Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from James Purnell (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 18 April 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Pensions Bill.


Pensions Bill

Again, I will turn to that in my speech slightly later on, but I want to contest what the hon. Gentleman has just said. We could have just looked at the outcome of those court cases and continued to defend them. That would have benefited only a very small number of people. The ECJ made it very clear that it thought that damages would not be payable, so the case would have affected only people who went into insolvency after the case. Similarly, the judicial review only asked us to reconsider the decision. Given that the courts had made it clear that the Conservative Government’s decisions that we have defended had been wrong, we decided that it was time to come up with a scheme that would provide at least 80 per cent. and to listen to the suggestions that the hon. Gentleman, other Opposition Front Benchers, the ombudsman and my honourable colleagues have been making and set up a review. That is the right way to proceed, but I will turn to his precise point later in my speech.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
459 c324 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Compensation Carers Assets Age Annuities Eligibility Insolvency Financial assistance scheme Pension credit Personal savings Low incomes Protection Pay Workplace pensions Pensions Payments Personal pensions Means-tested benefits Pension funds Pension Protection Fund Pension rights State retirement pensions Reform Uprating Personal Accounts Delivery Authority State second pension
Legislation
Pensions Bill 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk