UK Parliament / Open data

Pension Protection Fund (Pension Compensation Cap) Order 2007

Debates on delegated legislation on Thursday, 15 March 2007, in the House of Lords, led by Lord McKenzie of Luton. The answering member was Lord Skelmersdale.
Draft SI on Pension Protection Fund (Pension Compensation Cap). Lords debate on a motion to consider. Agreed to on question. Debated with draft SIs on Occupational Pension Schemes (Levies) (Amendment), and Occupational Pension Schemes (Levy Ceiling). Grand Committee held in the Moses Room.
Type
Parliamentary proceeding
Reference
690 c81-91GC 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Occupational Pension Schemes (Levies) (Amendment) Regulations 2007
Thursday, 15 March 2007
Parliamentary proceedings
House of Lords
Occupational Pension Schemes (Levy Ceiling) Order 2007
Thursday, 15 March 2007
Parliamentary proceedings
House of Lords
Pension Protection Fund (Pension Compensation Cap) Order 2007
Monday, 19 February 2007
Statutory instruments
House of Lords
House of Commons
Occupational Pension Schemes (Levies) (Amendment) Regulations 2007
Monday, 19 February 2007
Statutory instruments
House of Lords
House of Commons

Show all related items (5)
Occupational Pension Schemes (Levy Ceiling) Order 2007
Monday, 19 February 2007
Statutory instruments
House of Lords
House of Commons
Proceeding contributions
Lord McKenzie of Luton | 690 c91GC (Link to this contribution) We have to look at this over a longer period. Particularly in the early years, there will be a build...
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay | 690 c86-7GC (Link to this contribution) We on these Benches have no complaints in principle with the orders, but we have a number of questio...

Show all contributions (16)
Lord Skelmersdale | 690 c85-6GC (Link to this contribution) I am yet again grateful to the Minister for explaining these orders so clearly. Although putting the...
Lord McKenzie of Luton | 690 c87GC (Link to this contribution) I thank both noble Lords who have participated in this debate and for what I think is their support ...
Lord McKenzie of Luton | 690 c81-5GC (Link to this contribution) rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Pension Pro...
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay | 690 c88GC (Link to this contribution) I forgot to ask this. There is a report in the current edition of Personal Pensions, stating that bo...
Lord McKenzie of Luton | 690 c87-8GC (Link to this contribution) I did not mean to be grudging and I apologise to the noble Lord if it came across that way. I was ab...
Lord Skelmersdale | 690 c91GC (Link to this contribution) The point of my question and the answer the Minister has just given is that there is something like ...
Lord McKenzie of Luton | 690 c90GC (Link to this contribution) I understand the noble Lord’s point, but that presupposes that the involvement of private equity wou...
Lord McKenzie of Luton | 690 c89-90GC (Link to this contribution) That is correct. The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, asked about the number of schemes. In my introduct...
Lord Skelmersdale | 690 c87GC (Link to this contribution) Must the Minister be quite so grudging?
Lord McKenzie of Luton | 690 c89GC (Link to this contribution) I do not know whether it is. I shall certainly seek advice on whether there is anything meaningful t...
Lord McKenzie of Luton | 690 c90-1GC (Link to this contribution) The noble Lord is quite right, I did not deal with that. I will try to do so now. The ceiling is one...
Lord Skelmersdale | 690 c90GC (Link to this contribution) I commented on the fact that the ceiling order was a ceiling. The Minister will remember. The ceilin...
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay | 690 c90GC (Link to this contribution) Perhaps I can help the Minister here. Even if, overall, private equity is helpful, I think everyone ...
Back to top