UK Parliament / Open data

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.
I shall be clear: both sides of the House have accepted that the current scheme is unsustainable and needs to be reformed. With the possible exception of the hon. Gentleman, everyone, and certainly Opposition Front Benchers, has accepted that it is unacceptable for it to be possible for a union, or two unions, to veto reform of the scheme. It must be possible for the Government and Parliament to effect reform of the civil service compensation scheme. If there is a successful legal challenge to a new civil service compensation scheme—unlikely though that may seem—we cannot have the position where the old scheme trundles on in its unsustainable, unaffordable and unfair form. That is why there must be a fall-back position for a limited period. We have listened to the arguments and we have accepted that it will be a limited period, so that caps on the use of the old scheme will be in existence, should the new scheme be quashed as the previous Government's scheme was, by order of the High Court. What is the right period for the power to revive the caps? Is it one year, three years, five years or 10 years? There is no precise science, because no one knows how long the period is beyond which we could be sure that a successful legal challenge would not be raised. It is our judgment that three years is the right period. That is the view that we have taken. That is why we urged the Lords to agree, and I urge the House to accept that view today. We would thus be agreeing with the Lords in their amendments, and disagreeing with the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. Lords amendment 4 agreed to. Lords amendment 5 agreed to. Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment 6.—(John McDonnell.) Question put, That the amendment be made. The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 313.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

520 c854 

Session

2010-12

Chamber / Committee

House of Commons chamber
Back to top