Perhaps I may help the noble Lord. I presume that he supports raising the basic state pension retirement age to 65; therefore, if a woman stays in work between 60 and 65 she will be paying NICs at 11 per cent a year together with the employer’s contribution above the primary earning threshold. All Amendment No. 3 suggests is that she should be able to do that if she is in work between the ages of 60 and 65, even though she is not drawing her basic state pension. I do not see the cost issue here. That is exactly where the policies of all parties are going; that is, to draw a pension at the age of 65 and, as a result, to pay in NICs for an additional five years to fund both the BSP and the S2P. I accept that there is a phasing issue, but I do not understand the noble Lord’s point about costs.
Pensions Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 4 June 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Pensions Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
692 c894 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:24:17 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_400300
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_400300
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_400300