---

Occupational Pensions

I shall come in a moment to what should happen and what the Government should be doing, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me. Various hon. Members have quoted from the ombudsman’s report and I shall not pursue it further, particularly in view of the shortage of time. However, I would like to mention the ombudsman’s views on the financial assistance scheme. She said:"““I am quite clear that the FAS will not constitute an adequate and appropriate remedy for the injustice claimed by those who have complained to me””." I would also like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to Ros Altmann, who has been an extremely energetic campaigner for various pensioner groups and has quite rightly pursued all of us at different times to come up to the mark on this issue. Before responding to the question of what the Government should be doing, I would like to cite one passage from the Select Committee report. I could use many, but time does not allow. It states:"““We have made our own investigations. We believe the Government is being, at best, naïve and, at worst, misleading… It would be extremely damaging if Government became accustomed simply to reject findings of maladministration””." I agree with that. What are the Opposition’s views about how the Government should properly address this matter? First, the Government should agree without equivocation or evasion that there has been maladministration. It is not their job to decide whether there has been maladministration, but the ombudsman’s job—and she has decided. Why should these desperate people have to resort to taking the Government to court to obtain justice? I shall now provide one quote to illustrate what the Government’s approach should be:"““The giving of wrong information by a Department is inexcusable. There is a clear responsibility to ensure that the information that Departments provide is accurate and complete… As a matter of principle, we believe that when someone loses out because they were given the wrong information by a Department, they are entitled to redress.””—[Official Report, 15 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 307-8.]" Those were the remarks of the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, South-West (Mr. Darling). Secondly, the Government should apologise, as directed by the ombudsman. An apology costs nothing. If it helps, Conservative Members will accept a modest share of the blame arising from our stewardship in 1996-97, while being clear that the problem of the weakening of the minimum funding requirement on more than one occasion, the change in the priority order, the collapsing pension funds and the ombudsman’s investigation and report all took place on this Government’s watch.