Financial Assistance Scheme (Modifications and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2005

My Lords, when I met the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, earlier, he suggested that he would prefer to hold his fire until I had shot my bolt; so I am happy to start. I thank the Minister for his explanation of these regulations and for having the courtesy to write to me in advance with the apology for the correction that he has just mentioned. I am happy to accept that. When we last debated a statutory instrument on the FAS, I drew attention to the estimated £16 million running cost of the scheme over its first three years of operation, including setting up costs. Can the Minister give us his latest estimate of those costs over the three years, bearing in mind that no robbed pensioner has had even the tiniest taste of a payment from this pitiful little pretence of a rescue fund? I should put clearly on the record from these Benches, as the spokesman for my party in this House, that government financial compensation payable under the financial assistance scheme should be on the same terms as those payable by the Pension Protection Fund. I must press the Minister to reply to the serious concerns raised by the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee. I was slightly surprised that he did not refer to those in his opening remarks. It stated:"““These Regulations are drawn to the special attention of the House on the ground that they give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House””." It stated in Paragraph 11 of its report:"““We note the main Regulations setting up the scheme were made in July and the scheme came into operation on 1 September but it has taken until November for an appeals mechanism to be established. We would expect an appeals mechanism to be a more closely integrated part of the policy formulation””." The committee stated in Paragraph 13:"““This range of amendments strengthens our concern that the policy flowing from the Pensions Act 2004 has been in continuous evolution since the Act was passed. One of the criteria for this Committee to report an instrument is that it ‘may imperfectly achieve its policy objectives’. We have found the long, continuing and evolving series of instruments which has resulted from the Pensions Act 2004 particularly difficult to assess in this regard””." Well, join the club. Amen to that. Not to put too fine a point on it, policy is being made on the hoof. Turning to the details of the regulations, we broadly support them as being necessary to enable the FAS to do its job. I accept that the Minister is new, but I am bound to put again, as we did during the passage of the Pensions Bill, that it is a waste of time and money to have set up the FAS completely separately from the Pension Protection Fund, rather than let the scheme operate under the PPF umbrella. Clearly, this is a duplication of functions.