Proceeding contribution from Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 10 November 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Superannuation Bill.
Superannuation Bill
My Lords, I did not base my argument on the fact that there was comparability with the private sector. We know the history of the scheme—the Minister helpfully recapped on it on Second Reading—and that the prospect of compensation arrangements was an integral part of the terms and conditions, historically. It might be challenged as not necessarily the case now, but what people accepted in terms of salary, pension rights and compensation opportunities was seen as a package that was seen as collectively valuable. I suggest that it is a big step, for the people affected, to move away from that. It is right to do it—we have made that clear and support the Government in seeking to do it—but we think that there ought to be protections around it so that Parliament has a role and an opportunity to take a view on whether the process that should be undertaken, in a sense, to justify giving up unanimity is robust.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 722 c40GC
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Conditions of employment Compensation Civil servants Civil service Redundancy pay Public consultation Redundancy Reform Trade unions Sunset clauses
- Legislation
- Superannuation Bill 2010-12
- Superannuation Act 1972
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 20:44:04 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_679002
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_679002
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_679002