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 am in some difficulty here. I am not sure whether we should be debating the issue of basic versus qualifying earnings and what we see as an appropriate qualifying scheme in relation to this amendment or in relation to later amendments, including Amendment No. 60A. It is probably too late now but I would have found it hugely helpful if the amendments had been grouped because I think that we need to have a full discussion. We all agree that we want people to end up with the best-buy package, whatever that may be, but the question is: how do we provide a simple way of ensuring that they do so with as little alteration as possible to the existing structures of sound schemes, while ensuring that we do not build into the scheme a moral hazard whereby a few employers can pervert the notion of basic pay? If those are the contours of the debate, it seems to me that they are caught partly by this amendment, which is very interesting, and partly by the later amendments. Given that it is 10 minutes to 10, I am not sure what we do about that. Two companies, Scottish Widows and AEGON—I know the people there a little and respect them greatly—have told me that they are extremely worried about this issue. They feel that we are making problems here that we do not need to have. It may be that the Minister will wish to adduce arguments against that position, but at the moment I am disposed to believe that we have a real issue to address and I do not think that we can do it at 10 to 10—I have a feeling that it will be split between two sets of debates. I am not sure of the best way forward. Ideally, the later amendments would have been grouped with this one but I see that they are starred and therefore that was not the case. I do not know whether my noble friend can help on this or whether the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is able to withdraw the amendment and recast it in some way for next Monday so that we can pick up these issues. I think that we will have the same debate twice and I do not think that that will be very fruitful, particularly at this time of the evening.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 702 c1016-7
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-01-13 12:48:21 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_482713
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_482713
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_482713