| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hutton: I can only say to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect, that it is impossible for Governments to guarantee the value of private savings in the way that he suggests. We all need to think very carefully about that.
David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op):
Among the 85,000 personal tragedies are the 572 deferred pensioners involved in the fund collapse in October 2000 at British United Shoe Machinery in Leicestershire. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether the £15 billion that he has cited—giving an average £176,000 to each of the 85,000 people involved—includes any assessment of the ombudsman's second recommendation in relation to consolatory payments for the inconvenience, distress and uncertainty that she
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1636
believes these people have had to endure? Has any assessment been made of the cost of such payments? Do they lie outside the £15 billion?
Mr. Hutton: I think that those payments are included. We will set out the full details of the costings when we produce our report.
Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a large number of former employees of the Albert Fisher Group in my constituency whose pensions have been decimated and whose lives have been ruined? They will certainly be feeling no better after his lacklustre performance this afternoon. He has mentioned the figure of £15 billion. My constituents tell me that the capital required to give 100 per cent. relief to the 85,000 scheme members across the country is only £2.8 billion. If indexed, that would go up to £5.5 billion. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the correct figures are put in the Library?
Mr. Hutton: Yes, we will put our figures in the full response to the ombudsman's report.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): I warmly welcome the glimmer of hope that the Secretary of State has given for the first time to APW Electronics employees, in his answer to the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). May I ask him to focus, however, on the health warning that was attached to the leaflets? When I read something that says, "This advice is for guidance only", it makes me think that I should be guided by it. People who are encouraged to invest are told, in a forthright way in many advertisements, that the value of their investment can go down as well as up. Will the Secretary of State at least consider ruling that, in future, all such guidance will be phrased in much stronger and less ambiguous terms?
Mr. Hutton: The information to which the hon. Gentleman refers is the information that successive Governments have used to describe these matters. Conservative Members have simply not acknowledged that fact today.
Mr. Michael Wills (North Swindon) (Lab): May I add my plea to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) that the Secretary of State look again at assistance for those who have suffered under schemes wound up by solvent companies? Will he also look again at tightening up measures such as contribution notices, to dissuade companies from taking such action in future?
Mr. Hutton: There is no question but that the issue of solvent employers is probably the most difficult issue that we need to consider as part of the review. As I said to my right hon. Friend, I do not want to raise false expectations in this regard, but we will have another look at this.
Adam Price (Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr) (PC):
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the European Commission has conducted its own study of these matters and that its interim findings have already concluded that successive British Governments have
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1637
failed to meet their responsibilities? Is the Secretary of State as dismissive of the views of the Commission as he has been today of those of the ombudsman?
Mr. Hutton: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, that legal case is still continuing, and I do not want to comment on current legal proceedings.
Mr. Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con): Does the Secretary of State accept that the Government's stewardship of our pensions over the past nine years has been less than stellar? In fact, it has been a complete and utter disaster. Does he accept that, every time he comes to the House, it is to tell hon. Members another horror story?
Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con): In good faith, I took a delegation of the 700 Dexion workers who had had their pensions stolen from them to see the Secretary of State. I have spoken to members of the delegation this morning, and they feel betrayed. At no time during the meeting did the Secretary of State indicate that the Government would ignore the advice of the ombudsman. This is a bad day for Parliament. If that kind of advice is ignored, how can people have any faith in what goes on in this House?
Mr. Hutton: It was clearly not appropriate for me to say at that meeting, before the ombudsman's report had been published, that I was going to reject it.
Paul Holmes (Chesterfield) (LD): I have been raising this issue in the House since shortly after I was first elected to Parliament in 2001, on behalf of my constituents who work for Dema Glass, Coalite and Chesterfield Cylinders, who have been robbed of their occupational pensions. Some of those people, including a Labour councillor, have saved into the schemes for more than 40 years, but now they will have to live in poverty in retirement. Will the Minister undertake to meet some of my constituents, and others, to explain in person why he is rejecting the independent expert opinion of the ombudsman and why, despite repeated Government assurances, those pensions were not safe and not guaranteed?
Mr. Hutton:
Yes, I am always willing to meet the constituents of hon. Members in such circumstances; I have done so repeatedly. All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that we have set out our arguments
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1638
again today, and it is for others to judge them. We are determined to provide help and support for those in the greatest need when their pension schemes collapse. We are absolutely determined to continue to do that.
Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): I usually feel sympathy for the monkey when it is clearly the organ grinder who has messed up. I would feel a great deal more sympathy for the Secretary of State if he had started out by expressing sympathy with those who had lost their pensions, and if he had then not behaved like a desiccated calculating machine and compounded his error by questioning the good faith of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). The Secretary of State knows that many people have lost out as a result of these problems, but even the £2.5 billion a year stolen by the Chancellor from pension schemes would be enough to pay for the losses that those people have suffered. Will the Secretary of State tell me why Government spokesmen were rubbishing the ombudsman's report before it was published?
Mr. Hutton: We have set out clearly, today and yesterday, why we do not agree with the ombudsman in her principal findings of maladministration, and I have set out those arguments again today.
Mr. David Gauke (South-West Hertfordshire) (Con): The Secretary of State has given the impression today that not only was there no Government maladministration, but that there seems to be no recognition of the scale of the problem faced by many people, including my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who used to work at Dexion. Does the Secretary of State accept that the stance that the Government are taking will damage confidence in occupational pensions and weaken the parliamentary ombudsman, and that it gives the impression that the Government are out of touch, arrogant and uncaring?
Mr. Hutton: No, I do not accept any of those allegations. We are the first Government to accept that there is a responsibility to make financial provision in these circumstances. In the context of the facts—the facts will always speak louder than the hon. Gentleman's words—people will come to their own views on these matters.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. We must now move on to the main business.
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1637
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1639
Points of Order
1.28 pm
Mr. Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that, following the question put to the Prime Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) yesterday, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has today issued a written statement admitting fundamental problems with the Rural Payments Agency and announcing the dismissal of its chief executive. This is extremely serious news for the thousands of farm businesses that already face a difficult financial future. In her statement today, the Secretary of State says that she has asked the new acting chief executive to report to her by Tuesday on the immediate steps needed to get the payments back on track. What indication have you received that the Secretary of State will come to the House to make an oral statement as soon as she has received that report?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |