Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from James Purnell (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 7 December 2006. It occurred during Estimates day on Occupational Pensions.


Occupational Pensions

I would like to make some progress. I have very little time, so I am afraid that I will not give way. The main point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase made was that the Government had set up the regulatory framework and were thus responsible. It is worth pointing out, however, that we think that most of the companies in the category did not meet the basic rules that were set out under the regulatory framework that was introduced by the Conservative Government. Most schemes did not meet the minimum funding requirement, and the leaflets made the case that protection was in place only if the MFR was met. It is not correct to say, as my hon. Friend did, that the disclosure regulations prevented people from saying that there were risks in their schemes and pointing out what they were. They were perfectly able to do so. At the time, the Government did not say that they should not talk about risks. His interpretation of what happened was not correct.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
454 c545 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Workplace pensions Pensions Ombudsman Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Health Service Commissioner
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk