---

Pensions Bill

The Minister has rightly surmised that I do not intend to press new clause 2 to a vote. I want to say a couple of things. First, despite my huge respect for Lord Turner, I do not think that the house insurance analogy holds water. We are saying that people will save for their retirement and then not get something to which they would have been entitled. With respect, that is not quite the same as saying, ““I haven't been burgled, so can I have my money back?”” to an insurance company. That is the challenge. As I have made clear, we are embarking on a process. We are all going on a journey together and we will see where we will end up. We could well end up in a situation like the scene at the end of ““Planet of the Apes””, where they come back to where they started, see the statue of liberty and discover that they have not been anywhere. Who knows? We will certainly give it our best shot, and I am sure that the Minister and his officials will, too. We have to see how the process pans out. We will certainly keep a close eye on how the process works. We reserve the right to bail out at any point if we are not happy with the way in which it is developing, but we want to see it go forward, as do lots of other people. We are, in a rather twee way, included in the Minister's definition of stakeholders, but I suppose that there are other stakeholders out there who are every bit as important and whose involvement is also extremely welcome. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.