Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay (Liberal Democrat) 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

We like the amendment. The principle seems very fair and the noble Baroness made a powerful case. It is essentially an issue of justice for lower-paid people, particularly women. My honourable friend Danny Alexander strongly supported this issue in the other place. We look forward very much to hearing from the Minister, but clearly the question is whether this will lead to considerable extra costs and administrative burdens for PADA or for employers. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some detail and figures on that if he resists the amendment, and in particular I hope that he will not just say, ““This is the bargain we struck””, or, ““It was a deal””. If there are problems, I hope that we can hear in detail what they are and why they exist.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
702 c997 
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