| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7 Mar 2003 : Column 1111—continued
Mr. Flight: What's £1 billion?
Mr. Bryant: I can tell the hon. Gentleman; perhaps it is about time that we started to inform him that £1 billion could make a dramatic difference, especially to the people of Wales and, for that matter, 20 per cent. could make a difference to them.
Mr. Flight: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman lacks a sense of humour. I was pointing out that it did not seem to matter to him whether the sum was £5 billion or £6 billion.
Mr. Bryant: I merely note that adding £1 billion to £5 billion increases the sum by 20 per cent. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well used to that percentage. He accuses me of not having a sense of humour, but he might at least smile at that.
Mr. Hugo Swire (East Devon): Does the fact that that act of grand larceny on behalf of the Government only amounts to £5 billion make it better or worse than if it had amounted to £6 billion?
Mr. Bryant: If the hon. Gentleman wants to take out of public finances £5 billion or £6 billion, I would dramatically contest what he says, for the very simple reason that investment in our public services is absolutely essential to the livelihood of my constituents, who rely in very large measure on the health service, education services and so on. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you might suggest that I am veering rather far
from the Bill, so although I should be very happy to debate that issue with the hon. Gentleman at great length elsewhere, it is important that I return to the Bill.None the less, the important point for the people of the Rhondda is whether it would be good to remove that money from the Exchequer because it would deliver another benefit to society as a whole. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs is chuntering from the Front Bench. I think that he says that no money would be taken from the Exchequer. I therefore assume that he is trying to assert that the proposal is wholly tax neutral, and we shall hear from other hon. Member who want to contest that assertion at considerable length and with the benefit of secure figures.
The second half of the equation—this is important—is that given the way that the Bill has been drafted as opposed to the way that last year's Bill was drafted, it would leave more people eventually dependent on the state for the very simple reason that the process of determining minimum retirement income allowed under the Bill is so woolly, imprecise and ambivalent.
Roger Casale (Wimbledon): My hon. Friend is making an excellent job of demolishing the case for the Bill and he did so in commenting on the intervention, which I saw on a monitor elsewhere, made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). In listening to the earlier speeches, was my hon. Friend able to form an impression of whether supporting the Bill is the official policy of the Conservative party or whether just one Member and some of his hon. Friends support it?
Mr. Bryant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is always rather difficult to determine precisely what is Conservative party policy on any individual issue. I noted that a considerable number of Conservative Members were in the House at the beginning of the day, which, clearly, was a delight. It is good to see a full House, and parliamentary scrutiny of Bills is very important. It is only a sadness that so few Conservative Members have chosen to stay and listen to or engage in any of the debate, or, for that matter, to take interventions. It seems to me that that is an essential part of the rightful parliamentary scrutiny of a Bill.
Mr. Boateng: How many Liberal Democrats are here?
Mr. Bryant: There is only the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) in the Chamber. He has been the only Liberal Democrat present, and he is standing in for the hon. Gentleman who should be here.
On the face of it, the Bill is attractive. It was described as all about choice. Who could vote against choice? It is meretricious, however. As we know from "The Merchant of Venice", all that glitters is not gold. That is certainly true of this Bill, as it does not provide choice for everyone. There are many areas where we could extend choice of pension provision and how people buy annuities. In my constituency, very few people will manage to achieve the £150,000 fund that Conservative Members think of not so much as a fund but as a salary. For my constituents, a pension fund may be in the region of £5,000 to £9,000. For miners or people who
have diseases that are likely to lead to their death in the next three to five years, it seems patently unfair that they cannot take the whole figure as a lump sum and be able to do whatever they want with it.To be honest, I am grateful that the document, "Simplicity, security and choice" includes the suggestion that we should allow for commutation of the whole pension fund sum for long-term and serious ill health. I hope that the Government will make proposals along those lines, as that will be in the interests of the poorest and the most vulnerable in society. The chairman of the Conservative party, who as one of the most vulnerable members of her Front Bench is speaking on behalf of the vulnerable today, may advance arguments to that effect. I only wish that there were such arguments about choice for poorer constituents such as mine and for those who have not accumulated enormous pension funds because they have not had enormous salaries throughout their lives. Unfortunately none of that is in the Bill.
It would also be nice if not just those with serious ill health but those with small funds, which would probably not fall foul of any benefits anyway, were able to commute the whole of their pension fund. Again, that provision is not in the Bill. The only people who are to be allowed greater choice are those who will have significantly larger amounts of money in their pension funds.
Mr. Love: Is not the Bill even more insidious, in the sense that by increasing choice for a very small number of people it reduces choice for the vast majority?
Mr. Bryant: Absolutely. I am proud to call myself a socialist, and I happen to believe that the present system of annuitisation—not an attractive word—is in principle socialist, as it makes provision for all on the basis of need and the length of their lives. In contrast, 100 years ago, before the Liberals introduced the idea of a national pension, and before the Tories went through two general elections and battled through the House of Lords to make sure that we did not have pensions for everyone, what people did was what the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs wants: they had an amount of money, and they spent a bit of it until they died. They hoped that they would have accumulated enough by the time that they retired or by the time that they could no longer work—keeping their noses to the grindstone—to keep them going for enough years before they died. If, by good fortune, they lived for many years, they would fall into abject poverty. Conservative Members would be quite content if such a system continued today.
Ms Munn: Although my hon. Friend will be aware that I have not had the pleasure of visiting his constituency—[Hon. Members: "Not yet."] Not yet. There are probably considerable differences between our constituencies, but I am sure that the problems of our constituents are not that dissimilar. People do not come to my surgeries or to street stalls in my constituency to raise the concerns that have been expressed by the Bill's supporters. I hear the concerns of
those who have very small occupational pensions. They fear that they will be disadvantaged in comparison with others. Does the Bill do anything for them?
Mr. Bryant: I am happy to extend an invitation to my hon. Friend to come to the Rhondda, especially in the next few weeks. We will be delivering leaflets tomorrow morning in Tonypandy so, if she wishes to join me, she will be very welcome.
My hon. Friend is right. It is fair to say that not many people approach one at street stalls and start to ask about annuitisation rates. However, people are clearly concerned about pensioner poverty, and an element of that is fuel poverty. Many of my constituents live in houses that are not well insulated. Many of them still do not have gas central heating and some have outside toilets. We have a long way to go to make sure that we prevent pensioner poverty.
I know that pensioners in my constituency say, "To be honest, if my grandmother knew how well off I am now as a pensioner thanks to all the measures that the Government have introduced since 1997, she would be amazed." They are proud that this country has taken dramatic steps forward. However, there are still things that we need to do to encourage more people to stand on their own two feet. I cannot remember which pop singer sang about—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman does not remember the name of the pop singer. Will he return to discussing the Bill?
Mr. Bryant: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am glad that you have rescued me from my amnesia.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |