Pensions Bill
4:28 pm
Lord Grocott (Chief Whip (House of Lords), HM Household; Labour)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Pensions Bill, has consented to place her Prerogative and Interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Fowler (Conservative)
moved Amendment No. 1:
Insert the following new clause-
"Post-legislative scrutiny
Four years after the passing of this Act the Secretary of State shall arrange for post-legislative scrutiny of this Act to check on its operation and may arrange subsequent scrutiny."
Lord Fowler (Conservative)
My Lords, I will be brief. Perhaps I could at the start make one point clear to the House. Last week, the Government were defeated on an amendment on added years, which we all remember. My speech on that occasion was much praised by the well respected columnist Jackie Ashley in the Guardian, who said that "the most eloquent support" for the amendment came from me. Personally, I totally agree with that assessment, but I have to admit that the words that she quoted as spoken by me were in fact uttered by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. That is a great pity, because it was the best notice that I have received in the Guardian for years.
This speech is mine, which is probably a great mistake, but I have hopes that my speech writer last week may have some sympathy with the amendment. I am delighted—and I say that with feeling—that my Front Bench are supporting me on this occasion and that I am supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ashcroft, and the Liberal Democrats.
Lord Fowler (Conservative)
My Lords, I beg both noble Lords' pardon.
I have never had so much trouble in trying to persuade the Government to act in their own interests and to prevent the kind of expensive errors that can cost the taxpayer dear and harm the public. I think that I am semi-encouraged by what the Leader of the House said a moment ago—that the Government are "thinking" about post-legislative scrutiny. That is better, given that they have previously rejected it out of hand. We need a little bit of form, as I am sure the Minister would agree.
We now accept the case for pre-legislative scrutiny of proposed legislation before it is introduced and we accept that it can be of immense value. It enables some of the issues that might otherwise cause problems to be hammered out beforehand, and it can produce better legislation. But that is only half of the problem. The other half is what actually happens after legislation is passed. Have its intentions been carried out? Have new problems arisen that have not been foreseen? That is why post-legislative scrutiny is important. In my experience, major problems have arisen in pensions legislation, and they have arisen here. The legislation may be clear enough, but its implementation can fall down.
I give two examples of that. The first is my own piece of legislation, the Social Security Act 1986. Among its provisions was a measure, now accepted by this Government, to reduce the maximum amount of SERPS that widows or widowers could inherit on the death of their spouse. We postponed the start date for 14 years to 2000, so that people could prepare for the change. As Secretary of State, I issued a leaflet after enactment which everyone agreed correctly set out the change. My then Minister of State, John Major, promised a major publicity campaign to inform everyone of the change, even more than they had been informed by the debates on the legislation.
After the 1987 election, we both left the Department of Health and Social Security. There was no major publicity campaign, which John Major had promised; even worse, the department issued a leaflet that was wrong. The department's leaflet, NP32, wrongly stated that a widow could inherit the whole of her late husband's pension. The error was not discovered until 1995—interestingly, in a debate in this Chamber and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould. The error was entirely administrative—that is admitted. Rachel Lomax, who became permanent secretary at the Department of Social Security, explained the reasons to the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee. She said:
"What I am saying is that when Bills are going through the House and Ministers are tremendously engaged in something and there is a big presentational task to be done, you get the attention of the top people in the Department and this great clustering of officials you talk about. Regrettably, when it comes to disseminating that sort of information in technical leaflets, you do not".
She added:
"I do think that is the fundamental problem here. Nobody actually looks from the policy, the concept, right down to when it hits the customer".
These were not the words of a politician but of a leading civil servant in Whitehall, and anyone with government experience knows exactly what can happen in the government machine.
How would post-legislative scrutiny have helped? First, any scrutiny of that kind would look at the proceedings of Parliament—at what Ministers have actually said, particularly when they are giving assurances on what will happen. They would have spotted that John Major's assurance of a major publicity campaign was not being carried out. Equally, any scrutiny would have examined the leaflets issued. They might also have looked at what was happening in the marketplace where some unscrupulous or ill informed insurance salesmen succeeded in persuading people to leave good final-salary schemes for contributory schemes.
