My Lords, inevitably we cannot be sure how this will work in practice, but it seems to us on these Benches a sensible compromise, following the discussions which we had on Report. As the Pensions Policy Institute, in its characteristically helpful and thorough note, said, there has to be a trade-off. A trade-off has to be made between a lower burden on employers with a small minority of individuals receiving less than the minimum but the majority of individuals receiving the minimum and higher, and ensuring that every individual receives at least the minimum but, as we know, with a potentially much higher administrative burden on employers. From the discussions I have had—I particularly pay tribute to Tim Breedon and his colleagues at Legal & General, who took me through it very carefully and discussed how their discussions with the ministry were going—I am satisfied that this is a sensible compromise. The right trade-off has been made, and we look forward to seeing how it works in practice.
Pensions Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 19 November 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Pensions Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
705 c1145 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:07:31 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_510433
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_510433
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_510433