Proceeding contribution from Lord Fowler (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 11 July 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Pensions Bill.
Pensions Bill
My Lords, with great respect to the Minister, I set that out in my initial remarks—I do not know whether he is trying to delay things. As to process, the noble Lord is completely wrong. In fact, the Minister read the departmental brief and then said that I was not saying that all the issues should in principle be re-examined. I have come here to help the Minister. I have tried to get an assessment of his intentions in the legislation. Post-legislative scrutiny could be done at very little cost by a committee in Parliament—I have no particular views about whether it should be a Joint Committee or a Select Committee. I have tried to leave the Government as much flexibility as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, was correct. We should stop talking and start scrutinising. I should like to test the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 141; Not-Contents, 138.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 693 c1419-20
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Age Legislation Pensions Parliamentary scrutiny State retirement pensions Uprating State earnings related pension scheme National employment savings trust scheme
- Legislation
- Pensions Bill 2006-07
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-01-13 13:00:35 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_409872
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_409872
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_409872