Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Labour) 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

I disagree with that point of view as someone who has been in a similar position. Time and again, there will be concerns raised in the House about the use of a statutory instrument or order that the Ministerial Bench may feel is misplaced. Ministers might, nonetheless, wish to help the Opposition, so when that order first comes up there is a commitment to proper parliamentary review. After that, it is assumed that those concerns and fears have been addressed and we do not need to continue. Should the Opposition feel that issues remain, they can raise them through the negative procedure. We should not litter dinner hour business or Moses Room procedures with unnecessary affirmative orders about which there is no concern, around which there has been consensus and, where—after the original parliamentary debate—there has been at least one debate on the Floor of the House or in Committee. That is a sensible way of ensuring initial parliamentary scrutiny but then clearing the decks so that it does not become permanent graffiti on the shoulders of opposition spokesmen at ungodly hours in this Chamber.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
702 c973 
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