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
Healthy, solvent employers may have wound up their scheme when employer debt was set at the minimum funding requirement. Such employers should have made good their pensions promise—they were funded at the MFR—so new clause 25, which would allow those schemes in, is inappropriately wide. That is a consequence of the drafting of the new clause rather than any difference of policy. People were asking for the scheme to cover 6,000 pensioners in solvent companies; we are actually covering 8,000. The House is getting slightly over-excited about a point on which there is not a difference.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 459 c330
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 11:34:45 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_390183
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_390183
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_390183