I am not really that satisfied with the answers that the hon. Lady has given, as she will not be surprised to hear, after that brief reprise of the 1970s. My information is that the Finance Act 1921 introduced compulsory annuitisation and that the current age of 75 was introduced in 1956, which was a Conservative time, not a Labour time.
Regardless of the Minister's point scoring, however, it is important that we take an appropriate amount of time to see how any changes to the annuitisation regime might work in practice. The Opposition have no objection to the idea of having a higher age. However, there is some scepticism about the practicality of having a minimum retirement income and how it might be worked out, although that is part of the consultation, which no doubt we will now all be struggling with over August. It is a shame that the information was not available in a more timely fashion, so that we could have done more preparation for this debate. Because the amendment seeks more information and because the Government seem to be rushing ahead so precipitously, we would like to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Committee divided: Ayes 187, Noes 313.
Finance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Angela Eagle
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 15 July 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Finance Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
513 c1178 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-06-21 11:50:58 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_656264
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_656264
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_656264