My Lords, my heart is completely with Amendment 84 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, but I have trouble in my head to completely agree with the amendment, mainly because we are opposing a retrospective burden without any evidence of what that impact might be. I completely understand the case for the individuals who are affected. We do not know where the cost will actually be borne. The cost is low overall, but it is not correct to compare it to the amount of assets under management, as was done in Committee, because the instance might be in very small pension schemes. It might be the instance of a relatively small scheme with a relative small number of members, one highly paid member with a civil partner—or married in a same-sex couple—who is very much younger. That would have a very disproportionate impact on the actuarial valuation of the liabilities in that small scheme, which could be a charity or a small business. I would be much more comfortable if we knew what the impact was. We may still, knowing the impact, go ahead, and that is why I strongly support Amendment 84A but have a little difficulty with Amendment 84.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Noakes
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 10 July 2013.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
747 c281 
Session
2013-14
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2014-04-17 21:19:41 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-07-10/13071071000087
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-07-10/13071071000087
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-07-10/13071071000087