One of the things that informed the EOC’s position at the time was that a lot of married women did not have an annuity in their own right, but depended on their husband's annuity and, therefore, those married women would have lost out were their husband’s rate depressed in order for the rate of other women—single women, women with annuities—to rise. I have reason to believe that that may have influenced the thinking at the time. I believe that everyone's mindset has moved on since then and one should not assume that one should protect dependent women at the expense of those who try to protect themselves. My noble friend is relying quite heavily on the EOC’s arguments and material. If, since 2004-05, the EOC were to change its position on that, would that help to move the Government’s thinking forward?
Pensions Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 6 June 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Pensions Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
692 c1217 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:39:12 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_401313
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_401313
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_401313