---

Occupational Pensions

In my next life, I hope to be a Liberal Democrat, as it is so much easier and any early-day motion can be signed. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I am coming on to the substance of his point. Thirdly, the Government should finally recognise that the recommendations to ensure an appropriate level of support for those who have lost out must be taken seriously. They should stop floating absurdly inflated figures such as the £15 billion figure tossed around by, among others, the Prime Minister. That sort of thing is insulting to our intelligence and, indeed, to the victims. The Government should do some serious and credible work on calculating the real likely cost of helping the victims. In their calculations, they should give credit for benefit payments saved, pool the assets of the failed funds and take full account of the possible benefits of deemed buy-back—one of the best kept secrets in the DWP and the Treasury. They should examine whether purchasing bulk annuities is the best way forward. Perhaps they could also provide relevant information about how much money is left for that purpose in the relevant funds. They should scrap altogether the wasteful and unnecessary administrative machinery of the FAS and run the compensation scheme in parallel with the PPF, using the same skills base. It seems to us a matter of principle that those who deserve help, following the ombudsman’s report, should expect that help to be at a reasonable level. Will the Government estimate the real cost of providing support at a level similar to that available under the PPF? In making those calculations, they should factor in the money already committed, as well as using unclaimed assets—something on which we have campaigned for some time, as has the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). The Chancellor now accepts that unclaimed assets can be used for certain purposes, and we agree. It is interesting that according to the unclaimed assets register unclaimed pensions alone amount to about £3 billion. Above all, the Government must recognise the immense damage that this episode has inflicted and continues to inflict on long-term pensions confidence and stability. If the system of personal accounts foreshadowed by Turner and picked up by the Government, and which we broadly support, is to succeed, confidence-building must happen. In short, we and the victims expect the Government to show leadership on the issue. That means examining the options realistically, providing the necessary information and promoting an informed and sensible debate. Then we will see whether the positive benefits of consensus can apply in this situation, too. In some ways it is unfortunate that we shall not be voting on the motion. I leave Members—including Labour colleagues, many of whom are sympathetic to the case—with the words of Dick Crossman, on the Second Reading of the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill:"““Wisely used, this can be a potent instrument for the protection of the good name of the Civil Service, for the restoration of Parliamentary authority and for the redress of individual grievances.””—[Official Report, 18 October 1966; Vol. 734, c. 61.]"