---

Occupational Pensions

The Select Committee began to query some of the estimates that the Government have given about costs. The second reason I wished to speak was to comment on the constitutional aspect of the situation. At a time at which neither MPs nor Parliament are held in high regard, this matter is a litmus test for the democratic process. We are all sent here to hold the Government to account. This is not the Opposition against the Government, but Parliament against the Executive. On the one hand, we have the unanimous conclusion of a Select Committee of the House that supports the findings of our parliamentary ombudsman, and on the other we have the Department for Work and Pensions, which is accountable, through its Secretary of State, to the House. The House, through its Select Committee, heard the Secretary of State’s defence and unanimously rejected it. My constituents know that if Members of Parliament have the will, they can compel the Government to think again. If we do not, their worst fears—and those of others who have faith in Parliament—will be fulfilled. I have a third and final reason for speaking in the debate. As Secretary of State for Transport in the previous Administration, my Department was involved in a similar stand-off with the ombudsman and the Select Committee. I say this in defence of the Secretary of State: he is pulled two ways because although the ombudsman and the Select Committee may be pulling him one way, he might well have his accounting officer and his permanent secretary, and perhaps the Treasury and the National Audit Office, pulling him the other way, reminding him that he is accountable for public funds. A letter dated 5 December was perhaps sent out in anticipation of the debate. It enclosed some Q and A—questions and answers—but there was no A to the most frequently asked Q: why have the Government rejected the Select Committee’s report? I found the letter rather dismissive of the Select Committee. Its unanimous recommendation is dismissed with the comment:"““While recognising some members disagree with that view””." The case in which I was involved, which is referred to in the report, involved compensation for blight caused by the Channel tunnel rail link. I believe that it offers a way out of the current impasse. In that case, a satisfactory resolution was achieved—it is referred to on page 36 of the report. Initially, the Department rejected the recommendations of the ombudsman and the Select Committee on compensation for blight. At this stage in the proceedings, however, the Government thought again. The letter that I wrote to the Select Committee on 1 November 1995 identifies the route that should be used on this occasion. I wrote:"““Despite the doubts recorded earlier, the Government is prepared to consider afresh whether a scheme might be formulated to implement the Committee’s recommendation that redress should be granted””." I went on to write:"““The Government would of course consult the Committee as proposals are being developed. I should add that in agreeing to look again at a compensation scheme, the Government does so out of respect for the PCA Select Committee and the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner, and without admission of fault or liability.””" I then added two somewhat pompous sentences:"““While being prepared to look at the possibility of a scheme, I hope you will also understand my making it clear at this early stage that we will need to consider seriously the possible costs of a scheme, which cannot yet be established. As Chairman of the Select Committee whose remit is good administration, you will understand that I would not be discharging my responsibility to the taxpayer by offering an open-ended commitment on an uncosted basis.””" The Select Committee that made the recommendations that we are debating today is looking for a similar response from the Government. All that the Minister need do at the end of the debate is say my exact words—there is no copyright on them. If he does, he will begin to build a bridge between the Government and Parliament, instead of further widening the chasm, and setting the Government on a collision course with the House. Finally, I offer a quote that the Minister might find helpful in his negotiations with the Treasury. Who said that there was"““clear and unmistakable evidence in the ombudsman’s report of five significant areas of maladministration by the Department…Many pensioners have…lost their life savings, and retired workers their redundancy payments…I must ask why we have had to rely on the ombudsman to confirm the mismanagement…and incompetence that was widely known about more than one year ago…Does the Secretary of State agree that the House will find it strange that he…continues to deny the Government’s responsibility for mistakes and does not even apologise for his Department’s role?””?—[Official Report, 19 December 1989; Vol. 164, c. 204.]" Those are the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, spoken in 1989. When the Minister writes to the Treasury, asking whether he can reopen the matter of the Government’s decision, he might like to pray in aid that quotation, to secure a response from the Treasury. When he makes his winding-up speech, I ask him to put to one side the line that his Department might have drafted for him, and instead to respond to the mood of the House, which is, as I see it, that the Government should think again.