We are in danger of getting a bit repetitive. Could the Minister say a little more about why the primary route is more secure? Fundamentally, if the Government’s judgment is that there are risks around a legal challenge that could delay the implementation of the scheme, I would have thought that the Government should be concerned about that and should seek to address it—not by having this fallback position, which they have accepted all along they do not want to deploy, but by looking at the arrangements that they will implement to ensure that those are less likely to suffer the legal challenge that the Government clearly fear on this. It seems to me to be the wrong approach. If we think that people’s rights are being impaired and are not secure in our judgment about this, I would have thought that the thing to do is to change arrangements until we are secure. I know there is never certainty in everything in life, but that seems to be the right route for the Government, rather than to have this back-pocket fallback that, at their own admission, the Government see as a blunt instrument that they never intend to deploy.
Superannuation Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord McKenzie of Luton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 10 November 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Superannuation Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
722 c48-9GC 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 20:51:36 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_679018
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_679018
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_679018