HC Deb 26 April 2004 vol 420 cc623-4
5. Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Con)

What recent representations he has received on public confidence in private pensions. [167679]

The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks)

I outlined earlier that the Government believe that the issues of confidence and security are crucial. They determine many of the things that we are doing, including the employers' taskforce, which exists to consider good practice so that more people can benefit from occupational pension schemes. I emphasise again the importance of the Pensions Bill, which will introduce the new regulator and the protection fund.

Bob Spink

For such an excellent Minister that was an outrageously complacent response. It completely ignored the plight of the 60,000 pensioners who have already lost their pension rights. Last week, the Prime Minister hinted at a change in policy. When will the Government stop hinting, spinning and raising expectations, and actually make an announcement that they will do something to help to compensate those 60,000 people who have already lost their pension rights?

Malcolm Wicks

The early part of the question was along the right lines, but I dealt with the rest of it earlier. The protection fund will protect, from April next year—we hope—more than 10 million scheme members. We voted for the Second Reading, but the Opposition—presumably not including the hon. Gentleman—voted against it. We are working hard on the terrible situation facing those already affected. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made his statement and the House will have to be patient a little longer.

Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)

I welcome the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week, as did the employees of H. H. Robertson, who lost their pension fund in a disgraceful way. I appreciate the difficulties facing my hon. Friend the Minister, but has he made any progress in identifying the number of schemes affected? Is the figure of 60,000, which keeps being bandied about, accurate?

Malcolm Wicks

We estimate that the figure of 60,000 is about where it is, but we are trying to refine it. That is why we need to do more research. It is a frustrating position, but some can just talk about the issue. We have to explore the facts, do the research and talk through some of the issues with industry. We do not want to raise false expectations, and I emphasise that at this stage. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will come to the House just as soon as we can.

Mr. David Willetts (Havant) (Con)

All we are trying to do is find exactly how far round the U-turn Ministers have got. We want to know some simple facts about today's situation. May I remind the Minister of exactly what the Prime Minister said last week? He said that he was actively considering the position of people who … find that all the money that they hale invested yields absolutely nothing."–[Official Report, 21 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 293.] How many people does the Minister believe are in those circumstances?

Malcolm Wicks

I cannot add to my point that we are looking at all the facts. I have said that the House will just have to be a little more patient; I would have thought that that was very clear. We are not U-turning on this issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has always said that we are very sympathetic, but that there are no easy options. There are certainly no cost-free options, so we need to determine the facts. That is what we have been doing.

On the subject of U-turns, I was distressed, as were my colleagues, when the hon. Gentleman advised his colleagues to decline to give the Pensions Bill a Second Reading. I, for one, would welcome a U-turn on that.

Mr. Willetts

The Prime Minister carried out two U-turns last week and it is hard to judge which was the messier and most incompetently executed. All that we and the tens of thousands of people who are affected by the wind-up of their pension schemes want to know is how much assistance they will get and when they will get it. Why cannot the Minister answer?

Malcolm Wicks

The protection fund will provide security to at least 10 million scheme members. That is the crucial point. The hon. Gentleman wants to play politics with pensions; we want to look very seriously at the options and bring forward, if we can, pension protection. That is the difference between us.