Proceeding contribution from Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 6 June 2007. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Pensions Bill.
Pensions Bill
One of the things that informed the EOC’s position at the time was that a lot of married women did not have an annuity in their own right, but depended on their husband's annuity and, therefore, those married women would have lost out were their husband’s rate depressed in order for the rate of other women—single women, women with annuities—to rise. I have reason to believe that that may have influenced the thinking at the time. I believe that everyone's mindset has moved on since then and one should not assume that one should protect dependent women at the expense of those who try to protect themselves. My noble friend is relying quite heavily on the EOC’s arguments and material. If, since 2004-05, the EOC were to change its position on that, would that help to move the Government’s thinking forward?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 692 c1217
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Consumers Age Annuities Women Equality Health Investment Industrial diseases Financial assistance scheme Membership Workplace pensions Pensions Pension funds Pension Protection Fund Pension rights Retirement Life expectancy Personal Accounts Delivery Authority
- Legislation
- Pensions Bill 2006-07
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 11:39:12 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_401313
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_401313
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_401313