Pensions Bill

The first half of the Minister’s speech was actually arguing against a different amendment from the one that I moved. It was as though I was suggesting that we establish a universal basic state pension. I happen to support that, but that is not what the amendment says. Indeed, I was at some pains to say that that was not what I was arguing for. I was arguing for an enabling amendment—to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott—to make use, by regulation, of existing databases, so that a future Government can, if they wish, explore the issues carefully and thoughtfully raised by my noble friend and decide whether they wish to go down that route. The point that I am making and that Turner made, which seems to be unanswerable, is that if you do not start, you can never do it. That is the point; we must try to ensure that we do not close down future options. The Minister made much of the fact that he objects to the principle of residency as a basis but, as I said, that is not what the amendment seeks to do. It seeks merely to establish that a future Government of whatever party, or indeed a different Secretary of State who might have a very different view—I served under one who did—could make that choice if they so wished. I am not asking the Government to introduce residency; I am asking them to make it possible for a future Government to do so, if they so wished. The Minister’s second argument—I absolutely respect the detailed points—was about simplicity. I listened carefully to him, and I will read Hansard very carefully, but I do not think that any of the points that he made were a roadblock, as the jargon goes in the Civil Service. I could suggest a way of addressing almost every one of them, although obviously one would need to push it forward. Now is clearly not the time to do so—we would need workable definitions and so on—but we have a database. We do not have to hold the database; local authorities do. The notion that the DWP cannot collect data from all 400 of them is unfounded; the Home Office does, as dothe Environment Agency, the Financial Services Authority and the credit reference agencies. I cannot believe that the DWP, with its 130,000 civil servants, cannot do the same. That seems improbable. The Minister talked about legal issues and how much the law allows. That is the point that I made. We would need a regulatory power, because the electoral register cannot be used following the Robinson judgment in the Wakefield case, except by specific regulation for non-electoral purposes, so having a regulatory power would be the only adjustment that would have to be made. I am afraid that I do not accept the Minister’s argument. He argues as though I am seeking to introduce this tomorrow or the day after, or a commitment to do so. I am not; I am trying simply to ensure that it could happen.