Skip to main content

1-20 of 30 results for subject:Liability

Member X
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Session X
2008-09

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More
McKenzie of Luton, Lord (30)

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

These amendments relate to the provision for orders made under Clauses 16, 17, and 18 to have retrospective effect. The provision for retrospectivity in relation to orders made under those clauses is an important protection for scheme members. It is also necessary to ensure effective co-ordination of the proposals in...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1027-8
House
House of Lords

Some interesting issues have been raised. Perhaps I can say first to my noble friend Lord Clarke that Amendment 55 is grouped with this amendment and extends the proposition in respect of the guarantee not just to look at the new public scheme, but that: ""If the RMPP or any...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1037-8
House
House of Lords

Perhaps I may help my noble friend on two points. On the issue of the Secretary of State having a section of the RMPP fund, I stress that that is a contingency provision if it is not possible to set up in the time available a separate scheme, which is...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1039
House
House of Lords

This has been an interesting debate which has strayed beyond the specifics of the amendment. I shall just say this in relation to the pensions holiday: it was my understanding that the legislation of the previous Government put pension schemes in this position. That may have not been dealt with...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1050-1
House
House of Lords

Perhaps I may try now. To recap, Clause 17 is about the division of the RMPP into different sections because of Post Office Ltd and so on. However, it is also about having, on a contingency basis, the ability to create a section of that scheme if, for practical or...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1051-2
House
House of Lords

To clarify that point, the Secretary of State speaks for the Government on that issue.

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1046
House
House of Lords

The hour is too late. I start by picking up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, about the current nature of the RMPP. The senior executive scheme is outwith the RMPP and not covered by the Bill, as with the DC scheme. Furthermore, although the RMPP...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1044-6
House
House of Lords

I very much understand my noble friend’s point; perhaps I may reflect on whether we can have some enhanced reassurance.

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1054
House
House of Lords

We have been discussing the Government's intention in Clause 17 to enable the Secretary of State to divide the existing Royal Mail pension scheme into sections. I have made it clear that the primary purpose of that is to allow the creation of a separate Post Office Ltd section to...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1055-6
House
House of Lords

It is partly a question of where the statutory responsibility lies. As I was explaining, it would not be helpful to impose that on the Secretary of State. They key point is that, in practice, if there is full engagement, which I believe we have, there will be encouragement of...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1015-6
House
House of Lords

The important point here is what has to be provided in respect of accrued rights in the new scheme. That will effectively be done by treating people as "deferreds" on 16 December 2008 and taking account of their salaries at that date and the accrued service to that date while...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1019
House
House of Lords

I shall try to help the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to understand the detail of what is proposed here. The intention of Clause 16(3) is to make clear the powers of the Secretary of State in making orders to establish the new public sector scheme and for its operation. It...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1017-8
House
House of Lords

The key issue is whether the requirement should be imposed on the Secretary of State, or whether that is a role for the trustees or the administrators of the scheme. The channel we are currently proceeding through is to engage with trustees, who obviously already have lines of communication with...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1015
House
House of Lords

I thank my noble friend Lady Turner for introducing this amendment and for all noble Lords who spoke on it. It is an important area. I also had the opportunity of meeting Unite—the pensions organisation, not the trade union, although I would be happy to meet representatives of the union...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1013-5
House
House of Lords

Perhaps I did not do justice to the thrust of my noble friend’s points; I, too, shall look at the record and take note.

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1026
House
House of Lords

These amendments give rise to a number of issues concerning the detail of the Government’s proposals. The first issues that I will clarify are the envisaged arrangements for the transfer of assets under Clause 20, and in particular subsection (1) of that clause, which contains provisions for where the assets...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1024-6
House
House of Lords

Or something stronger, indeed. It depends who is paying.

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1022
House
House of Lords

I am very happy to meet to talk through the specifics of this, because I think that what my noble friend wants to achieve effectively can be achieved under the arrangements that are proposed. Maybe we need to have a get-together to go through the detail over a cup of...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1022
House
House of Lords

I thank my noble friends for moving and speaking to the amendment. I think that it was originally grouped with Amendment 39, which we discussed earlier. It is a pity that it was degrouped, because at least if they were together there would have been some good news in our...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1020-2
House
House of Lords

I am sorry. I hope that the noble Lord will give me the chance to explain. Certainly for existing pensioners, their rights have already accrued and are set out in their entitlements. As I said, those will simply become payable from the new scheme rather than from the existing scheme....

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1019
House
House of Lords