Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 7 January 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Pensions Bill.


Pensions Bill

I am genuinely puzzled. The hon. Gentleman does not make a sufficiently clear distinction between state pension provision and occupational pension provision. Let us consider any modelling or any actuarial assumptions that he might choose. Employment patterns, for example, have changed over the past 10 years. Even the Government Actuary has had to keep changing assumptions over the past 10 years. There is a notion that if we talk for long enough we will arrive at the proper answer. The Turner report tried to reach a compromise between what the state does and what the individual does. Tapering of benefits has always been a problem. The hon. Gentleman needs to be a little clearer about what he considers to be the alternative to the Government's answer to long-recognised problems. Essentially, he has slagged off the Government. The hon. Gentleman also should not patronise us by saying we do not understand, as some of us have been Members for longer than him and have been interested in pensions for longer than him. I have no sense of what he is proposing, other than that he does not like what we are proposing.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
470 c77-8 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Costs Advisory services Women Pension credit Personal income Workplace pensions Poverty Pensions Personal pensions Means-tested benefits Pension funds State retirement pensions Small businesses Reform National employment savings trust scheme
Legislation
Pensions Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk