Clause 65 - Procedure for issue and publication of
Pensions Bill
10:15 am
Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)
Again, the amendments are designed to focus on the consultation process and how it will work. Some of them are home grown and one is inspired by the ABI. Amendments Nos. 248, 249 and 254 are designed to expand and make more specific the provisions regarding who the regulator is supposed to consult when it produces a draft code of practice. Clause 65(2) requires it to consult
''(a) such persons as it considers appropriate, and
(b) any other persons the Secretary of State requires it to consult.''
I have said my piece in the past and I will not repeat our suspicions about the Secretary of State's role—let alone that of the Treasury—in the legislation. Leaving that aside for a moment, it seems appropriate to us to spell out that as well as those persons ''it considers appropriate'', the consultation should include representatives of the pensions industry, occupational pension schemes, trade unions and sponsoring employers. It is difficult to see how the Minister could object to the amendment. There is that old argument, which one always comes across, about how much should be included in the Bill and what should not be included. No doubt the Minister will inform us that the regulator would, in any event, consult the relevant groups, and possibly other groups. That is all fine and dandy. However, I would prefer to see it spelled out in the Bill.
Amendment No. 236, which is inspired by the ABI, has slightly more meat on it and is to do with the consultation period. The Government have been accused in the past of going into a ''carry on consulting'' mode. The duration of some of their consultations on different issues has been quite short. Indeed, sometimes consultations have taken place during the holiday period. It makes sense to ensure that there is a minimum period. We would like there to be a minimum period of 12 weeks for the submission of responses—that seems fair. It is the best part of three months. However, I am not prepared to go to the stake over that. If the Minister accepts the principle and wants to think of a different period to insert, that would be fine, too.
Incidentally, the amendment would also enshrine criterion No. 1 of the Cabinet Office's code of practice on consultation. One wonders how often that is observed in the consultations undertaken by other Departments. That criterion says:
''Consult widely throughout the process, allowing a minimum of 12 weeks for written consultation at least once during the development of the policy.''
The amendment would replicate the practice of the Financial Services Authority, which seeks to provide at least 12 weeks for consultation. I failed to mention in the previous debate that the Government have also compelled themselves by legislation to publish cost-benefit analyses.
It is sensible, as the ABI suggests, for there to be a minimum period for consultation. In some cases there might be a longer period due to the complexity involved. Nevertheless, the basic point is that it is in the interests of the regulator and the Government to ensure that all those who have something to contribute should have the fullest possible say on these draft codes. It is sensible and reasonable for there to be a 12-week period. It is difficult to think of any code of practice that would need to be introduced so urgently that that kind of period for consultation would not be allowed. Assuming that the regulator and the Secretary of State will be open to sensible comments and suggestions, one hopes that each code would be improved as a result of this process.
To put it bluntly, I cannot think of any reasonable objection to the amendment. I hope that the Minister, who has already shown his broad-mindedness once this morning, will accept it without further ado.