My Lords, I was not sure that our discussion would go in this direction, but I am happy to try to deal with the points raised in relation to Section 75. I stress that an informal consultation is under way in advance of what might be the usual formal consultation. It has been driven because the Section 75 issue has been around for a little while. I am certain from the meetings that I have attended that the CBI would maintain that it is the number one issue for it so far as pension provision is concerned. That is why we have gone down the path of kick-starting the informal consultation, with the intent, depending on where that heads, to go through the more formal consultation processes in due course.
There is absolutely no reason why noble Lords should not see a copy of the consultation document; I shall make sure that they are sent one straightaway. Indeed, noble Lords’ input would be welcome. I attended the first stakeholder group meeting, which began to exchange hints and views on this matter. We need to see where it goes and whether the various propositions set down in this informal consultation are the right way forward. There were four propositions, one of which was to have no change. Another was to switch the process of triggering the debt and apportionment, so that apportionment goes first and the trigger of the debt follows that.
Pensions Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord McKenzie of Luton
(Labour)
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 c1160-1 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 23:07:07 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_510468
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_510468
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_510468