---

Pensions Bill

I welcome the opportunity to debate this amendment and those that we shall soon address. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) made clear, the amendment on annuities, which this House debated last week and which the House of Lords rejected and replaced with those before us today, was part of a wider raft of amendments on the lifeboat fund. I can do no better than quote the remarks in the House of Lords debate yesterday of my party colleague Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay. He quoted the conclusion of the Young review. On page 29 of the review it is stated that"““the current FAS scheme is not the best way of ensuring good value, as there is a complicated process and benefit structure, considerable duplication of administration, insufficient risk-pooling etc.””" In other words, even the Government’s own review comes to that conclusion. Lord Oakeshott further said on other amendments with which this one had previously been grouped:"““One hundred and twenty-five thousand members of failed pension schemes have been robbed twice; first when their funds collapsed, and now by a government ruse to block House of Lords””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2007; Vol. 694, c. 708.]" debate on the Pensions Bill. I wholeheartedly agree with Lord Oakeshott’s sentiments—and I also pay tribute to his work in campaigning for the 125,000 pensioners whose pension rights have been removed and who have campaigned so assiduously.