---

Occupational Pensions

If the hon. Gentleman had spent more time in his place during the debate, he would not keep repeating points that have already been made. The policies of Her Majesty’s Opposition will be made clear before the next election. So many schemes have closed. The destruction has happened, and that may mean that when the next Conservative Government comes in 2009 or 2010 we may have to find alternative ways of promoting saving and encouraging the young people who have lost so much confidence and can see no positive future. However, it is above my pay grade to say exactly what we will do. When we consider the record of this Chancellor and Government on occupational pensions, we see that 12.7 million UK workers, or 45 per cent., have no pension provision—a rise of 5 per cent. since 1997 or 2.1 million more people. More thoughtful Labour Members will find that a sobering thought. At a time when the economy has broadly done quite well—if not as well as the Chancellor likes to make out—and this country has grown richer and had a period of stability, thanks to the foundations laid by the last Conservative Government—[Interruption.] Ministers may scoff, but when they rest their heads on their pillows tonight, they cannot be proud of the fact that in that time—which has not been an economic disaster—2.1 million more people do not have occupational pensions. Far from growing, under this Chancellor private pension provision has suffered an underlying decline. The Opposition have made a strong case against the Chancellor. We have used the evidence provided by many specialists to lay out the figures, but they are not precise: I have repeatedly asked Ministers to give us their estimate of the impact on pension funds of the abolition of dividend tax relief, but it has not been forthcoming. I should be delighted if the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, when he winds up the debate, were to give us an honest assessment, but I expect that he will refuse to answer—just as the Government refused to give the papers to The Times until forced to do so. We have made the case that pension funds have suffered a great loss as a result of the tax change. Although stock market fluctuations and various other factors have had an effect, we believe that the Chancellor, when he took away £100 billion or £150 billion from the pension funds, inflicted a mortal blow—to them, and to people’s confidence in them. An even more damaging charge against a man who would be king—I am sorry, I mean Prime Minister—is the fact that he never acts openly. For the Chancellor, transparency is an alien concept, and that is what upsets people the most. As many colleagues have said, Governments have to find tax revenue somewhere, but to extract tax in an underhand way that puts at risk the security of people in old age is irresponsible and reprehensible, and renders the Chancellor unfit for higher office.