That takes me to my second example, which was discussed at length earlier in our proceedings. I refer to a range of people who claimed that they had been misled into joining occupational pension schemes that then folded. That was examined by the Parliamentary Ombudsman. I do not want to go into the detail of that case, which has been well rehearsed, and to which we will doubtless return. The first of the three findings on the maladministration said that,
"official information—about the security that members of final salary occupational pension schemes could expect from the MFR"—
the minimum funding requirement—
"provided by the bodies under investigation—was sometimes inaccurate, often incomplete, largely inconsistent and therefore potentially misleading, and that this constituted maladministration".
That was a case and the advice given stretched from 1995 to 2004. It is also possible that the kind of post-legislative scrutiny that I am advocating in this amendment could have prevented at least some of the advice being given in the terms that it was, which would have been a saving to the public Exchequer and would have benefited the public greatly. It should be remembered that errors in pensions can cost many millions of pounds either in savings forgone or in compensation. That is why it is in the interests of any Government to allow sensible measures of post-legislative scrutiny. I support post-legislative scrutiny, as indeed does the Law Commission, of all Acts of Parliament. Ministers may not always like the result of such scrutiny—I see that—for it may reveal mistakes in implementation, but the sooner mistakes are picked up the better and less costly the whole process will be. Nowhere is that more important than in pensions legislation where mistakes can cost so much.
The amendment would give the Government maximum flexibility. I emphasise that; we are not advocating an expensive course. The Government Front Bench and my own Front Bench should note that we are not talking about an independent commission, which cost £1.5 billion, corrected to £1.5 million last week by the Minister. We want independent scrutiny; there is no point in doing it unless it is independent. The most obvious course is for it to be carried out by a Select Committee—whether joint or of only one House—or some other form of parliamentary committee. We are not asking that all issues should be debated again. We are concerned to ensure that the intention and declared aim of the legislation is being implemented. That is what the amendment is all about. If passed, it would be attached to this Bill, although as I said, there is a case for attaching it to all Bills. It would certainly be attached to the next Bill on pensions, which we know will follow.
This Bill has important provisions in a whole range of areas, including the uprating of the state pension, an increase in the state pension age, preparations for the personal accounts scheme and the delivery authority. No one can argue that this is insignificant legislation; it is very important legislation and it is very important that we get it right.
One further and final good reason for taking the step set out in the amendment. The new Prime Minister wants the role of Parliament restored. I agree wholly with that aim. This measure would take us a further step down that road. I beg to move.
Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative)
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend's amendment introducing a new clause. Both government and Parliament tend to regard Royal Assent as the end of the legislative process. Legislative success is judged in terms of how many Bills are enacted, not in terms of what effect they have. It is essential that we recognise that the legislative process exists beyond Royal Assent. That is a midway point, not an end point. It is essential that we devote more time and resources to assessing whether an Act has fulfilled its purpose. Otherwise, as my noble friend has said, the danger is that problems only become apparent too late or, sometimes, not at all.
Post-legislative scrutiny, as suggested by this amendment, can serve to improve the quality of legislation introduced to Parliament. The Constitution Committee of your Lordships' House in its 2004 report, Parliament and the Legislative Process, endorsed the principle of such scrutiny and recommended that each Bill be accompanied by a list of criteria by which one can judge whether it had fulfilled its purpose. That, it recognised, would help to concentrate the minds of Ministers and departments. It would inject greater rigour into the process and provide a reasonably objective basis for assessment. I chaired the committee in that inquiry. All the witnesses who gave evidence on the subject recognised the value of engaging in such scrutiny. They included the then Leader of the House of Commons, Peter Hain, who said in his evidence to the committee:
"Departments are frequently involved in assessing the effects of legislation and policy at pretty well all stages. Whether it is being done sufficiently rigorously or consistently is another question. In principle I think this is a very fruitful avenue for us to explore together because there is no point in passing legislation if it is not having the desired impact or it is having a different impact".
I reiterate that last point:
"there is no point in passing legislation if it is not having the desired impact or it is having a different impact".
