Only a few days to go: We’re raising £25,000 to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can hold their elected representatives to account.

Donate to our crowdfunder

Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 8:55 pm on 30th January 2017.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Hywel Williams Hywel Williams Shadow PC Spokesperson (International Development), Shadow PC Spokesperson (Work and Pensions), Shadow PC Spokesperson (Culture, Media and Sport), Shadow PC Spokesperson (Defence), Shadow PC Spokesperson (Foreign and Commonwealth Office/Europe), Plaid Cymru Westminster Leader 8:55 pm, 30th January 2017

I am grateful to the Secretary of State, but—if I may use that word—would he accept that the Bill is a missed opportunity to put right the severe problems in the plumbing and mechanical services industry pension scheme? For example, my constituent Chris Stuhlfelder wants to pass on his business to his employees after a lifetime of work in the industry, but he risks losing the lifetime rewards of that work just in order to secure the pension scheme for liabilities that are not directly his. Will the Minister table amendments to deal with that?

Annotations

Nine Penneth
Posted on 1 Feb 2017 6:22 pm (Report this annotation)

Mr Williams..
In your words a "missed opportunity" it certainly is. The plumbing industry is in a deplorable position, being saddled with debts no reasonable human being would expect them to pay. Gov should have forseen this type of problem and set the rules accordingly. But too often Gov doesn't think. It turns its back after writing the rules, and doesn't care of the terrible aftermath and suffering they create.
Take the case of Britain's frozen pension policy that currently affecting 550000 UK expat pensioners with no indexing of their state pension for life. That's just four percent of the total number of British pensioners.
But that four percent being slowly impoverished have contributed to NI on the same terms and conditions as the ninety six percent who receive increases. Is that fair? Is it right that they should be denied a pension they've paid for, purely because of their address?
Is this what Gov really want? Do they really want to punish and reduce the living standards of a minority of their own pensioners to a point where food bank use is needed? I don't think so, but that's what I mean by an aftermath created by a gov't that doesn't think, and above all, doesn't care.