Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 2 July 2008. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Pensions Bill.


Pensions Bill

I am sympathetic to proposed new subsection (1B), which says that if there is to be a delay, the Secretary of State should effectively come forward, come clean and explain what is happening. However, I am a little concerned about proposed new subsection (1A), although I may have misread it. There are slight echoes of the amendment on which we have just voted. If we say that a scheme, "““must be established and capable of operation not later than 1st April 2012””," which we all want, what happens if, for understandable reasons, we miss that date? Are we then in the position, if we agree to the amendment, that the whole thing falls away? Perhaps I misunderstand it but that is my worry. I support proposed new subsection (1B) but I am concerned about proposed new subsection (1A) because if there is a delay we do not want to lose the whole scheme.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
703 c267 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Conditions of employment Audit Advisory services Conflict of interests Government assistance Low incomes Public appointments Workplace pensions Pensions Non-departmental public bodies Unfair dismissal Pensions Advisory Service National employment savings trust scheme
Legislation
Pensions Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk