Proceeding contribution from Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 10 July 2008. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Pensions Bill.
Pensions Bill
I support this amendment. It is elegantly worded and has been put in a positive way. I am glad that it is a probing amendment because the Committee should be reluctant to put detailed figures—percentages and fractions of percentages—in primary legislation. The annual management cost is at the heart of this scheme and is crucial to its success. I cannot think of another way of signalling the Government’s seriousness about enforcing these levels of charges. I hope that the Minister will say that they will be enforced. I cite the example of stakeholders, which was in many ways a failure in terms of the number of empty accounts and the rest of it. However, I was persuaded that the stakeholder process forced the industry to get serious about constraining costs and charges. The Government were absolutely right to do that then and they are absolutely right to do that here in this way. I like the fact that the amendment contains the important word ““initially””, because circumstances may change; if we were seriously threatening to put this into primary legislation, we would need a little flexibility. Those who are watching the progress of this legislation need to be absolutely clear that there is a target that the Government intend to achieve when it all goes live in due course. I hear whispers behind hands that, ““It will be 0.5, don’t worry””. In the saloon bars after the meetings that I go to, there is a lot of loose talk like that, which is quite worrying. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is absolutely right to bring to the Committee’s attention the importance of this figure. I hope that we will get an appropriate answer so that we can consider further amendments. Can the Minister say a little about the process that he has in hand to ensure that it is being considered seriously? Does the DWP talk to non-executive directors? What contacts or channels are available to the department to say to people who meet in saloon bars in the City, ““No, you are wrong; it is not 0.5, it is 0.3; it was 0.3, it is 0.3 and it will be 0.3””? If this is allowed to drift and the Government get seduced into allowing this to float up, as the noble Baroness said—I commend her for the way in which she introduced the amendment—the people who will be affected by this substantially are the members who take the schemes. This is an important amendment and I am pleased that it has been tabled. I support it and I hope that the Government will take it seriously.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 703 c933-4
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Crimes against humanity Finance Fees and charges Investment Employment agencies Genocide Index linking Personal savings Low incomes Public appointments Workplace pensions Pensions Migrant workers Temporary employment Shipping War crimes Personal Accounts Delivery Authority National employment savings trust scheme
- Legislation
- Pensions Bill 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-01-13 12:49:52 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_491941
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_491941
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_491941