Proceeding contribution from Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 10 November 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Superannuation Bill.
Superannuation Bill
Since the High Court judgment—since, indeed, one of the unions decided to take what had until then been negotiations to judicial review—we find ourselves in a situation where it is possible that judicial review may be used as a means of delaying the introduction of the scheme. If that litigation were to take a sufficiently long time, the current default would be the previously existing scheme. Now, the previous Government negotiated for some 18 months to change that scheme, rightly insisting—and having the agreement of the unions—that the previous scheme was no longer viable or affordable. We wish to make it absolutely certain that, in the event of continuing litigation, the default to any failure to introduce the new scheme would be enshrined in primary legislation, which is therefore much less open to judicial challenge. That is the justification for Clause 2.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 722 c48GC
- 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 20:51:37 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_679017
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_679017
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_679017