Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Gregg McClymont (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 18 October 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Pensions Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2).


Pensions Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)

This been a very important debate. I thank the Minister for his reply, but he has not satisfactorily answered the question repeatedly asked by Labour Members, which is fairly straightforward. Why are these 500,000 women paying a disproportionate price? Why are they having disproportionately to carry the burden? Our amendments, if accepted, would mean that not one of the half a million women affected by this Bill would have to wait more than an extra year for their state pension, and, importantly, that they would have at least nine years' notice of the rise in their state pension age. At the same time, the state pension age of 66 for men and women would be brought forward to 2022. That would be a fair package, and it would keep the Government to the promise made in the coalition agreement. I should like to withdraw amendment 1 and test the will of the House on amendment 3. Amendment, by leave withdrawn. Amendment proposed: 3, page 1, line 8, leave out subsection (4).—(Gregg McClymont.) Question put, That the amendment be made. The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 291.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
533 c823 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Age Contributions Advisory services Women Finance Fees and charges Employees' contributions Financial services Index linking Workplace pensions Pensions State retirement pensions
Legislation
Pensions Bill (HL) 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk