Proceeding contribution from Baroness Noakes (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 16 July 2008. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Pensions Bill.
Pensions Bill
I shall explain myself again. I think that hindsight will inevitably be used because it is difficult to escape from it and place yourself entirely in contemporaneous circumstances. When looking at what is reasonably foreseeable, people judge things by what has actually happened. I go back to the example that I gave where it could have been foreseen—and many people would have foreseen—that certain markets would deteriorate over a relatively short timescale. There is not necessarily agreement that the timescale will be the following 12 months or the following two years, but it is reasonably foreseeable that the cycle will result in some financial problems coming over the horizon. You do not need hindsight to get the test of what is reasonably foreseeable; all kinds of things are perfectly reasonably foreseeable and do not require huge feats of imagination. The question is how, as most things are reasonably foreseeable in business life, the Government will differentiate them.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 703 c1279
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Compensation Company law Companies Directors Liability Insolvency Workplace pensions Pensions Pension Protection Fund Regulation Pensions Regulator
- Legislation
- Pensions Bill 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 01:46:44 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_493101
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_493101
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_493101