---

Occupational Pensions

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those points. His constituents share the view of many people outside the House who have seen what the hon. Member for Nottingham, South called a ““three-strikes-and-you’re-out”” process in relation to the Government’s position on this issue. We find the Government still determined to resist the conclusions of a three-stage process. First, the ombudsman prepared her report in a way that fed back to the Department her developing conclusions, but that did not persuade the Government. Then we had the highly critical report from the ombudsman, and now we have a unanimous and extremely critical report from a cross-party Select Committee. We could continue to rehearse some of the detailed debates that the ombudsman and the Select Committee reflect on in their reports, but that would be difficult to do in the detail that some of the issues deserve in the 50 or so minutes that we have left. It is worth reflecting, however, on the strength of the conclusions that the ombudsman and the Select Committee have reached. The Chairman of the Select Committee reminded us of the terms in which the ombudsman put her conclusions. She concluded that the Government had provided information to the people who had lost their pensions which was ““inaccurate””, ““incomplete””, ““unclear”” and ““inconsistent””. It is hard to imagine a more decisive, unambiguous and critical description of the information provided by the Government. The ombudsman’s report went on to state:"““I have found that maladministration was a significant contributory factor in the creation of financial loss…Nothing in DWP’s submissions persuades me otherwise.””" That was a conclusion from the first part of her process. She went on to reinforce the point about her own position when she said that"““Parliament has decided that it is my role—and not that of any party to a complaint—to determine what constitutes maladministration.””" That is a fair point. Many of us would feel that the Government had a responsibility, after a process in which they had been given every opportunity to comment on and refute the allegations and concerns that the parliamentary ombudsman was looking into, to take far more seriously the conclusions that the ombudsman has reached, and which have been reinforced by the Select Committee. Despite being a cross-party body, the Select Committee has produced a report that echoes the criticisms of the ombudsman and, I believe, sides entirely with the ombudsman on every major point of dispute. It states:"““We agree with the Ombudsman that maladministration occurred. Government information about pensions was deficient and reasonable people would have been misled… the Government should have considered the Ombudsman's recommendations properly, rather than immediately assuming that they would place large burdens on the public purse.””" In language whose critical tone is similar to that used by the ombudsman, the Select Committee points out that it has conducted its own investigations and taken its own evidence. It also states:"““We believe that the Government is being, at best, naïve and, at worst, misleading.””" That is a very strong conclusion for a cross-party Select Committee to reach, particularly given that—as many of us who have served on Select Committees know—in circumstances of this kind Committee members representing the governing party are often under pressure to water down conclusions that are especially critical of the Government. The terms of the report and its conclusions show that there must have been a very strong conviction among the Committee’s members about the Government’s handling of the matter. The Committee also reflected on the way in which the Government had decided to deal with the ombudsman’s conclusions. In the ninth of its conclusions and recommendations, it says:"““We share the Ombudsman's concern that the Government has been far too ready to dismiss her findings of maladministration. Our investigations have shown that these findings were sound. It would be extremely damaging if Government became accustomed simply to reject findings of maladministration””." As the hon. Member for Nottingham, South said, the Government have undergone a three-strikes process involving the initial consultations with the ombudsman, the ombudsman’s report and a cross-party Select Committee report. In the light of that, I would expect the House and the Select Committee to be immensely disappointed by the Government’s response to the Committee. On the issue of the ombudsman’s position, they respond thus to the criticisms made of them:"““The ombudsman has, and will continue to have, the total and unqualified respect of the Government.””" It is one thing for the Government to respect the ombudsman; it is another thing for them to cast aside and ignore major recommendations affecting thousands of people when an ombudsman’s report has trailed through all the evidence, and has been reinforced by a Select Committee of the House. If the Government are going to take future reports by the ombudsman seriously, they cannot afford to give the impression that advice in such reports will be accepted in small cases in which small issues and small amounts of money are at stake, while conclusions with a much greater impact on Government finances can simply be cast aside. In their response, the Government repeated the highly questionable—if I may describe it in that way—allegation, or assertion, that the financial assistance scheme is a good enough replacement, and the changes to it debated in the other place yesterday an adequate back-up, for the individuals who have lost their pensions. The response says:"““The Government agrees there should be a significant package of support and believes that FAS, as extended, constitutes such a package.””" The hon. Member for Cannock Chase gave a detailed explanation of all the ways in which the financial assistance scheme is deficient in relation to the pension protection fund, and all the ways in which the headline statistics in the scheme relating to the proportion of pensions that people can expect to be returned to them are let down by the proportion of the total pension package that is returned. In the Committee’s report, the hon. Gentleman has also described all the ways in which the FAS is deficient. We debated the issue yesterday with regard to new regulations to improve the FAS. The improvements are welcomed by Members on both sides of the House, but they are still a long way short of adequate compensation. The Minister acknowledged that the Prime Minister was questioned on that specific issue yesterday. In response to a question from one of his hon. Friends, it seemed that the Prime Minister left open the possibility of further changes and improvements to the scheme. He said:"““I agree that it is important to keep the terms of the scheme under review””.—[Official Report, 6 December 2006; Vol. 454, c. 301.]" I hope that that was not simply the sort of comment that Prime Ministers make under pressure, as a way of fobbing of their own Back Benchers who are concerned about injustices of this type. When the Minister responded to my question about the Prime Minister’s commitment, he did so in rather lukewarm and ambiguous terms. He said that the Government keep all their policies under review and will continue to do so. That was not particularly cheery and it rather made me think that the Prime Minister had been giving a brush-off rather than a hope of real improvement. Perhaps we should not be so gloomy, however. The Minister looked unimpressed when the hon. Member for Nottingham, South described some of the ways in which the financial assistance scheme could be improved, and some of the ways in which a fairer compensation package should be delivered. I remind him that his predecessors were similarly unimpressed when the arguments for such a scheme were first made. At that stage, the Government did not want to give way on the issue. Eventually, they found the money to introduce a scheme, and then maintained that it was good enough. Yesterday, we debated the new scheme and the improvements to be made. Ministers always say that improvements to such schemes are unaffordable, and go on saying that until they are forced to make changes and improvements. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire made a helpful suggestion to the Minister, and demonstrated how Governments can make rather elegant U-turns if they want to do so. I seem to recall that the Government of which he was a member had a habit of making quite a few U-turns, not all of which were elegant, but he showed how Governments, if they wish to do so, can change their opinion. Given the Government’s formal response, I do not have high hopes that today’s ministerial summing-up will take on board the criticisms made by the Select Committee and the ombudsman. I hope, however, that the strength of opinion expressed in the House during the debate, and the strength of opinion in a cross-party report, will cause the Government to keep the issue under review. I hope that the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday will allow further improvements to be made to provide a fair package of compensation to people who have lost their pensions under such circumstances.