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

Does the Minister accept that the brief he has just read out was very much couched—and the code suggests—to mean that it is not in the public interest for people to serve longer than 10 years? That is not, in my view, a reason to have an absolute ban on anybody under any circumstances going on for more than eight years. It seems to me that the sort of background he was giving about balance of corporate memory, experience and so on—I speak from experience of many pension fund boards—is that in some circumstances it is right that people should be able to go on longer. To move from suggestions in a code to an absolute ban does not seem proportionate. I do not think an absolute ban is sensible.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
703 c329 
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