New clause 38 deals with the important issue of failed company pensions and the financial assistance scheme. In my speech, I want to set out three things: first, how the scheme will now guarantee 80 per cent. of expected core pensions to all 125,000 people affected, in contrast to the Opposition, who said that they would not put any more taxpayers’ money into the scheme; secondly, how a review, led by industry experts, will look at topping up that 80 per cent., looking in particular at pooling assets; but thirdly, how we should wait for the outcome of that review, rather than voting for the Conservative amendments, which have already been condemned by the Association of British Insurers.
Many Members in the Chamber today have constituents who lost their pensions because their companies went into insolvency with the scheme underfunded. I have met dozens of people who have been affected. I think of Willie Riggins, Bill Adams and Bob Duncan—people who worked all their lives and whose pension was taken away through no fault of their own. Members on both sides of the House have experience of that and have great sympathy for people in that situation. That is exactly why, in the Pensions Act 2004, we introduced the financial assistance scheme, and why we put in place the Pension Protection Fund, to ensure that today’s workers do not face the same threat again.
Pensions Bill
Proceeding contribution from
James Purnell
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 18 April 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Pensions Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
459 c322 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:34:56 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_390145
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_390145
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_390145