UK Parliament / Open data

Occupational Pension Schemes (Contracting-out) (Amendment) Regulations 2009

Perhaps the Merits Committee did not comment on the provision because it could not understand it. Like the noble Lord, I picked up the Minister’s phrase that the regulations may appear complex. He can certainly say that again. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was searching for a deeper expression than "complex". I suggest "utterly obscure and totally incomprehensible". On a point of fact, I see that the regulatory impact assessment suggests that the total initial cost—presumably the one-off cost of making these changes—will be between £11 million and £22 million, and would produce a total annual cost saving of £6 million to £13 million. That is a 50 per cent to 60 per cent annual rate of return of which any pension fund with which I have been associated would have been proud. I just wonder whether those figures can be right. They seem to be particularly hopeful, do they not? That is one question. More generally, and more seriously, the order shows how totally wrong and unnecessary contracting out the whole state second pension is. I have been in the pensions industry for 33 years and understand how it works, and I just wish that the Government had been bolder and scrapped it rather than slowly phasing it out following the Turner report.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

709 c184GC 

Session

2008-09

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top