My noble friend suggests otherwise. I am reassured by that intervention, if it is in support of our amendment. Will the Minister and his team reflect further on this matter? It is difficult to conceive that the only default position would be the caps. We will come on to why the caps are so offensive to many and why we think that it is misguided to retain them. If he Minister does not like our alternative formulation, will he enter into discussion to see what alternatives there might be that do not involve the default position being those caps?
We have all had correspondence from people about their fear of the caps and what it may mean to their compensation arrangements. Being able to remove that without wishing to detract from the Government’s position of wanting some protection and a fallback is worthy of further exploration. I simply do not believe that you could have only the caps and no other formulation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and, in doing so, I ask the Minister to reflect further on this issue. We would be happy to have discussions with him between now and Third Reading to test the alternatives that might give him the protection he wants without those caps.
Amendment 6 withdrawn.
Amendment 7
Moved by
Superannuation Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord McKenzie of Luton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 1 December 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Superannuation Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
722 c1492 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 19:40:50 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_688291
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_688291
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_688291