If the Minister thinks that he can threaten me by upping the rate of seminars to which he is going to invite me, he is absolutely right. I am seminared out, and the prospect of no fewer than five on one small subset of the issues is more than flesh and blood can bear.
I have already made it clear that new clause 29 is a probing new clause and it has served its purpose, up to a point. Amendment No. 3 is not sufficiently important to press to a Division. However, I feel strongly about new clause 7. The Minister ought to feel equally strongly about it because it is largely looted from the wording in his own White Paper, so I do not understand why there is a problem putting that in the Bill. We have concerns, and it is not just us; the industry shares those concerns, as I said in my speech. On that basis, I would like to press new clause 7 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 217, Noes 293.
Pensions Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Nigel Waterson
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 18 April 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Pensions Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
459 c387 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:36:16 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_390307
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_390307
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_390307