XN000022-1995-03-08 — Page 15

· 3-

Another area of concern was that the OPS would end up facing problems similar to those experienced by old age pension schemes in many western welfare

states.

Let me now turn to some of the comments made on the key recommendations in the OPS paper. Nearly 18% of submissions proposed lowering the qualifying age for receipt of the pension from 65 to 60, arguing that 60 was common age for retirement. To do so, of course, would have meant a major increase in the contribution level for the OPS.

Many submissions called for future pension increases to be linked to increases in wages rather than the Composite Consumer Price Index as we had recommended. We accept such a change would also have meant an unacceptable rise in the necessary level of contribution.

Another major area of disagreement was the proposed means of funding the OPS. About 10% of submissions called for tripartite funding, that is to say equal contributions from Government, employers and employees. Again this would have been totally unacceptable.

Let me now turn to some of the specific points raised by Members in the debate this evenings.

Some Members have claimed that Government manipulated the number of submissions of the OPS, that we placed undue reliance on the views expressed by a particular group or groups, or ignored such views altogether. The simple fact is, there was no real support for the scheme in this Council. There was little enthusiasm for the OPS in the news media, indeed there was some hostility among many other news media, and public views were, at best, divided. All these were views which the Government must take fully into account.

Let me stress, yet again, that the evaluation of the submissions was completely fair, and was carried out carefully and conscientiously. Apart from considering the views expressed in each submission, and whether in principle at least the author was for or against the OPS, or did not indicate either way, we took careful note of such points as -