moved Amendment No. 12:
12: Clause 8, page 6, line 9, at end insert—
““( ) the amount of interest to be paid;””
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 12 presupposes that an employee decides to opt out in the second half of the period allowed. For the sake of argument, let us say that the relevant period is three months and that two months into that period he decides to opt out. I calculate that an employee on the average wage of £22,000 would have £146 to be returned. Somebody—we still do not know who—outside the firm will have accumulated this money, which may have been paid in eight weekly instalments or, if he is salaried, two monthly ones. That somebody is hardly likely to sit on the money, but will put it on deposit somewhere at some rate. They will earn interest on money that is not theirs. Is it not both right and fair that interest should be returned to the employee, and the relevant interest to his employer, who I think will have £110 to be returned to him? Is this the Government's intention, or have they vetoed the idea of repayment of interest altogether? If they have vetoed it, the interest earned by whoever receives the money will go into the overheads of the scheme. In other words, non-members will be subsidising members. Is that really what the Government intend? I beg to move.
Pensions Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Skelmersdale
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 7 October 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Pensions Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
704 c143 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 23:44:11 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_497291
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_497291
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_497291