Perhaps I can offer personal experience. For a time I had a pensionable post in the public sector as deputy chairman of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I was given a choice, which was either to stay in the government pension scheme or to accept a slightly larger remuneration and make my own pension arrangements. At the same time, the Treasury insisted that I did not give up any possibility of there being a widow’s pension, so my noble kinsman can look forward to a small pension—may be not, but let us assume that things happen normally.
Pensions are enormously complicated, subject to a great deal of legislation. I thought that we were moving towards having as many people as possible making their own pension arrangements by money purchase out of a remuneration package that enabled them to do so. I urge on the Minister that the pension possibility is best administered by way of a remuneration package received on the understanding that the individual will make his own self-invested arrangements, rather than becoming a member of a government scheme, with all the administrative costs involved.
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Viscount Eccles
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 8 February 2006.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
678 c707-8 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 23:26:12 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_299011
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_299011
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_299011