Let me come back on that point. When I was responsible for the negotiations, they were long, as the Minister outlined, and a serious and concerted attempt to reach a negotiated agreement. New clause 1 is a necessary way of dealing with the unexpected outcome of the judicial review earlier this year. Had we been returned at the general election, we would no doubt have had to amend the 1972 Act in light of that, but the critical difference is that we would not have introduced legislation simply to impose a settlement in the absence of a clear commitment in the Bill to negotiation in good faith in order to try to achieve a proper agreement. That is why I stand by my description of the powers, as drafted in the Government's new clause, as unbridled.
We recognise the need for an amendment to the Superannuation Act 1972. The High Court judgment made a clear case for ensuring that the Government are able to compel a settlement and that no union should be able to veto changes. That is a position that we would support.
Superannuation Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Jowell
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 13 October 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Superannuation Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
516 c347 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 13:14:49 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_668031
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_668031
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_668031