I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I said categorically at the outset that I accept that the world has changed and that the Kelly report made two recommendations on pension arrangements. Specifically, IPSA will have a say in what we get out of the scheme and what we pay into it. I am not trying to resist that at all. The hon. Gentleman just used the expression "IPSA needs to have its tentacles across this matter". I am not resisting that—I am merely resisting the idea that IPSA should delve its tentacles into these matters in an attempt to run the whole thing. It is possible to hit the right balance but, as the Bill is drafted, the Government have failed to do that. I would welcome it if they would get into a meaningful dialogue with the trustees so that on Report we can arrive at some arrangements that will take account of the points that the hon. Gentleman is making while leaving a viable pension arrangement with a scheme that will have the same sort of autonomy and power to organise its own affairs that any other pension fund would take for granted.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Nick Harvey
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 1 February 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
505 c78-9 Session
2009-10Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 19:45:18 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_617734
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_617734
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_617734