Clause 5
Pensions Bill
1:30 pm
Nigel Waterson (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Eastbourne, Conservative)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. Indeed, the opportunity may come sooner than we think. It is not just a matter of copyfor the Conservative party. We understand thatthe Chancellor is looking for some eye-catching announcements to make in his first 100 days. Who knows? This could be one of them—particularly if the figures can be massaged downwards.
I have a couple of further points to raise. Perhaps I am not as good at reading the material as the hon. Member for Yeovil is, but the figure of £3 billion that he raised came as a surprise to me. However, he then spent a considerable amount of time demolishing it. I do not think that there is anybody out there—who I have had any dealings with—who is seriously suggesting that the way to deal with the problem is to compensate all those pensioners and, presumably, any survivors of those who have gone to glory for what they have lost out on in the meantime. Apart from the cost, the administrative difficulties are incredible. Many of them, or at least some of them, will have attracted means-tested benefits of one kind or another in the meantime because of the shortfall, and credit will have to be given for that. I do not agree with the £3 billion figure.
I assume that the Minister quotes £400 million as the cost of uprating the present pension in line with prices, not earnings. It would be interesting to know whether he has the figures for the future cost, assuming that the legislation is passed by both Houses. The hon. Member for Yeovil might have touched on the matter, but his speech was so long that I am afraid I thought that I was going to retire before the end of it and move to a sunnier clime, preferably one with a reciprocal agreement. If he did not touch on it, I certainly will. I assume that the cost will be significantly higher, but no doubt we will hear about that, as the Minister is paid highly—compared with us—to know such things. For the moment, the working figure is £400 million.
I am moving into phase 6 or 7 of my speech—there are another 15 to go—but I wanted to mention reciprocity. The standard letter that is dusted off on these occasions by whoever is in power says, “Well, yes”—I paraphrase—“we’d love to do this, but of course those people haven’t got a reciprocal agreement with us, and that’s terribly unfair. If only they had, we’d be more than happy to write the cheques.” I asked a question recently; I am not sure whether to the Department for Work and Pensions or the Foreign Office. I asked, of all the countries with which we did not have reciprocal agreements, with how many countries was the UK currently in negotiation to establish them? The answer seemed to be none.
I have two things to say to the Minister. First, if reciprocity is still one of the main reasons why the Government are not prepared to change their position, what will they do about it? Is it not worth at least commencing negotiations with the Governments of Canada and Australia? I understand anecdotally that the Government of Australia would be quite keen.
Secondly, an interesting issue has been raised with me by the Canadian pensioners through John Markham. Is reciprocity and the existence of a bilateral treaty actually a prerequisite to making uprated payments? Although Australia and Canada have said that they would be prepared to enter into reciprocal arrangements, are those arrangements strictly necessary to the uprated payments, or is that merely a convenient excuse for not making them? While I am about it, I ask the Minister to undertake to review why his Department or the Foreign Office are not engaged in negotiations, and to indicate whether he has any intention of opening any such negotiations with those friendly Governments.