---

Derek Wyatt (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time that the parliamentary ombudsman was brought within the Freedom of Information Act 2000? When I, as an individual, tried to find out information on the report, I was denied it because the ombudsman is not subject to the Information Commissioner.

I first raised this matter in the House in July 2002. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), I did so because of what has happened at ASW Sheerness and ASW Cardiff. We are most concerned, as regards the financial assistance scheme, that £400 million is not enough. Will my right hon. Friend put into the Library the amount that he considers to be enough? How much money will need to be put into the fund, overall, over the next 20 years?

Mr. Hutton: I think that I had better steer clear of the first part of my hon. Friend's question, because it is not my responsibility to comment on that.
 
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1630
 

In relation to my hon. Friend's important points about the financial assistance scheme, let me be clear that I am very happy to meet Members, from both sides of the House, over the next few weeks to talk about the future of the financial assistance scheme as we expedite the review of the scheme and look to the future, to the extent that we are able to, to provide more support for people caught up in these terrible circumstances. That is an open invitation to Members on both sides of the House to express to me their views about what further support we should be providing. We will listen very carefully to all those points.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con): The Secretary of State's statement is shameful. It is an outrage to come to the House and systematically attack an independent arbiter who was set up by this House independently to investigate accusations of difficulties. His defence that those people had a let-out clause at the bottom of their advice is utter nonsense. Does he not realise that when lawmakers offer advice, it is categorically different from advice offered by second-hand car dealers who then opt out by saying, "You didn't read the small print."? Surely he should accept that his responsibility now is to shoulder the burden of the difficulties that have happened as a result of his advice and deal with it instead of attacking the messenger.

Mr. Hutton: I absolutely reject what lies behind the right hon. Gentleman's comments. They are not accurate and they are not a proper reflection of my statement. We are making it clear—I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has not heard me saying this, because it is the seventh time that I have done so—that we are looking to expedite the financial assistance scheme review to see what further help and support we might be able to give.

Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab): I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State will look at the financial assistance scheme again. I can inform the House that my constituents are not looking for sympathy, as suggested by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond); they want their pensions back—the pensions that they have paid for. I am sorry to disagree with the Secretary of State, but they took out an occupational pension on Government advice in the belief that it would provide them with a guaranteed income in retirement. I am therefore disappointed that the ombudsman's recommendations are not being accepted by the Government.

It was my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), not the Conservatives, who first mooted the idea of using unclaimed assets to try to provide restoration. Will my right hon. Friend speak to the Chancellor about that to see if it is one way in which restoration can be given?

Mr. Hutton: I fully respect the views that my hon. Friend has expressed. As it happens, I am meeting my right hon. Friend the Chancellor later this afternoon, and I promise her that I will relay to him the very strong views that she expressed.
 
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1631
 

Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove) (Con): Whatever the reasons for his announcement, does the Secretary of State accept that all this is a bitter blow to the public's confidence in saving for a private pension for their retirement? Does he recognise that the £15 billion price tag that he has put on this compensation deal is regarded by many as an excuse by the Government not to pay up? When he publishes the information requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), will he also give an assessment of the likely benefit that might accrue to people who have lost their pension scheme so that the House can make a proper assessment of the true compensation package that the taxpayer should be considering?

Mr. Hutton: Yes.

Mr. John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab): My right hon. Friend talked about extending the financial assistance scheme. When he does that, will he bear it in mind that there is a group of schemes, including the APW scheme in Hampshire, in which the employer is still solvent, but the trustees were effectively forced into compromise with no option, with the loss of a significant part of individuals' pensions? So far, the Government have set their face against extending the financial assistance scheme to schemes such as APW. Will he give me an assurance that in the review he will look afresh at that group of schemes to see whether assistance can be offered, because those people have suffered just as much as anybody else, and through no fault of their own?

Mr. Hutton: I fully accept what my right hon. Friend says. This is a very difficult group of cases, and I pay tribute to the work that he has done in drawing our attention to them. We will need to have another look at it as part of the review, but I am afraid that I am not holding out any promise to him that we will be able to make progress. However, I assure him that we will take another look at it and see what further help, if any, we are able to give.

Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con): I believe that the Secretary of State is an honourable and a decent man, but it saddens me that he has had to read out a squalid attempt to justify the unjustifiable. He knows, as we do, that each and every one of those 85,000 cases represents an individual, and a personal tragedy for somebody in retirement. Some of those cases include steelworkers from ASW in Kent, who are my constituents. They were looking to the guardian of the people—the parliamentary ombudsman—to come up with a fair answer. What are we supposed to say to them now that the Government have decided to overturn the findings of the judge?

Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks.

The essence of our argument is that we strongly dispute the findings of maladministration, and I have tried to explain to the House why that is so. That is an entirely proper and sensible thing for any Minister to do, particularly when significant amounts of taxpayers' money are involved. I suspect that a Conservative
 
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1632
 
Minister would have done exactly the same. What we have to do now—this is where I agree with the hon. Gentleman—is see whether there is scope for doing more to help more people. I have confirmed today that we are doing that.

I want to return to an important issue that goes to the heart of this argument. I hear every Conservative Member saying that we should pay out in full for everyone covered by the ombudsman's report, even when the ombudsman herself indicated, in relation to some of the scheme failures, that individuals had the opportunity to mitigate their loss. I am slightly confused by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that, even in those cases, the taxpayer should be required to pay out to meet the losses, given that the evidence that links the alleged maladministration with the loss is not substantiated in her report.

Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen, South) (Lab): We can bandy accusations all afternoon as to who is to blame for the collapse of occupational pension schemes, but that does not help the large number of my constituents who have lost some, if not all, of their pension savings following the collapse of the Richards pension scheme. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reiterate that the Government will stand behind those individuals who have lost large amounts of money and savings? The Government are the only body who can reimburse them for their loss, whether through the financial assistance scheme or any other mechanism. I am looking to the Secretary of State to reiterate that these people will be reimbursed in future.

Mr. Hutton: That is why the financial assistance scheme was established: to provide financial assistance and support for people who find themselves in those terrible circumstances. As I keep saying, we are re-examining the scheme to ascertain what further scope there might be for providing additional help. That is at the heart of my announcement and I want every hon. Member to appreciate that the Government are saying that.

---