Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill — Concurrency of pensions, rebates and extra monies — 3 Apr 2000

Mr Jim Dowd MP, Lewisham West voted with the majority (Teller for the Noes).

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House will be relieved to hear that this will be a brief contribution, prompted by two cases of perceived injustice in the way the benefits system treats people who have just reached state pension age. People receive their first state pension on the Monday after they reach state pension age, even though they may have been 65 or 60, as the case may be, for up to six days. That is six sevenths of a week, and it can leave a person reaching state pension age short, to their way of thinking, by as much as £100.

I should like to draw attention to the cases of two people. The Minister will be familiar with the case of Mr. Maiden, constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), who felt aggrieved by the fact that he missed out on several days' worth of pension. He took the Benefits Agency to a tribunal and won. An article in Choice magazine, from April 1999, says:

Ron was triumphant . . . although the Department of Social Security says his success doesn't set a precedent.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

(2) Any rebates or extra monies that may be payable to a person, and which are greater for Stage 1 of the State Second Pension than for SERPS, shall be paid into a stakeholder pension.'.-- [Mrs. Lait.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker:

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 19-- Use of rebates and extra monies --

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),

That at this day's sitting, the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.-- [Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

As amended in the Standing Committee, again considered.

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

We accept that the issues of practicality raised by this proposal would be a significant barrier to successful implementation, both for the Government and for the majority of pension providers. We have therefore concluded that this approach should not be pursued at this time.

Question put , That the clause be read a Second time:--

The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 283.

Historical Hansard | Online Hansard |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con0 116 (+2 tell)073.8%
Ind1 0033.3%
Lab282 (+2 tell) 0068.3%
LDem0 35076.1%
Total:283 151070.1%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive