Financial Assistance Scheme (Modifications and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2005

My Lords, I echo the opening words of the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, and say that we few pensions addicts—not, I hope, interested persons, in the sense that the Minister used—are grateful to the Minister for explaining the regulations so clearly. I have no points of detail to raise, other than to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, not least in his remarks relating to the report of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, of which the Minister is an aficionado, having been its first chairman. However, that brings me to statutory instruments generally, and the second one that we are debating in particular. I accept that the Minister has come clean, not only today but in his helpful letter to the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, and myself, on the drafting mistake in the modifications regulations. This drafting mistake raises two issues. The Minister’s officials will no doubt know that I got quite incensed at what I regularly described in the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments as ““sloppy drafting””. Regulation 5(7) of the order to which I am referring is a current example. How on earth can officials extend the existing timescale in which the scheme manager can request a review of member-related decisions when there is no timescale? What has happened to the checking which used to take place in the Minister’s department when I was there? Paragraph 7(c) of the regulations refers in error to a previous regulation which we are not amending and in which, as I said, the time for appeal is open-ended, so there is no point in amending it here. The original paragraph 3 of the Financial Assistance Scheme (Internal Review) Regulations needs a redraft, which we are promised. That brings me to my second point. If these regulations were negative, not only would we not be debating them but they would already be law, and so an amending order would be necessary, forthcoming and, again, not debated. These regulations—indeed, all regulations—concerning the Financial Assistance Scheme are made under the affirmative resolution. I was brought up, parliamentarily speaking, to believe that parliamentary time is a valuable commodity. The proper course for the Government would be to withdraw these regulations and relay them properly drafted. They should have done so last week. Had they not already been passed by another place, I would have asked the Minister to do just that—withdraw them—and, if he refused, I would have sought the opinion of the House. However, they have now slipped through another place and so that is not the position that we are in today. Therefore, the Minister will be relieved to know that, on this occasion, I will not do what I have just threatened. Nevertheless, I put him on notice for the future. As I said, as far as these orders go, I have no questions but, like the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, I want to make some general points. Does the Minister yet know how many people will be given financial assistance under the scheme? This subject has arisen each time we have debated the Financial Assistance Scheme and the various adjuncts to it made through orders. At the time of the Bill, the figure was 60,000; a couple of orders ago, the figure was 70,000; now, it is suggested that 85,000 people have a realistic claim under the scheme. Like the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, I am on record as saying that £20 million over 20 years—in other words, £400 million over the life of the scheme—is mean, and I believe that it was the smallest amount that the Government thought they could get away with. But let us for a moment give the Government the benefit of the doubt and say that it was sufficient for 60,000 people. How can it still be said to be enough now that there are so many more impoverished pensioners within the scheme; or is the Minister going to tell us that it does not really matter as some of them will be eligible for pension credit and all will be well in the end? I hope not—that would really annoy my noble friends, especially as some of the recipients will either be expected to have, or will be trying to get, further employment and thus will not be eligible. Lastly, no assistance has yet been paid out. The Government speak of payments starting ““at the end of the year””. Does that mean before or after Christmas, and does the Minister mean that this timetable is still viable?