| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Pickles: The Minister is being most reasonable, and I am not saying this to be difficult. However, the Minister's noble Friend Baroness Hollis said that the Government would make an announcement before the end of deliberations. Also--and with great respect--I must remind the Minister that he said two weeks ago that the Government would come to a decision within three weeks. He is now saying that this has slipped, perhaps until April. Could he tell us why?
Mr. Rooker: In effect, we are making an announcement with the publication of the amendment. That is not the solution, but it gives us two options. We have not yet come to a conclusion. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is quoting Baroness Hollis, and we are amending Lord Rix's amendment. I pay tribute to Lord Rix for his work and his contribution to the debates in the other place. We owe him our thanks for providing us with a legislative way forward--albeit one that does not provide a solution.
The amendment provides the power to introduce regulations and will allow the Government to do one or more of the following: to vary the percentage rate of
inherited SERPS for some or all of the widows and widowers; to postpone the change to 50 per cent. to a specified later date, and I have given an example of the cost if that were to be in 10 years' time; or to run a protected rights scheme. If none of those powers is exercised, the clause will ensure that the 100 per cent. inheritance of SERPS continues to apply after April 2000 until regulations are in force.
It would be untenable to leave people in a situation where regulations could come in overnight, without warning, and we will give a reasonable warning of changes. It would not be in the spirit of good government to say, "In six months' time, there will be new rules." Whatever we do will have to be phased in. If it is a protected rights scheme, it will take a lot of careful planning to ensure that the millions of potential beneficiaries can be dealt with individually, as citizens. We cannot do this on the back of an envelope.
We have lost a decade or more since the legislation was put on the statute book, but it will not be that long again if the amendment and the Bill are passed tonight. The regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, and both Houses will have ample opportunity to debate the changes. That may be on the Floor, in Committee or even in the new Chamber.
As Ministers, we will not shy away from explaining the way forward that we choose, as potentially 30 million people--those who have paid national insurance, existing pensioners and people who will not retire for 10 years or so--are involved. Not all of them will be able to claim that they were mis-sold pensions, but that is not the issue. We are dealing with our fellow citizens, and we must be as open as possible.
Mr. Burstow:
The Minister is being constructive, and it would be helpful if he could give the House more details. Does he envisage making an announcement before or after the work of the ombudsman?
Mr. Rooker:
I cannot give an answer to that. The matter was referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner by right hon. and hon. Members, and we are co-operating. The amendment contains a lot of detail and once we have decided, we will come back and report to the House.
Mr. Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central):
My hon. Friend is being frank and fair, and all of us accept the Government's real difficulties. Could he indicate whether in whatever scheme he comes up with any route that will require claims for compensation to be made on an individual basis will be as limited as possible?
Mr. Rooker:
I am not sure that I caught the thrust of my hon. Friend's question. If we have a protected rights scheme, we will want to ensure that everyone with a rightful claim is able to make it. There will be issues about eligibility, but millions of people who are currently still working might have a say, as might current pensioners.
The handling of this matter in the past was unfortunate and I appreciate the distress that has been caused. I appreciate also the massive media attention, which has
come a bit late in the day. If the media had reported the changes over the years, we would not be in this position today. [Interruption.] That is a legitimate point.
We do not require our proceedings to be reported. We know that, years ago, the press and media generally--the BBC included--decided to stop reporting proceedings in this House. Most of those involved--who were probably contracted out, in well-heeled occupational schemes, which is fine--were not bothered about SERPS and national insurance. "That's for the workers," they said. "We are not reporting that."
I am aware, too, that the Liberal Democrats tabled amendments to our new proposal to provide for a 10-year delay. I have set out the cost of that, and such a delay would not catch everyone who may be involved. It catches a large number, of course, but one might need to go beyond 10 years. That is why it has been difficult to arrive at a decision. Whatever we do will have a possible cost of billions of pounds--money that is not planned for in terms of public expenditure, and which must be found by today's taxpayers and today's national insurance contributors.
I therefore hope that the House will give fair wind to the Government amendment in lieu of the Lords amendment.
8 pm
Mr. Pickles:
The Minister made a reasoned speech and we will certainly support the Government's amendment in lieu. I recognise the problems involved in finding an ideal solution. The Liberal Democrats' amendment (a) to the Government's amendment in lieu has the potential to cause injustice and fail to catch all the people we would want to catch, and I hope that they will not press it to a vote, because we should give the Government a chance to come up with a final solution, to use the Minister's phrase.
There was a small element of partisanship in what the Minister said. It is about time that someone, from whichever Dispatch Box, said sorry. Some people should accept responsibility for what happened, because there has been considerable injustice. I said in Committee that I accept my share of responsibility.
It matters not a jot that I was chairman of Bradford education committee at the time when the measure went through. We are all responsible, because we clearly came to a view in 1986 that would have a fundamental effect on people's eventual pension, and nothing happened. It is too easy to shrug off that responsibility. Ultimately, such decisions are for the Chamber. It is our job to ensure that Departments do not simply ignore the legislation that we pass.
The Minister was very fair in saying that the Government now accept what they opposed in opposition. It is right to get the provisions into line with occupational pensions. We cannot go back to the position that provisionally exists now. We should ensure that the scheme is generally accepted. It is right to allow considerable time for people to make appropriate decisions according to their needs.
Unfortunately, we completely wasted 16 years. There was no publicity campaign. The present Leader of the House said at the time:
We have done people a great injustice. People wrote to and telephoned the Benefits Agency and its predecessor for advice and made investment decisions on the basis of the wrong advice that they were given. In Committee, we considered the way in which people contacted the agency. There is a record of the letters but not of the telephone calls. The Minister's predecessor made considerable progress on the quality of proof that people acted on wrong information. What is the Government's current thinking on that?
I learned in Committee that on the very day in January on which a memo was sent out to instruct Benefits Agency officers how to deal with the problem, the agency issued a letter giving an incorrect figure to a member of the public. In that memo, which the Minister supplied to me, no reference was made to sending out corrections to incorrect information. I hope that he will bear that in mind before he talks about mis-selling in future.
I am glad that the Minister has done an audit, but there is still a muddle. It has been suggested that the first indication of when changes were made was in February 1996, but my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has discovered that that is not so. Some people collect first editions of interesting works and he collects Benefits Agency guides from previous years. That probably says something about my boss.
The agency's information guide of May 1995, on page 221, says:
"If the Government are going to release ample publicity warning people that their pensions and the widows' pensions will be halved, not only will we welcome it, but we shall help the Minister to distribute it."--[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 27 February 1986; c. 471.]
That is all very fine, although no one would have expected Labour Opposition Members, or indeed Ministers, to go out on the streets to hand out leaflets; one might reasonably have expected the Department to do it, though.
"Changes to SERPS . . .
That was on the desk of everybody who worked for the agency.
Widows and widowers over 65 will be able to inherit up to half their partner's SERPS pension, instead of the full amount. This particular change will not happen until the year 2000."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |