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
My point is that whatever was done in the direction that the hon. Gentleman suggests, we would still have means-testing in the system. His proposal, which might end up being more modest than the one that I have read out, would cost £20 billion and increase income tax by 5p, but it would reduce the proportion of people on means-tested benefits in retirement by only a quarter. He knows very well that he would thus be in the same position on automatic enrolment. He wants to be able to say that he would increase the basic state pension, but he knows full well that that would not deal with the issue that he has identified.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 459 c385
- 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 12:38:43 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_390302
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_390302
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_390302