How do we know whether it is having the desired effect? The best way, as my noble friend has said, is by engaging in post-legislative scrutiny. There are now a number of precedents for such scrutiny. I strongly believe that we need to build on those precedents and, if possible, inject a structured means for regular, post-legislative scrutiny.
The Law Commission, as my noble friend touched upon, reported last October and recommended a means by which Parliament can engage in more consistent post-legislative scrutiny. The Government have yet to reply to that report. In the mean time, they could do no better than endorse this provision. The timescale stipulated in the new clause seems eminently reasonable. The principle that underpins it is unassailable. The provisions are not over prescriptive. I commend it to the House.
Lord Skelmersdale (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Conservative)
My Lords, if your Lordships have any doubts about my claim on Report that my noble friend Lord Fowler and I were still talking to each other, my name on this amendment would, I hope, dispel them. My noble friend is quite right in saying that over the past 10 years we have had major improvements in our consideration of Bills. We have produced valuable pre-legislative scrutiny—on the Disability Discrimination Bill, for instance, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, will remember—where the Joint Committee's deliberations informed not only the Government in their drawing up of the final Bill but also the debates on that Bill in both Houses. It is a far better Act than it would otherwise have been, mainly because of the direct input of stakeholders, not least the disability charities. The interests of stakeholders are what the Statement we have just been listening to was all about. Such pre-legislative scrutiny is not pertinent to every Bill, especially those where it is necessary to have them on the statute book within a year. Nevertheless, where Bills are suitable, the procedure has worked well.
This year, another place has decided to experiment with a shortened form of pre-legislative scrutiny. The Minister and I will shortly be discussing the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill, which had its Second Reading in another place last week. It has been agreed that the first two Committee sittings will be evidence-taking, before that House settles down to discuss it in the normal way. If this modified procedure is a success, it will be suitable for far more Bills.
Like the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council just now, I am therefore a devoted fan of pre-legislative scrutiny. However, there is a gap in our legislative armoury which my noble friend has quite properly identified in the amendment.
It often takes a minor earthquake—perhaps losing a court case—to persuade the Government of the day to bring in an amending Bill. Even then, it takes forever to squeeze it into the legislative programme for a particular year.
When Parliament is faced with a Bill on such a complicated subject as pensions, it is almost inevitable that it contains clauses with perverse effects or which do not achieve what was intended. Rather than drip-feeding those niggles into the government machine, it would be far better to have a thorough review of the resultant Act after a period. My noble friend Lord Fowler, with all his experience, believes that that should be four years, and I agree. It is a point on which the consensual alliance between the Minister and I may, I suspect, break down. Large chunks of Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill are hideously complicated and they are there for life. Who is to say now that the amended dispute resolution procedure in Clause 16 will prove satisfactory; or that the new arrangements for carer's credits and the deductions in qualifying years for a full state pension will benefit women to the extent that Ministers say they will; or that 68 will remain the appropriate age to receive a state pension? A properly orchestrated review would identify such problems and point to the need for alterations, not only administrative alterations but also legislative ones.
In the past, I have made adverse comments about skeleton Bills that are filled in with innumerable statutory instruments. The financial assistance scheme—about which we talked at some length, although it is only a clause—is a prime example. The Merits Committee has said time and time again that orders should not be made, except for the purposes defined in their parent Acts. I could not agree more strongly. Altering Acts by statutory instrument years after their enactment because failings are identified or circumstances change is not the way that government should behave. A review, such as that proposed by my noble friend, which leads to the correction of administrative mistakes and, if necessary, to an amending Bill is a worthy adjunct to our parliamentary procedures, and I support it unequivocally.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay (Spokesperson in the Lords, Treasury; Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, I am delighted to give the official support of these Benches to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and I am equally delighted that we are ending this stage of the Bill in this House with both of the main official Opposition parties singing again from the same hymn sheet.
In his introduction, the noble Lord discussed the rather incorrect report in the Guardian on Monday of the great triumph last week. The report was even more interesting than that because it named every speaker apart from the two of us from these Benches, my noble friend Lady Thomas and I. If you read it, you would not be aware that only the Liberal Democrats were officially supporting that Motion. However, the Guardian has its own ways. In the Daily Telegraph on Saturday, Ian Cowie and Harriet Meyer gave an excellent, full and proper account, and so did the Sunday Telegraph. It is interesting how the wheel turns.
