HL Deb 10 May 1991 vol 528 cc1275-6

Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether a test case has yet been found in order to clarify the Barber judgment and, if so, to what extent the Government are supporting the case.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley)

My Lords, suitable case has been identified. The trustees of the Coloroll group pension schemes are seeking direction as from the High Court on how, in the light of Barber, their liabilities to scheme members should be discharged on winding up these schemes. Her Majesty's Government have agreed in principle with the trustees to provide financial support for any subsequent reference from the High Court to the European Court of Justice.

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I am glad to learn that the Government support the Coloroll case and will do so even if is goes so far as the European Court. However, I wish to ask the Minister this. Since there are bound to be a number of individual cases arising from the Barber judgment, can guidance be given to industrial tribunal chairmen to the effect that it would be wise to adjourn such cases pending the outcome of the Coloroll case?

Lord Henley

My Lords, it would not be right for the Government to interfere with the chairmen of tribunals, but I am sure they are aware of the Coloroll case. Our decision to support it in principle has been given a certain degree of publicity. I am sure that in individual cases they will consider whether it may be wise to adjourn those cases pending the decision of the European Court on Coloroll.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House how long the sensible action the Government are taking will take to resolve the difficult situation which has been created by this ill thought out and confused judgment?

Lord Henley

My Lords, it is not for me to say how long the European Court will take to reach a decision. We hope that Coloroll will go before the judges of the Chancery Division some time before the courts recess in the summer. Thereafter, it will be in the hands of the European Court and obviously it is a matter for that court how long it takes. I hope that it will bear in mind the importance of these cases and look at the matter as speedily as possible.

Baroness Platt of Writtle

My Lords, is my noble friend a ware of the difficulties of the company occupational pension schemes which have been made worse by this case? The Government would greatly assist them by announcing a date by which there would be equalisation of pension ages between men and women—perhaps within a decade, though that is flexible—so that the pension schemes can be planned with a carefully designed programme to achieve equalisation by that date.

Lord Henley

My Lords, as I have said previously, the equalisation of the state pension age is another matter not directly related to Barber. We accept that equalisation of state pension ages is a complex issue requiring careful study. Obviously consideration would have to be given to a number of factors before we could reach a decision.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, will it be noted that a Member of the House of Lords, if not of the Judicial Committee of the House, has pronounced the judgment to be ill-conceived and confused? Arising out of that, does the Minister agree that it would be advisable at least for chairmen of industrial tribunals to be informed officially by the Government of their intention to support this case throughout the hearings?

Lord Henley

My Lords, I make no comment on the noble Lord's earlier remarks. As regards officially advising chairmen of tribunals, I should take advice on whether that would be right and proper. As I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, we believe that the chairmen will have seen the publicity about our announcement to support the Coloroll case and will take it into consideration.

Back to