My Lords, this has been a useful and thoughtful debate. However, I was rather confused by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, which seemed in essence to boil down to saying that people do not need advice at all. The measure does not suggest that people do anything different or that insurance companies offer different options. It is not a question of moving or not moving. I do not think that insurance companies would be fooled by people moving at the age of 65 or stopping smoking. We are not talking about that but about how we ensure that vulnerable people get the right advice. Not for the first time today, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and I are not communicating properly, which may be my fault as much as anyone else’s.
The contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady O’Neill, were very helpful. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, that a supply-side solution is much the best. I am not in favour of any more legislation or prescription than one has to have. Part of this process, and of trying to get publicity for the points we are making, is to put pressure on the industry to get its own house in order, and to encourage the FSA to focus a little more directly on these issues. I take the Minister’s point that the measure is probably a little too prescriptive. However, in some ways this is reminiscent of the debate we had on generic advice. I am delighted that some people are using an online tool, and that the feedback is positive. However, the problem arises with the people who are not using the online tool and who do things automatically. We are not getting through to those people. That is why I am trying to highlight this problem. There is a sloping playing field, particularly as regards some of the smaller insurance companies, which may be less scrupulous or less well informed about annuity options. There is a wide range of insurance companies in this country. Some companies such as Legal and General at the top of the tree are completely transparent—it is in their interest to have the most level playing field possible for everybody—while some smaller ones are, frankly, not as good as regards consumer protection. That is what I am trying to highlight. As I say, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, which I hope will be noted by the people who need to make changes. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Pensions Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay
(Liberal Democrat)
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 c1410-1 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:47:03 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_503457
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_503457
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_503457