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

That I needed to put on weight. I still do. I came to that conclusion—not with my wife but with the Minister—when he said that he intended the Bill to be as business friendly as possible. I am intrigued by his answer to my question about agency workers. He said that it depends on who does the paying, but very often two payments are made. For example, in the agricultural industry, one payment is made to the agency providing the workers, and the other is paid—on a daily or weekly rate—to the workers employed by the farmer or nurseryman or whoever it happens to be. I shall have to look into that. The Minister said there was provision in the Bill. Does he mean the agency workers Act—if that is what it is called—which we debated a year or two ago, or does he mean the Bill? He indicates that he means the Bill. I shall look at this issue extremely carefully. I am certain that the Minister does not have a clue about how to answer the main thrust of the amendment and so I beg leave to withdraw it.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
702 c1005 
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