Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 4 June 2007. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Pensions Bill.


Pensions Bill

Perhaps I may help the noble Lord. I presume that he supports raising the basic state pension retirement age to 65; therefore, if a woman stays in work between 60 and 65 she will be paying NICs at 11 per cent a year together with the employer’s contribution above the primary earning threshold. All Amendment No. 3 suggests is that she should be able to do that if she is in work between the ages of 60 and 65, even though she is not drawing her basic state pension. I do not see the cost issue here. That is exactly where the policies of all parties are going; that is, to draw a pension at the age of 65 and, as a result, to pay in NICs for an additional five years to fund both the BSP and the S2P. I accept that there is a phasing issue, but I do not understand the noble Lord’s point about costs.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
692 c894 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disability Children Child benefit Carers Age Women Eligibility Earnings rules Guaranteed minimum pensions Grandparents Pension credit Pensioners Personal savings Pay Pensions National insurance contributions Means-tested benefits Pension rights Overseas residence State retirement pensions Young people Take-up Retirement Voluntary contributions State second pension Home responsibilities protection
Legislation
Pensions Bill 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk