Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 17 June 2008. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Pensions Bill.


Pensions Bill

So, the Bill as printed is confusing and the Explanatory Notes are right—I think that in précis is what the Minister is saying—and I am grateful. However, I think he would agree that the answer to his noble friend Lady Turner of Camden is that when the phrase ““state pension age”” is mentioned, it means the state pension age at the time and therefore so far as women are concerned, it is rising to 65, while in due course everyone will go up to 68. In the previous Pensions Bill, we tried to make this open-ended, but the Government were adamant that enough was enough for the time being, in other words up to 2050. Governments have a reputation, sometimes deserved and sometimes not, for short-termism, but I do not think that this decision fits into that category. I think that I now understand the position, so the amendment has served as quite a useful probe. I have to confess that I am not word perfect on the 1995 Act and I shall certainly look at it again. However, I rather doubt that I will need to come back to this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
702 c944 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Conditions of employment Directors Age Contributions Advisory services Women Liability Income tax Information Employment agencies Pensioners Personal savings Pay Workplace pensions Pensions National insurance contributions Pension funds Low pay Temporary employment State retirement pensions Young people Small businesses Tax allowances Repayments Taxation Tax rates and bands National employment savings trust scheme
Legislation
Pensions Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk