Pensions Bill

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.