Superannuation Bill

If it is the case that we are providing some kind of insurance policy against litigation that might take us all the way to the European Court of Human Rights—I think that is unlikely, but let us assume that that is going to happen—why are the Government providing caps that are so out of line with anything that they think they are going to agree? It is perfectly plain that Clause 2 is something to wave at the unions to say, ““If you don’t agree, this is what we will do to you””. It is not a reasonable fallback position if Clause 1 is litigated. I am still very confused about the structure of the Bill, as I explained to the Minister at Second Reading.