| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar) rose--
Mr. Darling: Just a moment. That is not all. The list also includes the right hon. Members for Fylde (Mr. Jack), for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) and for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), and the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). All those Conservative Members were in the DSS during that time and did not see fit to alter the departmental leaflets to tell pensioners what was happening. That is another mess that the Labour Government have to sort out.
Mr. Pickles: When instructions went out to officers about that problem on 12 January this year, why did the Government make no mention of looking again at the advice that had been given to people? Why was that not included in the memo? The right hon. Gentleman is complaining about others not taking action. Why has he not addressed the problem himself?
Mr. Darling: I caution the hon. Gentleman against relying too heavily on Conservative party press releases as an authoritative source of anything. We are having to sort out the problem and ensure that the proper information is given.
The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green referred to the problems with the national insurance recording system computer. Who signed the contract with Andersen--a contract whose difficulties we are having to sort out? It was the Conservative party.
Before I deal with our proposals, I remind the House that we have heard nothing about the Tories' pension plans. With perhaps two years to go before the next election, one might have thought that they would turn their minds to some alternative if they do not think that our proposals are acceptable.
Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury):
The right hon. Gentleman is worried about it.
Mr. Darling:
I am not worried about it, but the hon. Gentleman ought to be. I would be deeply worried if I belonged to a party that had not even thought about the next election because it still could not come to terms with what had happened at the previous one.
Mr. Duncan Smith:
The Secretary of State again tries to shift the burden of blame. His party, in government, has been responsible for the implementation of NIRS2. The report of the Public Accounts Committee said:
Mr. Darling:
I interpreted that report in another way: one might have thought that, in 1996, when the contract was entered into, some thought would have been given to what would happen if a changeover were designed so that the old system had to be entirely switched off in the hope that the new system would operate from day one.
The final part of our inheritance, which is, perhaps, the most damning indictment of the Conservatives' 18-year term of government, is that one in three people now working faces retirement on means-tested benefits by 2050. We produced our proposals to deal with that problem and, unlike any other proposals in recent memory, they have been almost universally accepted by those who responded to them.
Mr. David Rendel (Newbury):
I want to return, for a moment, to SERPS. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have great sympathy with him because his Government have been left with an appalling problem that will be difficult to solve. However, does he not accept that his Government must take a share of the blame because, although the brochures were changed in 1996, for a year and a half after Labour took power, the letters that his Department sent out still gave the wrong information?
Mr. Darling:
I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's point: we have to clear up the difficulties that have been caused. There is no doubt about that, and we shall do it.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough):
Say sorry.
Mr. Darling:
Opposition Members want me to say sorry, but the root cause of the problem is that, for nine years, those in government--who, as I said, included the highest echelons of the present Tory party--did nothing to ensure that the right information was given. We shall sort out that problem, but the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) will have to wait until the Government have decided how best to proceed.
I turn now to our proposals, which were published in our Green Paper last year. As I said, it is interesting that, unlike the Conservative Government's proposals, which were made at the fag-end of the previous Parliament and collapsed within 24 hours of being announced, our principles and approach have been almost universally accepted. We received more than 500 responses, of which the vast majority agreed that our approach to the new state second pension, to funded pensions for moderate and high earners and to the new stakeholder pension is right.
Having established the principles, it is now necessary to get right the details. I make no bones about the fact that we are consulting because the pensions industry depends on a partnership between the Government, pension providers and individuals. It is important to get the details right, and I welcome the fact that the industry is keenly engaged in that discussion.
We are building on what is good about the current system. We are supporting occupational pensions. We introduced proposals to simplify regulations, which will help. We want to encourage the take-up of personal pensions, where appropriate, and the building of personal savings. We want to build a partnership between the state and the individual, moving from the present relationship
in which 60 per cent. of pension provision is public and 40 per cent. private, to one, by 2050, in which 40 per cent. is publicly provided and 60 per cent. is private.
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury):
The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants to get the details right, and the House can understand that, but what is his overarching aim? Does he want to encourage self-provision, or not? If he does, how will increasing the proportion of people who will ultimately be caught up in means-testing achieve that aim?
Mr. Darling:
We are reducing that proportion, so the hon. Gentleman is wrong on that point. I shall answer his question by setting out our actions, because his remark is specifically directed at the new minimum income guarantee. That is the target, or basic standard of decency, that we want people to beat.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about my overriding objective. What I want to do is ensure that all who can save do save. My proposals make provision for everyone: everyone will have the option of saving, and we want to encourage everyone to do so. We recognise that some people will not be able to save enough, for whatever reason, which is why we are introducing the minimum income guarantee. I understand that the Conservative party opposes the guarantee. Conservative Members nod, so I must be right.
Without the guarantee, this year alone 1.5 million pensioners would be £160 a year worse off. That does not strike me as very sensible, but if the Conservatives' policy is to ensure that 1.5 million people are £160 a year worse off, that is a matter for them. Labour Members believe that a minimum income guarantee, uprated each year in line with earnings--as announced by the Chancellor earlier this year--will ensure a basic, decent standard of living for the poorest pensioners. We have inherited a good many pensioners who are poor. But I want pensioners to do better than that--
Mr. Darling:
I will give way now, but, after that, I shall explain how our proposals will enable pensioners to do better.
Mr. Darling:
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will give way to his boss.
Mr. Duncan Smith:
The Secretary of State has not replied to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). A written answer given to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)--who I see is present--on 13 April makes it clear that, as a result of the Secretary of State's minimum income guarantee, a pensioner retiring in 15 years' time would require an extra £15,000 to stay above the level for the guarantee, or £19,000 in 1999 prices. What does the right hon. Gentleman say to pensioners who know that they cannot make it, and that they will be sucked back into dependency?
Mr. Darling:
I would say two things. Because of the neglect of the past 20 years, in the next few years, many
"In view of the potential impact of the delay on benefit recipients and the pensions industry, we think that contingency planning should have been given greater priority at a much earlier stage."
That is an indictment of the Secretary of State.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |