Local Government Pension Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2008

My Lords, it occurred to me on my way down to the Chamber that I should declare an interest, although I do not think that I fall into the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, of most of the members of this scheme; but I will have a pension, as I have been employed—because that is what membership of the London Assembly was classed as. I understand, I think, the concern to ensure that an employee who has retired on the grounds of ill health, but who subsequently works again—and I have come across a handful of people in that category over the years—should not be claiming in a way that is seen to be either to the detriment of the scheme, because it takes money out of the fund, or unfair. I came into the Chamber during the previous debate and heard my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester refer to honest benefit claimants who are the most angry about those who claim dishonestly. I do not suggest that there is considerable dishonesty, but not everything is perfect. The noble Lord raised some extremely important points. One of the most important is that regulations that come into effect from 1 April are before us only now, courtesy of the diligence of noble Lord and UNISON. The regulations were first laid on 7 May. The Explanatory Memorandum refers to other parts of the regulations as providing clarity and clarifying certain definitions in other regulations. I take that as code for, ““We are now correcting something that we did not get right in the first place””. I hope that the Minister can tell the House what the policy review group has had to say about these regulations. I looked at the website, because I discovered that such a group existed and that its remit is to comment on this sort of thing. I could not find any comment. That is an extension of the points made by the noble Lord about consultation. The Explanatory Memorandum states that an analysis of responses will shortly become available. I could not find that either; it is not satisfactory that Parliament should be asked to approve, or by default approve, regulations without proper publication of the responses. My lack of technical skill may have meant that I could not find the responses on the website, but if they are so obscure that they are difficult to find, a similar point applies. On the principal change that the scheme introduces, I find it difficult to understand whether what is proposed is no benefit at all or a reduced benefit; if it is no benefit at all, that does not make sense to me. I am also curious about the assumption that it is possible to determine on day one what will be the position three years hence. I know that there is provision for a review, but it is expecting a great deal of the medical practitioners involved to be as certain as the regulations seem to require. The authority will discontinue benefit under Regulation 20(8) if it ““considers”” various things. I take it, although I should be grateful for the noble Lord’s confirmation, that ““consider”” involves a proper degree of reasonableness. Finally, how was the definition of gainful employment as being not less than 30 hours each week for a period of not less than 12 months arrived at? Is it comparable to provisions elsewhere in the forest? I assume that it did not come out of a clear blue sky. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for bringing the regulations to the attention of the House.