Proceeding contribution from Lord Tunnicliffe (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 14 July 2008. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Pensions Bill.
Pensions Bill
I am sorry that I cannot give a blow-by-blow retort to that. It seems to me entirely reasonable that all pensions, be they compensations or orders in transit, should be handled in the same way. In pension sharing, both parties contribute to the cost. In the situation that we are trying to create here, both parties contribute to the cost. In the transition to which government Amendment No. 130EM refers, both parties contribute to the cost. That has nothing to do with the general funding of the PPF but has everything to do with handling things as consistently as possible, basically because we want parties to divorce, not levy payers in general, to pay. That is roughly what I was trying to say.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 703 c1063-4
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Compensation Companies Annuities Competition Administrative delays Equality Health Eligibility Gender Income tax Divorce Insolvency Discrimination Financial assistance scheme Index linking Private sector Workplace pensions Pensions Lump sum payments Pension Protection Fund PAYE Scotland State retirement pensions Regulation Taxation Retirement State earnings related pension scheme Pensions Regulator Private equity Civil partnerships dissolution State second pension Impact assessments
- Legislation
- Pensions Bill 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 00:09:53 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_492180
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_492180
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_492180