I was particularly pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, saying on the Statement how much he welcomed post-legislative scrutiny. We hope that all noble Lords will take this opportunity to strike a blow for that today.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, pointed out the Law Commission report. I have done a little digging on that. Before this debate, I asked the Library to check what the latest state of play on that was. I remind noble Lords that on
The Hansard Society a couple of years ago also made a similar and strong point that Parliament should review the laws it passes. It referred to the fact that when a law is enacted and implemented, its provisions bind society, unless it is subsequently repealed or amended, and that it is often only after its implementation that the effects and implications of an Act can be truly assessed. But it is at that point that Parliament usually shifts its focus to other measures. So, rather than leaving post-legislative review to chance, there should be an agreed process to assess how legislation is working in practice. It says that,
"post-legislative scrutiny is informal and haphazard and usually takes place when a law has caused obvious controversy".
Funnily enough, it then mentions the Child Support Agency, which is exactly the point that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, rightly brought up,
We remember well the previous Pensions Bill. This would be about the time that, had we had this provision in that Bill, we would be undertaking post-legislative scrutiny. I refer in particular to the position of the Pensions Regulator which is now for the first time likely to be tested in court. The regulator has just served his first contribution notice in the case of Sea Containers. The Pension Protection Fund is now fully up and running. Looking back three or four years is the ideal time to do post-legislative scrutiny on that Bill.
It is high time that we stopped talking and voted to start scrutinising. Pensions are the ideal place to start.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Labour)
My Lords, I shall not be supporting the amendment, but I have lot of sympathy with both the proposal and many of the arguments made this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, mentioned SERPS, which, with your Lordships' help, I had the delight of seeking subsequently to untangle in a way that did not betray any understandings or misunderstandings of what was envisaged.
Let me give some other examples. There was the 1995 legislation and what turned out to be the inadequacy of the minimum funding requirement, and the failure, as a result, to put in place a pension protection fund—a central discontinuance fund—which might have abated that risk. There was the failure when we were dealing with stakeholders, and I was the Minister responsible. We chose not to go for a compulsory contribution from employers because of the argument about burdens on business. We were led to believe that employers would none the less do the decent thing. Not surprisingly, something like 85 per cent of them did not. They erected the schemes but did not contribute; they remained shell schemes. There was a clause in the Bill allowing compulsion to be introduced for 3 per cent. It was not fleshed out; it did not happen; and we therefore have to have personal accounts and a brand new start again.
Another example is pension credit, which I am sure we would all agree on. I was delighted that pension credit has done so much to address the poverty of our elder pensioners. Perhaps we did not fully appreciate the fact that if the basic state pension stays price-linked and pension credit is earnings-linked, you have built in an impetus with the best of intentions to bring more and more people into the thicket of means-testing. That is what we have done. All those issues might have been picked up by some version of review.
What perhaps surprised me a little was that although we expect Ministers to churn about within departments every 18 months or so, I had not appreciated that senior civil servants churn on average, so far as I can see, about every three years within a department. So departments come to a topic with a departmental agenda but not necessarily with a departmental memory. The result is that, despite all the best intentions and the highest intelligence in the world, you do not actually have a learning loop informally built into the system in which experience can be brought to bear on continuing processes. That is why in my view we need a more structured way of dealing with this.
I am not sure whether the amendment is the right way, any more than an independent commission is, and I am hoping that my noble friend can suggest ways that the department will be dealing with this. Certainly we have been doing that for some women's pension issues—gender issues—and that has been extremely valuable.
In most areas of social security, if there is a problem with benefits, because they are instantly available—people are instantly eligible and instantly pick it up—we can see problems very quickly. With pensions, we are laying down ground rules that may not mature to affect the individual until 20, 30 or 40 years down the road. If there is no ongoing process of scrutiny, by the time that problems see the light of day naturally, people may have already lost entitlement and rights and may have behaved in ways that end up being against their financial best interest. For all our sakes, we want to avoid that.
