Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Tony Wright (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 17 July 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Pensions Bill.


Pensions Bill

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) mentioned the word ““justice””, which is the right word. Fundamentally, we all have to decide whether we want to do justice to a group of people who, through no fault of their own, lost their occupational pension scheme. Either we do, or we do not. The Government certainly want to help them and today’s announcement is welcome. I am not sure whether it is the fourth or fifth extension of the original FAS scheme; I do not disparage that, and it is welcome. We have travelled a long way, but we have not yet arrived at a position of justice. For all the reasons that we have rehearsed endlessly, there is still a big gap between what we think these people should get, as under the PPS, and what they will get, even under a more generous FAS. That is and always has been the fundamental point. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) asked the Minister a very good question: was the 90 per cent. core pension entitlement now seen as a ceiling, or as the review continued and assets were discovered would there perhaps not be a ceiling? Might we go as far as we could to get some sort of parity with the PPF? I was not sure what the answer was; perhaps the Minister was not sure. I hope that he will become more sure as it would be helpful to have the answer. We have made awfully heavy weather of this matter. Many of us simply wanted to vote at some point for a proposition that said that some public money would have to be spent in order to do justice. The Government began by saying that it was not a question of money. As we have finished, we see that it is entirely a question of money. The official Opposition said that they wanted to see justice done, but did not want to spend any public money up front. It would have been better to say, ““There is cost involved in doing justice, but it is justified.”” This involves the whole House because both main parties are part of the story as to how we have got here and there is a collective responsibility on the House to put this right.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
463 c216-7 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Company liquidations Assets Bank services Annuities Insolvency Financial assistance scheme Personal savings Low incomes Pensions Personal pensions Pension funds Pension Protection Fund State retirement pensions
Legislation
Pensions Bill 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk