Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 7 October 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Pensions Bill.


Pensions Bill

My Lords, this is such an important amendment that I hope I might be allowed to utter from the opposition Front Bench. We had a long and comprehensive debate in Committee on a similar amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and I can do no better than reiterate the comments of my colleagues in another place: we believe in the need for a proper appreciation of the importance and benefits of ethical investments. I agree with the Minister, who said that pension schemes are a, "““significant area for ethical investment””.—[Official Report, 10/7/08; col. 915.]" However, yet again the argument, and indeed the amendment, have been limited by the intention that trustees should take account of ethical investment principles in terms of personal accounts rather than more generally. If ethical investment is such a good thing—and indeed it is—surely it should be considered by the trustees of all pension schemes. As I understand the position—the Minister will be able to correct me if I am wrong—to an extent it already is because, under existing trust law, trustees must prepare a statement of their investment principles which is sent not only to fund managers but also to members and prospective members, and most importantly must include the extent to which social, environmental and ethical considerations are taken into account in the selection, retention and realisation of investments. In other words, that is something like 75 per cent of what is sought in the amendment. The ex-chairman of PADA has not yet been introduced to your Lordships’ House as Lord Myners, so he cannot say whether, before he left, PADA had yet started on a round of consultation on socially responsible investment, which by definition includes ethical investment. Given his ministerial responsibility, perhaps he never will be able to tell us in person, but I am sure that the information will filter through somehow. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, that work is apparently progressing, but that the amendment does not really cover what it needs to cover.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
704 c179-80 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Contributions Advisory services Fixed penalties Investment Information Insolvency Ethics Personal income Pay Workplace pensions Pensions Personal pensions Pension funds Pension rights Pensions Ombudsman Tribunals Small businesses Tax allowances Taxation Pensions Regulator Personal Accounts Delivery Authority Occupational money purchase schemes National employment savings trust scheme
Legislation
Pensions Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk