Skip to main content

1-20 of 1,209 results for legtitle:"Pensions Bill 2006-07"

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend believes—how can I best put it?—that half a loaf is better than no bread. Ably assisted by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, he has achieved the first step in his ambition, expressed in his maiden speech to your Lordships—I...

Member
Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 July 2007
Reference
694 c916-7
House
House of Lords

My Lords, we from these Benches are very happy to support the compromise amendment on post-legislative scrutiny outlined by the Minister. One important aspect of any post-legislative scrutiny of such a far-reaching Bill as this is the fundamental importance of an effective publicity campaign about the new provisions, particularly those...

Member
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 July 2007
Reference
694 c916
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I have my Tellers in place—I should just like to keep the government Whips alive on this. Of course, the Minister is entirely right that we have reached agreement. I thank him very much for the Government’s movement on this issue—from saying that it was unnecessary to the...

Member
Lord Fowler (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 July 2007
Reference
694 c915-6
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 28, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 28C and 28D in lieu. This is the one remaining issue on...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 July 2007
Reference
694 c914-5
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment. As my honourable friend Mike O’Brien—I believe he will be Minister for Pensions Reform for a very long time to come—said in the other place, ending on a compromise is reflective of how this legislation...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 July 2007
Reference
694 c917
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered. Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to. [The page and line references are to HL Bill 61 as first printed for the Lords.] 28: Insert the following new Clause- ““Post-legislative scrutiny Four years after the passing...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 July 2007
Reference
694 c914
House
House of Lords

Pensions Bill. Consideration of Commons amendments. Lords amendment 28 not insisted on and Commons amendments 28C and 28D in lieu agreed to on question.

Department
Department for Work and Pensions
Type
Debates on bills
Date
26 July 2007
Reference
694 c914-7
House
House of Lords

Pensions Bill. Royal Assent notified 26 July 2007. CHAP 22 2007.

Type
Legislative formal proceedings
Date
26 July 2007
Reference
463 c1068
House
House of Commons
Type
Public acts
Date
26 July 2007
Reference
CHAP 22 2007

I want to have one last brief go at this point, and then I shall allow the Minister to move on. The Government still have not stated clearly why they do not want to allow FAS beneficiaries to receive benefits at the Pension Protection Fund level. We Liberal Democrats have...

Member
Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 July 2007
Reference
463 c894
House
House of Commons

I welcome the opportunity to debate this amendment and those that we shall soon address. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) made clear, the amendment on annuities, which this House debated last week and which the House of Lords rejected and replaced with those before us today, was...

Member
Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 July 2007
Reference
463 c890
House
House of Commons

With regard to post-legislative scrutiny, when provisions come before the House, many Members are at a disadvantage in so far as we do not have the time to go through the detail. Would the Minister like to give an undertaking to ask the National Audit Office to produce a report...

Member
Brian Jenkins (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 July 2007
Reference
463 c899
House
House of Commons

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way for what I imagine will be the last time during the passage of the Bill. May I join him and express the thanks of the official Opposition to the officials, the Clerks, all hon. Members who have spoken during the various...

Member
Nigel Waterson (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 July 2007
Reference
463 c900
House
House of Commons

With the leave of the House, I seek to reply to this debate and to some of the points raised. Let me first deal with what should perhaps be described as the political knockabout points, before moving on to the serious stuff. Various claims were made about the Parliament Act...

Member
Mike O'Brien (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 July 2007
Reference
463 c893
House
House of Commons

I just want to make a few points. I agree with what the hon. Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) said about the lifeboat fund. It is a shame that it is not in the amendments; none the less, I do support...

Member
Mike Weir (Scottish National Party)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 July 2007
Reference
463 c892-3
House
House of Commons

The Government did not accept the lifeboat scheme for the very reason that we set out, which the Young review confirmed—that the basis of the scheme was full of financial holes. The Young report stated clearly that the idea that sitting in pension and insurance funds are assets that could...

Member
Mike O'Brien (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 July 2007
Reference
463 c894
House
House of Commons

I do not want to follow the Minister down the route of discussing the 1911 Act, because I suspect that I would be ruled out of order. However, I remind him that—amendments or no amendments, and whatever their wording—if the Government had accepted the principle of a lifeboat fund and...

Member
Nigel Waterson (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 July 2007
Reference
463 c893
House
House of Commons

I am grateful to the Minister for the speed with which he is seeking to act and for his generosity in suggesting a consultation, which I would welcome. He is right—time is of the essence and we should get on with this. If that means that a shorter than usual...

Member
Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 July 2007
Reference
463 c891-2
House
House of Commons

I agree that it is important that the rules are introduced quickly. We will use the negative procedure, and we will seek to move as quickly as possible as we want them to be in place by the autumn. The House must have an opportunity to debate that, if it...

Member
Mike O'Brien (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 July 2007
Reference
463 c891
House
House of Commons

I do not want to labour this point and I am conscious of the time, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Member
Mike O'Brien (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 July 2007
Reference
463 c894
House
House of Commons