My Lords, in a previous existence, a noble friend of mine used the expression ““gobsmacked””. That probably describes my attitude at this moment. I am of course delighted with the Minister’s response to the amendment.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that subsection (2) of my amendment does not preclude the Secretary of State from putting anything else that he wants into the report, and it may well be that what the noble Baroness would like to see will be very appropriate and ripe for consideration at that time—namely, five years later.
I accept the Minister’s criticism that the amendment refers to the establishment of personal accounts rather than their operation. The question then is: what is meant by the ““operative date””? He said several times in Committee that the operation will be phased in, so when he puts his mind to a possible government amendment on this subject he may like to consider that point. However, as I said, I am extremely pleased with the Minister’s response and I have great delight in seeking to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [The trustee corporation]:
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 c211-2 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 23:45:40 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_497407
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_497407
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_497407