My Lords, I am perfectly happy to offer my noble friend the Government’s view on those amendments when we reach them. As regards the amendment we are discussing, I argue that temporary suspension is simply not the way to address this. It would compound a challenging issue. My noble friend rightly referred to the fact that people are building up increasingly bigger pots in DC schemes. If you project forward 20 or 30 years, particularly with auto-enrolment, that will increase substantially. However, in the second quarter of 2008, there were something like 114,000 annuity sales, nearly 40 per cent of which were for pots of less than £10,000 and only 13 per cent of which were for pots in excess of £50,000. Therefore, we are a long way from that situation at the moment.
I am disappointed that when we debate this matter the focus of attention is on people at or around or approaching 75, whom I have sought to deal with. However, we have not discussed people who might be in more challenging circumstances—those who annuitise early because they need the income. Those people have very real deadlines driven by their economic circumstances. Frankly, I am more concerned about those people than those who have the options I have outlined. I think that the temporary suspension is the worst of all options that we face at the moment.
Pensions Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord McKenzie of Luton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 27 October 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Pensions Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
704 c1384 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:05:40 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_503430
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_503430
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_503430