---

Occupational Pensions

No. That issue is not part of the charge put before the Chancellor, so the hon. Gentleman is making a different point entirely. I differ slightly with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (John McFall), the Chair of the Treasury Committee, who called the debate hypocritical. I disagree with him on that; it is not just hypocritical, but cowardly. It is cowardly because there would be a possible justification for what Opposition Members say if it was their policy to reverse the decision, but it is not and it never has been. Theirs is synthetic anger because they will reverse the decision, and that is fatal to their argument. Their argument is hypocritical because, as has become clear in the debate, they do not come to the subject with clean hands—what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor did was continue a policy that was started under the Conservative Government, and my right hon. Friend made that point. Let us say that a defence needed to be put forward, although I do not think that we have even got to that stage, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made a strong case for us when he spoke in the debate. Putting aside party politics, I want to consider, in the cold light of day, what the City makes of the debate. Last week in the business section of The Independent, Jeremy Warner talked about the fact that the issue had been raised. [Interruption.] I know that Opposition Members do not want to listen to this, but they may find it just a little instructive. Mr. Warner found himself slightly embarrassed to have to return to the subject. He had, quite properly, been on Easter holiday. He came back and found that there had been a row about the issue, and he found that he was a bit out of the loop. He was genuinely surprised and mystified about why the matter was being discussed. He starts his piece by saying:"““Forgive me for returning to the subject of pension…deficits.?" He talks about the idea of the subject being raised by those of Daily Mail tendencies, and he uses the word ““revelation?, and puts it in inverted commas. In other words, there was genuinely nothing new that was being discussed. He, an economic commentator, makes a point that I have already made: the anger is synthetic. He went on to say:"““I can confidently dismiss the rantings as somewhat exaggerated in view of the story’s significance.?" There are many charges, he says, that others may wish to level at the Government but"““destroying the private sector pension industry through a single act of taxation is not one of them.?" That acquits the Government on the central point, and I urge Opposition Members to reflect on it. He goes on to say:"““Nor in truth was the policy as outrageous as it has come to be seen.?" After 10 years, it was a case of déjà vu. He said that"““removing the tax credit on dividends was a relatively minor adjustment in policy or even an evolution of it?—" I have made that point already—"““since the process had begun under the previous Tory Administration as an apparently painless way politically of rebuilding the public finances.""In the 10 years since the tax credit was abolished, the measure has cost…£30 billion.?" That figure is lower than the figures that have been bandied about, but he says that it is ““a small fraction?—and this is the point—"““of the total liabilities faced by these funds and by no means the biggest contributory factor to the current problem?." Hon. Members have made that point. He continued:"““Indeed, the tax raid barely figures in the ‘Big Three’ factors…cited by Stephen Yeo?—" who, I understand, was pensions adviser to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) when he shadowed the pensions portfolio—"““as the primary cause of the meltdown in final salary pensions.? " That primary cause, I reiterate for the benefit of Opposition Members, is growing longevity, the cost of providing for which is much higher than originally anticipated. The second major factor is lower investment returns, and we have heard about the so-called crash on the stock market. Opposition Members have asked why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor stopped quoting figures at 2000 or thereabouts. He did so because that date delineates the point at which conditions changed. That had nothing to do with my right hon. Friend, and that is the point. In conclusion, this has been a synthetic debate.