I am not persuaded that the amendment is necessarily the right way to proceed; but I am persuaded that there is an issue here that needs to be addressed. I hope that my noble friend can tell us how the department proposes to proceed with this.
Baroness Turner of Camden (Labour)
My Lords, I am not necessarily opposed to the amendment, but I do have some questions for its supporters. The Bill will not become fully operative for quite some time. Four years seems to be a very short time after which to undertake post-legislative scrutiny. By its nature, pensions legislation is concerned with long-term stability. We are anxious to ensure that people expect legislation to be in place and operative for a very long time, until the time when they become entitled to their pensions. If there is to be constant scrutiny, people will wonder about the degree of stability that exists in pensions legislation. So I have some doubts about whether the wording is appropriate.
Although, as my noble friend Lady Hollis said, I quite understand that issues often arise that have not been thought about when legislation is discussed in the House, I remind her that the issue of the minimum funding requirement was raised in an amendment at the time that that Bill was before the House, as was the whole issue of the wages index. My friend Lady Castle and I fought on a number of occasions to have the wages index linked to the state pension provision. These issues come up during the course of discussion of legislation without it necessarily requiring post-legislative scrutiny at frequent intervals to provide effective legislative cover for pensioners and future pensioners.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (Crossbench)
My Lords, I was very impressed by what I heard about post-legislative scrutiny as an instrument in many instances and I support that whole approach. I regard it as even more important for this Bill, not least because the complications that, as we all know, arise almost at once when expectations are not matched tend to be put to one side by both Ministers and civil servants, rather than facing up to the longer term implications.
I am not certain that I would not have preferred to have had the original amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, but I can see that, as a compromise, this may be a step towards confronting the issue. If we can have at least one go at assessing in four years' time just what the effect has been, with a Select Committee looking at what has taken place, it will, I hope, make a firm recommendation that there should be another look in another four years' time.
There are some very important aspects of the Bill. There is the whole recognition by the Government from the Turner report of the role of carers, redressing some of the awful behaviour towards those who have carried out that role in the past. It will be good to see exactly how that is working out. We will want to see the effect of the very welcome amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on the nine years of contributions that we can add to people's earnings. It was passed last week, and I hope that it will stay in the Bill when it goes to another place.
It would be very helpful to know those things, as well as life expectancy trends. Life expectancy has changed really quite considerably. On a personal note, I would like to know whether the gap between men's and women's life expectancy has narrowed to the point where I really can press for the annuities question to be taken on board. For all these reasons, I warmly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, as a step forward, but I rather hope that someone will recognise the need to do this rather sooner than in four years' time.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (Spokesperson in the Lords, Work & Pensions; Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, I have one small point to add to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, about delegated legislation. One of the many benefits of post-legislative scrutiny of the Bill would be that it would enable Parliament, practitioners and the public to know which parts of the Bill have been triggered by the appropriate delegated legislation and which have not, and whether there is any timescale in which the rest of it may be triggered. Clause 36, for example, deals with orders and regulations. Subsection (3) says:
"Before the Secretary of State makes any regulations by virtue of ... section 15(5), or ... section 18(9), he must consult such persons as he considers appropriate".
How do we know when these regulations will be made? That is one virtue of post-legislative scrutiny which is not brought out enough. People think that all parts of a Bill come into force at the same time once it is enacted, which is very far from the case.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Labour)
My Lords, I rather hoped that we could end with consensus across the House on this last amendment. We thought long and hard about this matter, but unfortunately I cannot support the amendment. I suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and I can at least say that we have the satisfaction of being reunited with our Back Benchers on an issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has argued strongly for the value of post-legislative scrutiny. Indeed, we support the idea that greater effort should be given to this issue. I begin by reminding noble Lords of the Government's commitment to maintaining the consensus that has been established through a transparent review of the assumptions underlying the reform programme. We have already set in train a programme of work to develop an evidence base in consultation with a range of stakeholders that can underpin the future evaluation of our reforms. This includes a series of recent workshops with academics, pension experts, stakeholders and other government departments to explore their views. We aim to produce an evidence and strategy document later this year. I reject the suggestion that the Government believe that their job is done when legislation is passed—a point pressed by the noble Lords, Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Fowler. That is not the Government's view.
