Pensions Bill

I am grateful to be called to speak, and I shall make a brief contribution. I largely welcome the provisions of the Bill, even though I am disappointed that the Minister and some of his Back Benchers could not support the cross-party amendment that was tabled earlier—I pay tribute to the Labour Back Benchers who did support it—as it would have greatly benefited my constituents who worked at United Engineering Forgings, which became bankrupt, and at Kalamazoo. They would have greatly appreciated the lifeboat scheme proposed by the Opposition, as they are seeking immediate benefit, because they will not have the security of pension payments for some time. I very much hope that when the Minister has conducted his review, he can reannounce the proposals that the Conservatives introduced today in his own words, and that finally the benefits of the Pension Protection Fund will be available to people who must currently use the financial assistance scheme. May I briefly put on record one aspect of the Pensions Bill that is lacking—and I do not think that the Minister will find this surprising? Yesterday, the Minister graciously agreed to meet some of my constituents who took early retirement and are particularly affected by the provisions of the Pensions Act 2004 that immediately cut the pension benefits payable to people who took early retirement. I am not sure that the House anticipated that when it introduced the Bill those people would be uniquely affected by its provisions. For many people, benefits were cut by at least by at least 10 per cent. and in some cases by 70 per cent. of what they were expecting, which has a knock-on effect on their wives’ and, indeed, widows’ pensions if they pre-decease their spouse. A much wider issue is therefore involved. It clearly cannot be addressed today, as the Bill is about to complete its passage in the Commons, but fresh amendments could be tabled in the other place to try to improve the position of people who took early retirement. They are not asking for a great deal—they are just asking for an improvement to their present predicament. The Minister obviously has to cost that with regard to the existing PPF commitments, but we believe that there are ways of taking the issue forward. I implore him to take a further look at the matter, as he said that he would do so. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the chance to put that on the record in the Chamber.