Again, I will turn to that in my speech slightly later on, but I want to contest what the hon. Gentleman has just said. We could have just looked at the outcome of those court cases and continued to defend them. That would have benefited only a very small number of people. The ECJ made it very clear that it thought that damages would not be payable, so the case would have affected only people who went into insolvency after the case. Similarly, the judicial review only asked us to reconsider the decision. Given that the courts had made it clear that the Conservative Government’s decisions that we have defended had been wrong, we decided that it was time to come up with a scheme that would provide at least 80 per cent. and to listen to the suggestions that the hon. Gentleman, other Opposition Front Benchers, the ombudsman and my honourable colleagues have been making and set up a review. That is the right way to proceed, but I will turn to his precise point later in my speech.
Pensions Bill
Proceeding contribution from
James Purnell
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 18 April 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Pensions Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
459 c324 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:34:49 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_390153
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_390153
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_390153