Alongside what we are doing, noble Lords may be aware—indeed, several noble Lords commented on this—that the Law Commission has reported on post-legislative scrutiny, and we are very grateful to it for its valuable contribution. It rightly recognises that one size does not fit all and that any system of post-legislative scrutiny will need a degree of flexibility. Different Acts will need to be treated in different ways. Some will have longer timescales than others before any assessment can be made of how they are working out in practice. In some fields, new legislation may be only a small part of the overall picture. In others, a new Act may be absolutely central to the policy and administrative framework. The Bill falls within that definition. We continue to give close consideration to the Law Commission's report into how parliamentary and other structures can best deliver its objectives. I do not think that anyone wants a structure that involves the formulaic, time-consuming and burdensome scrutiny of every Act, irrespective of need. Nor do I think that a structure that leads simply to a re-run in Parliament of high-level policy debates would be appropriate, and, to be fair, that is not what the noble Lord proposes.
We are consulting across government before we respond formally to the Commission's proposals in the coming months. I am conscious that perhaps I should reply in more detail to the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, to give him a clearer indication of quite who will be responsible and who will be driving forward that response. In those circumstances, it would be wrong for me to pre-empt the Government's response, but we support the idea that greater effort should be given to post-legislative scrutiny, which will enable Parliament to assess whether legislation is having the intended effect.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that the key recommendations of the Law Commission include, for example, a joint parliamentary committee with a flexible remit to decide which Acts should receive scrutiny, how, by whom and when. In a sense, by putting the amendment in the Bill, we might pre-empt that recommendation if it were something that the Government might wish to adopt. I assure noble Lords that any proposals involving Parliament will be open to debate in this House and in the other place. I hope that I am right in thinking that the noble Lord's main objective is to ensure that we are fully committed to keeping this Bill, when enacted, under review to make sure that we are in a position properly to judge whether it is working out in the way intended.
There are two elements to the amendment. The second part, to provide a power to arrange subsequent scrutiny, would not substantively add anything to the inherent ability of the Secretary of State to keep legislation under review. The first part, which requires post-legislative scrutiny after four years, could interfere with the flexibility needed to make sure that any review is conducted at the most appropriate time. My noble friend Lady Turner touched on that in particular. The Bill provides for a package of reform measures that will come into effect over approximately the next five years. It would be premature to carry out any post-legislative scrutiny before the reform measures have been implemented or have had time to bed in. For example, we will not, within four years, have implemented the reforms to simplify state second pension or have abolished contracting out for defined contribution schemes.
Neither is it right to suggest that there is no scrutiny going on at all. Post-legislative scrutiny is currently carried out by Select Committees, including the Work and Pensions Select Committee. This is in addition to internal departmental reviews. We need to be concerned about adding another layer in the suggested form, which I believe would be inflexible. The reforms to the basic state pension will take effect for people reaching state pension age in April 2010. By the time the scrutiny would have to take place, there would have been little time to gauge the effect of the reforms. It would take place a year after those provisions came into effect.
I would hope to have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and other noble Lords not to press the amendment, because I do not believe that we are apart in recognising that post-legislative scrutiny has an important role to play. But to put it in the Bill with a restricted time limit, and with the use of a term where we have not identified quite what post-legislative scrutiny means and how it should generally be conducted, I would suggest is not appropriate.
Lord Fowler (Conservative)
My Lords, frankly, that is one of the more disappointing replies that I have heard. If it convinces anyone, I would be utterly amazed. It may convince some people who have already made up their mind, but I cannot think that it has convinced anyone else. The noble Lord says that he hopes for consensus: there has been substantial consensus, apart from him and one or two speakers making half-speeches more or less in his favour.
The noble Lord says that he is committed to reform. It is about the slowest process of reform that I have come upon in the House and it is rather invisible. We have had report after report talking about post-legislative scrutiny. I made my maiden speech on post-legislative scrutiny six years ago. How long will this process of consultation and consideration take? Basically, the noble Lord has said, "Not this Act: we don't mind about other Acts, but not this Act". The issue of pensions is exactly where post-legislative scrutiny should come, because so much money, including so much public money, is at risk.
