I agree entirely—or at least substantially—with what the noble Lord, Lord Turner, said. I do not entirely agree with his description of what is happening in the private sector, because a number of final-salary schemes are being closed not only for future entrants but for existing entrants. That does not make the position any better, but it is the fact with regard to quite a number of private sector schemes. But I essentially agree with him that if you are going to have, as you obviously must have, arrangements for the public sector, those arrangements have to be seen as reasonable and fair. As far as I and many others are concerned—I do not want to repeat all the noble Lord’s arguments—the present arrangements are not seen in that light. The Government’s U-turn on this issue did them no credit whatever.
We have a specific proposition in this amendment—that there should be an Independent Public Sector Pensions Commission. I agree with the principle and with what the noble Lords, Lord Turner and Lord Oakeshott, said. However, I cannot see the point of having two commissions: one for the public sector and one for the rest. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, has a further amendment which advocates an Independent Pensions Commission as well as an Independent Public Sector Pensions Commission.
Pensions Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Fowler
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 11 June 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Pensions Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
692 c1562 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:47:58 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_401846
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_401846
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_401846