Yet again—for about the fifth time—the hon. Gentleman has refused to answer the question. Until he answers some of those questions, he will have no credibility on the issue of means-testing. I look forward to debating such issues in Committee, as it is important that they receive proper scrutiny. We will also scrutinise his leader’s policy to abolish the state second pension, which would mean 7.5 million people losing up to £1,000 a year. I am sure that my hon. Friends will be happy to discuss that policy with him at the next general election.
We will be very happy to examine the Conservative party’s spending plans. We are glad of its support in theory for the Bill, but its shadow Chancellor’s spending plans clearly mean a reduction of public spending in GDP—[Interruption.] He spelled that out clearly. The proposals that we are debating tonight mean an increase in public spending in GDP. Until the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge tells us how he will fund that, his commitment will only be theoretical, not real.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Pensions Bill
Proceeding contribution from
James Purnell
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 16 January 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Pensions Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
455 c755 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:22:04 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_369868
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_369868
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_369868