---

Mr. Willetts: The fact that we are debating these proposals today is a tribute to pressure from Members on both sides to help the 60,000 people who have been affected by the winding up of their pension schemes. I am pleased that, even at this late stage in the process, we now have something from the Government. We have an obligation to help the people affected.

I see the three most powerful arguments for giving help as follows: first, the human distress that many people are suffering as a result of their pension being so much less than they had hoped for; secondly, the effect on everyone's confidence in saving for their pension if they see the horrific experience of those 60,000 people endlessly repeated; and thirdly, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) quite rightly mentioned, the public statements that have been made by a variety of public institutions that saving in a company final salary pension scheme is in some sense secure, safe or guaranteed. Those expressions were thrown around. Looking back, they were thrown around rather too lightly, but people took them seriously. That is why they are particularly angry.

David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to confess to the House whether during Prime Minister's questions earlier today, when his party leader claimed credit for the change that the Government are now introducing, he felt just a scintilla of embarrassment at the fact that his party had opposed Second Reading?

Mr. Willetts: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the reasoned amendment we tabled when the Bill came to the House on Second Reading, he will see that one of the specific reasons that we gave was that it did nothing to help the 60,000 people who had lost out as a result of their pensions winding up. That was specifically set out in our reasoned amendment because it was one of the big omissions from the Bill. We are pleased, even at this late stage, that that matter has been tackled.

Mr. Watts: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that many Labour Members have been campaigning for more than two and a half years on that issue? It seems to me that the only time when the Opposition joined the campaign was when they thought that the Government were going to concede and provide compensation to that group of workers. Does he agree?

Mr. Willetts: If I may say so, we have had several debates on this specific subject, which Opposition Members have raised over a long period. It might well be the case that it was the intervention from my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition that finally clinched the matter. There were then panic meetings among the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. The—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Mr. Willetts: The Prime Minister ran from this Chamber last Wednesday and asked why it was that nothing had yet been done.
 
19 May 2004 : Column 994
 

John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland) (Lab): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would ask you to rule on the remark that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has just made. The Prime Minister was ushered out by the Secretary of State for Health after something was thrown down into the Chamber. The fact of the matter is that it was the Leader of the Opposition who would not come back and take the drubbing that he was getting from the Prime Minister at Question Time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. This is an important debate and many Members in the Chamber want to contribute to it. We should proceed as quickly as possible. I call Mr. David Willetts.

Mr. Willetts: Perhaps I could just explain that I was referring to events last Wednesday. That was when my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition raised this point, and it was after that, later on in the day, that there was a meeting of Ministers.

2.30 pm

Mr. Hogg : May I press my hon. Friend—I should point out that he supports the provision—on the principle on which the Government are operating? In the past, assistance—to use a consensual word—has always been given when Government agencies were at fault, an example being the Barlow Clowes affair. It is far from clear to me that ring-fencing is possible. The question has been raised of Equitable Life members. Where lies the distinction in principle between them and the people is question?

Mr. Willetts: It appears that people were led to believe by various public bodies that their defined benefit schemes were in some sense guaranteed or safe. It has been asked whether the legal case, in which this point will doubtless prove important, will be pursued. This could indeed still be a matter for the courts.

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Willetts: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West first.

Kevin Brennan: In the case of Equitable Life, members chose to put their money into that scheme because they thought that it was offering the best rate in the market. No Government agency promised them that their pension was secure or guaranteed.

Mr. Willetts: It would be a great pity if one group of Members in this House argued that we should help the victims of pension wind-ups and do nothing to help the victims of Equitable Life, and another group argued the opposite. Both sets of victims have a case—although they are different cases—and both give rise to the question of whether public bodies have, on occasion, misled people or failed to discharge their obligations.
 
19 May 2004 : Column 995
 

Mr. Savidge: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that Labour Members asked questions about this issue a fortnight and three weeks before the Leader of the Opposition raised it, and that the Prime Minister made clear his intentions? The phrase "jumping on bandwagons" comes to mind.

Mr. Willetts: The trouble was that although the Prime Minister said that he was going to do something, nothing happened. We have pursued this issue for a long time and we have raised it regularly; indeed, we debated it last year and in February of this year. It was the Prime Minister's failure to pursue the rather confused assurances that he gave during the two preceding Prime Minister's questions that caused the Leader of the Opposition to raise this issue, which finally led to action being taken.

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Willetts: I want to question the Minister about his proposal, so once I have given way to the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), I shall try to make some progress.

David Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again; he is being most generous. He is trying to establish the logic that, because the Leader of the Opposition raised this issue last week and the announcement was made subsequently, those two incidents are somehow connected. Given the brain that the hon. Gentleman is reputed to have, he will doubtless be familiar with the post hoc, ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. Does he acknowledge that, in fact, pure coincidence and undiluted opportunism have led to the Leader of the Opposition's attempt to claim credit?

Mr. Willetts: The Secretary of State is welcome to intervene if he wishes to correct this account, but according to one newspaper, when the Prime Minister left Prime Minister's questions last week—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The tenor of this debate is becoming very repetitious indeed. We are discussing Government new clause 34 and I advise Members to address their remarks to it.

Mr. Willetts: After I have finished this point, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will indeed try to make some progress. There were specific accounts of the Prime Minister leaving Prime Minister's questions last week, phoning the Chancellor to ask why nothing had yet been done, and calling a meeting—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled on this. May we please discuss the new clause that is before the House?

Mr. Willetts: I was responding to a challenge, but I shall of course follow your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, and try to make some progress. This issue is in fact very relevant to the new clause. Labour Members are saying that this campaign has gone on for a very long time and that they have pressed for action for ages. But
 
19 May 2004 : Column 996
 
whenever people have pressed for action—as we have done—the Secretary of State has always come up with the same sort of answer. In March, he said:

"We are exploring with industry representatives the basis on which we can establish . . . the extent of the problem, the number affected".—[Official Report, 2 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 764.]

Earlier, in an Opposition debate in February, he said that it was

"important to have a clear idea about how and where boundaries could be placed around those who would be eligible."—[Official Report, 24 February 2004; Vol. 418, c. 212.]

We have already heard those answers, implying that the Secretary of State was doing lots of work behind the scenes to try to tackle the problem. If he has been doing all that hard work behind the scenes, why has he ended up with the new clause before us today? It does not answer any of the technical problems that he claimed he was busy addressing and studying. He could have tabled the amending provisions before us today a year or even two years ago. This evinces no progress whatever in tackling the problems or establishing the evidence, which he claimed was the only reason why amending provisions could not be tabled sooner.

I understand why sometimes quick and dirty, and sometimes long, slow and carefully considered, amending provisions are necessary. This new clause, however, has been turned out very slowly, but it has not been carefully considered and offers no detail on the scheme—[Interruption.]

---