I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate, including my noble friend Lord Norton, for his splendid speech, my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe and Lady Hollis, and the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott. I referred to him as that other multi-millionaire, the noble Lord, Lord Ashcroft, but I meant the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, who I think was wrong. The Constitution Committee did not regard four years as too long; it favoured scrutiny three years after commencement. Even if she thinks that, the amendment goes on to say that the Secretary of State "may arrange subsequent scrutiny". That gives as much scope as any Government would require.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Labour)
My Lords, can the noble Lord be a bit more explicit about what he thinks post-legislative scrutiny is? What format will it take, by whom will it be done and what will the process be?
Lord Fowler (Conservative)
My Lords, with great respect to the Minister, I set that out in my initial remarks—I do not know whether he is trying to delay things. As to process, the noble Lord is completely wrong. In fact, the Minister read the departmental brief and then said that I was not saying that all the issues should in principle be re-examined.
I have come here to help the Minister. I have tried to get an assessment of his intentions in the legislation. Post-legislative scrutiny could be done at very little cost by a committee in Parliament—I have no particular views about whether it should be a Joint Committee or a Select Committee. I have tried to leave the Government as much flexibility as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, was correct. We should stop talking and start scrutinising. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Labour)
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so, perhaps I may take the opportunity to thank all noble Lords from the Opposition Benches, from my own Benches and from the Cross Benches, as well as stakeholders, who have taken the time to make their representations and who have ensured through their enthusiastic and knowledgeable engagement that the Bill has had a thorough examination. This is nothing less than such landmark legislation affecting millions of people deserves.
I should also like to take the opportunity to give a big thank you to the Bill team for their patient explanations and their thoroughly professional approach to the legislation. I know that they probably look forward to the end of this Bill with the same enthusiasm as they look forward to the start of the next pensions Bill.
From the start of the pension reform process, the Government have been determined to achieve change through consensus. I hope that noble Lords will agree that consensus continues to be very much in evidence, notwithstanding our last vote; for example, where we responded to the House's concerns through concessions on the clarity of policy and drafting for the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority. It is true that there are still areas of the Bill on which there is less consensus, and we will wish to return to amendments made in this House on the financial assistance scheme. Similarly, we will be seeking to change the provisions to introduce retirement income funds as an alternative means of providing retirement income. Finally, although we recognise the strength of feeling on the payment of voluntary national insurance contributions, this is another area that we intend to return to during the other place's consideration of Lords amendments.
We could never expect pension reform to be straightforward. This is a complex subject, and getting a fair and affordable solution demands a careful examination of the issues; but that has not prevented us making enormous progress, for which I again thank noble Lords. I am confident that in the next couple of weeks we will reach a conclusion that includes the right balance between cost and fairness.
I look forward to Royal Assent later this month so that we can get on with implementing these reforms. As a result of the changes, we are proposing to raise payments made by the financial assistance scheme to 80 per cent, ensuring that more people receive more money immediately. My thanks again to all noble Lords who have contributed to the Bill's progress through your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord McKenzie of Luton.)
Lord Skelmersdale (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Conservative)
My Lords, on behalf of, I hope, the whole House, I thank the Minister very much for his constructive—certainly behind the scenes, not always in front of the scenes—approach to our miscellaneous queries and worries about the Bill. He said that his advisers would look forward to the next pensions Bill. One rather wonders, after some of the speeches we have heard this afternoon, how many of them will still be en poste in carrying the pensions brief. I am sure, though, that that will not apply to the Minister. He says that the House will "wish to" return to the various amendments that we have passed, but I think, on reflection, that that may have been a slight exaggeration on his part. I am sure that we will forgive him.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (Spokesperson in the Lords, Work & Pensions; Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Oakeshott, I, too, thank the noble Lord for all his patience. We look forward also to the next stage of the Bill. Although the process has not quite finished, we thank him for his patience during this time.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.