Superannuation Bill

Notwithstanding what the Minister has just said, I do not think that Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill, and think that the arbitrary caps it includes should go from the legislation. It follows that consequential amendments should be made to Clause 3 as excluding Clause 2 would make the sunset and sunrise provisions obsolete. We heard earlier from the Minister that the Government have reached agreement with five of the trade unions and are still talking to the PCS. This is to be welcomed. It is the right way to bring about changes to the CSCS which we are all agreed are necessary. Although we recognise the remaining difficulties, it is still to be hoped that agreement can be reached with all the trade unions. As the Minister will by now be aware, the introduction of the caps in the first place has been hugely controversial. He and his right honourable friend in another place are on record as saying that they are a blunt instrument and not intended to be the last word. The Minister was clear at Second Reading that the Government’s intention is to reform the CSCS by negotiated agreement, rather than rely on the caps. We have heard today that work is now under way as a consequence of the negotiations to bring forward a new scheme as soon as the Bill becomes law. This, in any event, will require the repeal of Clause 2, as we heard earlier. There is no doubt that the inclusion of the caps has created a climate of distrust from the start of the current negotiations. Worse, it has caused genuine distress among members of the Civil Service. I am sure that the Minister will, like us, have received numerous letters from individuals expressing their fear that jobs are to go and the compensation package that they have relied on will be, in some instances, 60 per cent less than anticipated. This is in circumstances where the prospect of getting early alternative employment in the private sector is, at best, bleak. These fears are compounded by concerns that the service is holding back on proceeding with redundancies so that reduced compensation terms will apply, notwithstanding announcements already made about the demise of parts of the service. An example of this would be the already announced abolition of the RDAs, to be effective next April, although it may rather have come unstuck today due to judicial review. Could the Minister specifically address this point and explain what the policy is where announcements have been made which clearly signal the demise of certain activities at a specified time in the future? Whatever our misgivings about the monetary and fiscal framework adopted by the Government, we cannot in the Bill prevent the loss of 500,000 public sector jobs and as many consequential jobs in the private sector. One thing we can do is lift the threat that any compensation payable will be based on the punitive caps. It is clear that when the Bill becomes law the Government will, after due process, be able to secure a scheme that they consider appropriate, even if there is not agreement with all the trade unions. It is clear that the Government do not see the caps as providing a proper basis for a fair scheme. It is clear that the existence of the caps has soured the negotiating environment. In the terms of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the provisions amount to negotiating by statute, pointing a gun at the head of the trade unions—a gun that the Government seem intent on keeping focused on those trade unions. Why? It has been explained that this is a fallback arrangement, should there be a legal challenge to the new scheme introduced, which the courts—on an interim or other basis—might then set aside. If the caps were not in place or capable of being revived, it is suggested that the status quo would operate. The proposition is that, if there were to be a successful legal challenge, it could affect the new scheme but not the operation of the caps—a point we touched on earlier. Perhaps the Minister could expand on the circumstances in which he thinks there would be a legal challenge that has an impact on the scheme—particularly if it is to do with impairment of possessions and human rights legislation—but which the caps simply escape. I am not sure that that has been fully explained. We have had the opportunity to peruse the correspondence between the Government and the JCHR and understand that the latter is due to issue a report shortly—before Report stage, we hope. We look forward to receiving that report. However, the Government have taken a clear line that the Bill does not interfere with possessions for the purposes of the Human Rights Act and that, if it did, such interference would be justified on public policy grounds. In these circumstances, why do they need a reserve power, particularly since the outcome it would produce is worse than the scheme that has been the subject of the challenge? If at some stage the Government are found to have erred, either in process or in law, they should address the consequences of that failure. If there were an absolute assurance that the caps were to disappear the day after the Bill becomes law, never to be revived, deleting this clause may be somewhat academic. However, this is not the proposition before us. Keeping them lurking in the background as a continuing threat to the workforce, acting as a possible deterrent to those who believe they have a case in law to pursue, is surely not the way that a fair Government should proceed. I beg to move.