Hansard - United Kingdom Parliament

101 Pensions Bill [Lords]
20 JUNE 2011
Pensions Bill [Lords]
102
16. Nobody on the Government Benches wants to
charge students of the future the full cost—up to £9,000 per
annum—of studying at university. Nobody on the
Government Benches wants to put up VAT, which is
paid by everybody in this country regardless of their
income. We do not want to do any of those things,
and not a single one of those decisions has no rough
edges, not a single one of those decisions has no victims
and not a single one of those decisions treats everybody
in the country equally.
We have never claimed that these decisions have no
rough edges—that they do not have victims, and that
they treat everyone equally—but we have claimed, and
do claim, that each of the decisions is an essential part
of the overall objective of putting our public finances
on a sustainable basis. If these decisions are not made
and implemented in full, all the people affected by
them—the very same young people who will not be
getting EMA, the very same students who will be paying
tuition fees, the very same pensioners who will be
receiving their pensions a bit later—will suffer far more.
The Opposition’s stance is very revealing. They could
have decided to restrict their opposition over the past
year and during the rest of this Parliament to those
matters on which they have a profound ideological
dispute with the Government. They could have decided
to oppose the benefits cap, whereby in future nobody
will get more than average income from benefits and
which will make it clear to people that the only way to
earn more than the average is to work for a living. They
could have decided to oppose the universal credit, which
demonstrates our view that we have to remove excessive
means-testing from the benefits system in order to make
work pay. They could have decided to oppose immigration
controls, which illustrate our view that we need to
restrict the entry of people into this country, so that it is
British people who can go out and get the jobs that our
recovery creates.
The Opposition could have decided to focus on and
restrict their opposition to those matters, about which
they have genuine ideological differences of opinion
with us that I entirely respect. However, instead, they
are choosing to oppose all the measures we are
introducing—even those that are driven not by an
ideological programme or by an attempt to reshape the
way this country operates, but by a wish to rescue this
country from a road to ruin.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): May
I declare an interest as a trustee of the Conservative
agents’ pension fund, and my other registered interests?
Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour Members are
opposing this because they are deeply embarrassed that
they failed to increase the retirement age when they
were in government? A much preferable approach is
that followed by my right hon. Friend the Member for
Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), who gave very
long notice of these programmes and really did fix the
roof when the sun was shining.
Nick Boles: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention
and he is absolutely right: the contrast is stark and is
not flattering to the Opposition. Indeed, I would go so
far as to claim that the curious thing about the Labour
Government is that they demonstrated the quality we
would normally associate with Oppositions: total
opportunism—the total failure to grapple with any
difficult long-term issues, and instead doing just the
easy things that win votes at the next election.
Debbie Abrahams: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the
Pensions Acts 2007 and 2008.
Nick Boles: I thank the hon. Lady—and remind her
that her Government had been in power for 10 and a
half years by the time they introduced those Acts, even
though it was clear long before they took office that
such problems existed. However, I do not want to be too
ungracious and I do accept that some things were
done—but not enough and too late.
So why are the Opposition taking this approach of
opposing everything under the general charge that it
just is not fair? Is it really fair to tell people that a
budget deficit on the scale that we face can be dealt with
without pain; without some people being asked to
sacrifice things that are important to them; and without
everyone in the country experiencing a real material
loss? Is it fair to tell young people that, actually, there is
no reason to pull back on EMA; that there is no reason
to restrict their income when they stay on in education;
that there is no reason to change the basis of funding
for universities?
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab): You have
gone on a lot about ideological things, but is it ideologically
bonkers to fight for a fair deal for women who have
made the sacrifices that you are talking about? They
have sacrificed for their country, for their families—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order.
Unfortunately, I am not responsible, so it is not “you”. I
am sure the hon. Gentleman did not mean that.
Alex Cunningham: I beg your pardon, Mr Deputy
Speaker. Is it “ideological” for us to stick up for women
who have had a raw deal through life looking after their
families and doing a low-paid job, but who now find
out they have to work even longer for a pittance of a
pension?
Nick Boles: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I fear he
misunderstands me: I am not accusing him and his
colleagues of being ideological, and that, in a sense, is
my point. Actually, the Opposition are perpetrating a
grand deceit on the British people, which is that there is
anything fair about protecting all these things that we
can no longer afford; that there is anything fair about
arguing to the British people that we—
Dr Whiteford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Nick Boles: No, I will not give way for the moment; I
am in the middle of replying to the previous intervention.
The Opposition are perpetrating the grand deceit that
there is anything fair about pretending to the British
people that this country is not poorer than it was; that it
is not permanently poorer than we thought we would be
in each of the next 20 years.
The point about what happened in the past three
years is that the economy suffered a permanent drop.
We can grow again from that drop—we can again
achieve higher living standards—but we will never have
back the growth that we lost in the past 10 years, and it
is not fair to anyone to argue that this or any Government