The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) asked why we needed to keep the caps at all. The answer is simple. The caps will be established in primary legislation, but the new civil service compensation scheme, which I hope to lay before Parliament next week, before the House rises, does not have the full force of primary legislation, despite the changes to the Superannuation Act 1972 made by clause 1.
I shall be frank. We want to avoid being in the position that followed the High Court judgment in May this year, which resulted in the previous Government's February scheme being quashed. The effect of the scheme being quashed is that the existing scheme remains unreformed and in force. Indeed, the old scheme—unaffordable, unsustainable and unreconstructed—is in force today. Of course, in preparing the new scheme we were at some pains to ensure that it would be legally robust, and we shall vigorously defend any legal challenge to it. However, as was apparent from the litigation against the previous Administration's scheme, there can never be guarantees in litigation. Even litigation that is destined ultimately to fail can be disruptive, because of the uncertainty it causes until the case is concluded.
Superannuation Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Maude of Horsham
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 14 December 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Superannuation Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
520 c853-4 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 13:52:55 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_693789
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_693789
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_693789