss Kirkbride:
Only because the Government have a built-in majority.
Mr. Sutcliffe:
We have a majority because people trust us on pensions.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. We cannot have exchanges from a sedentary position. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) knows that, if she wants to intervene, she must do so formally.
Mr. Sutcliffe:
Yes, we accept that we are in government, and we fully accept that it is our
I can talk from first-hand experience of the demoralisation among staff in social security departments, many of whom were on temporary contracts and did not know their long-term future, and many of whom had to claim benefits themselves. When people went to social security offices to ask about benefits, including pensions, they were not given advice and support on the appropriate benefit. If they applied for the wrong benefit, the staff were not allowed to tell them what benefit they should go for, and they were asked to leave. That was the result of a straitjacket of Treasury-driven cuts under the Conservative Government. It had nothing to do with principle or developing pension policy. That was the support that the previous Government gave pensioners.
Pensions are complicated and we need to ensure that pensioners receive their proper entitlement. That is why I am proud that the Labour Government instituted a scheme to ensure that, in nine project areas, pensioners had the opportunity to know their entitlement. We tried to ensure that there was discussion between local authorities and the Government so that claim forms were easy to complete and individuals were advised on their benefit entitlements. That was a positive step to try to ensure that the millions of people who were not claiming the income support to which they were entitled did so.
The Government, through the minimum income guarantee, are trying to change our approach to pensions. It is right and proper, as has been pointed out, that we should change the culture of pension provision in Britain. Ours is an argument based on principle. Those who can work should have the opportunity to do so, and those who cannot should be looked after. We are telling those who can save and who can provide for the future that they must do so, but most ordinary people with such an opportunity will take it. They will be encouraged by the annual statement from their pension provider, no matter what sector is involved. That annual statement will tell them where they are in terms of their pension provision. That is a massive step towards people acknowledging what they have to do for the future.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |