Downing Street Says

Asked if the Prime Minister was ruling out any compensation for pensioners, the PMOS said that there were a number of important points, as John Hutton had said this morning. First, we all fully understood the anger and frustration of those who had lost out. Secondly, however, it had to be right that taxpayers could not compensate private pensions funds; that was a matter for employers. Thirdly, there was a financial assistance scheme for those pensioners who were especially badly hit, and that at the moment was worth £400 million. Finally, John Hutton had said today that we were looking at that scheme as part of the new current spending review, and how it could be improved. To say that there was no assistance to pensioners was wrong, but equally, however, taxpayers could not compensate for failings of private pension schemes.

Put that given the £400 million had to be divided between 85,000 pensioners and it was equivalent to £4.50 each a week, was there any chance that it could be increased, the PMOS said it was not right just to divide it by the number of pensioners, as it depended on circumstances and hardship cases. Secondly, John Hutton had said today that he would look at the scheme in the new spending round.

Put that John Hutton had explicitly rejected the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s criticism of the Government leaflet, which raised the point of what was the point of having an Ombudsman if their criticism was ultimately rejected, the PMOS said that equally, put the other way round, yes, there were figures like the Ombudsman who were independent and who reached conclusions. It was strange, however, if it was said that automatically, a Government had to accept their views, as those views were assessed and due weight was given to them. John Hutton had set out the reasons, and people would judge for themselves.

Asked again what was the point of an Ombudsman if they were rejected out of hand, the PMOS replied that he had just answered the question. Of course due weight was given to what the Ombudsman had said, and John Hutton had said that they were giving due weight. The fact that they were looking again at the financial assistance scheme supported that.

Asked if the Prime Minister agreed that the leaflets were accurate and not misleading, the PMOS replied that John Hutton had set out the reasons why the DWP believed that was the case.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Pensions

No Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries