Pensions

My Lords, there is much that is good in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Turner, including the partial move towards compulsory saving. I congratulate him on his work. His proposals are now the Government’s proposals, so we are debating what the Government are proposing. The proposals are being introduced against a background of the closing of many occupational pension schemes, once the greatest attribute of this country. The Government have to say what they are doing to repair that position. I wonder how it will help to scrap the incentive of, for example, the national insurance rebate. I wonder, too, why the Government are turning their face against a change in the rule on annuities. I would have thought that if you could liberalise that rule and make it not compulsory to take an annuity at 75, that would prove to be another incentive to people saving. Did I detect, when the Minister said, ““We will keep that under review””, that there is therefore the prospect of a change in policy, or was that simply a glib reply—I hate to put it in those terms—from the Minister to that question? The Government are proposing that we work longer, eventually to 68 in line with life expectancy. How does it help if the right of those in the public sector to retire at 60 remains unchanged for the foreseeable future? Does the Minister not think that the public will see that as inequitable? If the Government are serious about wanting consensus, will they not have to change their policy in that respect? If we are going to have consensus, to add to my noble friend’s point, there needs to be rapid discussion with the other parties; perhaps even a debate at the earliest opportunity in this House so we can give this issue full consideration.